Doctrine of essential facilities under Czech and European law "Essential facilities doctrine" is a term used to describe a set of rules concerned with a dominant undertaking refusing to supply a crucial resource, over which it holds an exclusive control, to its competitors who need the resource to remain in business. This thesis focuses on the doctrine's applications in the context of an abuse of a dominant position, but the role the doctrine plays in regulation of network industries is mentioned as well. The main goal of the thesis is to define conditions under which the owner of the crucial resource - described as "an essential facility" in the thesis - abuses his dominant position by refusing to supply a competitor who is willing to pay a reasonable price for such access. The method primarily used to achieve the goal is a careful analysis of primary legal sources accompanied by studies of the relevant literature. The opinions and conclusions expressed in the afore-mentioned sources are critically evaluated by the thesis's author who presents his own opinions and tries to justify them by legal arguments. Chapter One explains some specific terms used in the text. Chapter Two describes a conflict between two core principles that have to be evaluated when the rules of mandatory access are defined or...

Atsisakymo bendradarbiauti bylose taikytinų sąlygų susisteminimas ir jų ryšio su skirtingomis atsisakymo bendradarbiauti formomis nustatymas, manytina, yra esminė prielaida siekiant nubrėžti pagrįstą ribą tarp dominuojančio ūkio subjekto teisėto atsisakymo bendradarbiauti ir piktnaudžiavimo dominuojančia padėtimi. Atitinkamai magistro baigiamaje darbe, priešingai paplitusiai kazuistinei atsisakymo bendradarbiauti atvejų analizei, apibendrintai įvardijamos ir nagrinėjamos sąlygos, reikšmingos sprendžiant ar atsisakymas bendradarbiauti konkrečiu atveju laikytinas piktnaudžiavimu dominuojančia padėtimi. Magistro baigiamajame darbe patvirtinama hipotezė, kad visose atsisakymo bendradarbiauti bylose, įskaitant esminių išteklių ir atsisakymo suteikti intelektinės nuosavybės teisių licenciją atvejus, išpildytinos dvi kertinės – prašomo tiekti ištekliaus būtinumo ir konkurencijos pašalinimo – sąlygos. Daroma išvada, kad tik patenkinus šias dvi sąlygas galima tolesnė atsisakymo bendradarbiauti situacijos analizė sprendžiant, ar konkrečiu atveju ūkio subjekto atsisakymas bendradarbiauti laikytinas piktnaudžiavimu dominuojančia padėtimi. Darbe taip pat prieinama prie išvados, kad konkurencijos teisėje nėra konceptualaus skirtumo tarp esminių išteklių, atsisakymo suteikti intelektinės nuosavybės teisių licenciją ir kitų atsisakymo bendradarbiauti bylų tiek įvardijant atitinkamas bylas kaip atstovaujančias vienai iš atitinkamų doktrinų, tiek taikomų sąlygų atžvilgiu. Magistro baigiamąjį... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The essential premise when drawing a line between the legitimate refusal to deal by a dominant undertaking and its abuse of a dominant position is to file the conditions to be satisfied in refusal to deal cases and to understand their relations with different forms of refusal to deal. Therefore contrary to the common incidental analysis of refusal to deal cases, in this master thesis the conditions which are significant when deciding if refusal to deal in a specific case is to be considered abuse of a dominant position are identified and analyzed as a whole. In a master thesis the hypothesis is confirmed that in all refusal to deal cases, including essential facilities and refusal to licence intellectual property rights cases, two crucial conditions are to be satisfied – indispensability of an input and elimination of competition. The conclusion is drawn that only after satisfying these two conditions further analysis of a refusal to deal situation shall be carried on in order to decide if a refusal to deal by an undertaking is to be considered an abuse of a dominant position. The conclusion also drawn is that there is no conceptual distinction between essential facilities, refusal to licence intellectual property rights and other refusal to deal cases when attributing them to one of the respective doctrines and when identifying the conditions to be satisfied. Master thesis consists of two parts. First part analyses the concept of refusal to deal cases, different forms which... [to full text]

As man moved out on the internet, so did the companies. One of the most successful business models in the digital era is the digital platform. A digital platform acts as an intermediary on multi-sided markets and enjoys, amongst others, lucrative network effects. One of the main factors behind the great success of digital platforms is the usage of big data combined with algorithms that are enhanced by machine learning. However, as big data is becoming more and more indispensable for any modern company, questions have been raised about whether digital platforms should be able to withhold the massive amount of big data exclusively, or whether they could be forced to share it. This paper investigates these questions through the lens of EU-competition law, especially under Article 102 TFEU and the doctrine of essential facilities.  To address the problem of digital platforms and big data, the business models of digital platforms, the economic forces behind them, and their usage of data are assessed to conclude whether an intervention by the Union could be motivated. It is concluded that the markets where digital platforms act are prone to tip and that the characteristics of big data in combination with sophisticated algorithms create a positive feedback loop, creating barriers to entry. Thus, there are severe risks of external market failures, making an intervention feasible. The paper secondly assesses the essential facility doctrine and evaluates the four elements that needs to be fulfilled for big data to be covered by the doctrine. Even though the business model of digital platforms challenges the traditional instruments of EU-competition law, the author argues that three out of four elements of the essential facilities doctrine are fulfilled. However, as data to its character is non-rivalrous and non-exclusive the data held by the incumbent cannot be considered indispensable, making the essential facilities doctrine inapplicable. Finally, alternative instruments under EU-competition law are assessed to find a solution to the problems attributable to a refusal to supply big data. The paper concludes that there are no optimal solutions, but the best of the potential instruments is to find a new form of abuse under article 102 TFEU or to add a modified version of the essential facilities doctrine to the newly proposed legislation DMA.

Since the internet revolution, and with the ever-growing presence of the internet in our everyday lives, being able to control as much data as possible has become an indispensable part of any business looking to succeed on digital markets. This is where Big Data has become crucial. Being able to gather, but more importantly process and understand data, has allowed companies to tailor their services according to the unspoken wants of the consumer as well as optimize ad sales according to consumers’ online patterns. Considering the significant power over digital markets possessed by certain companies, it becomes critical to examine such companies from a competition law perspective. Refusal to supply, which is an abuse of a dominant position according to Article 102 TFEU, can be used to compel abusive undertakings to share a product or service, which they alone possess, and which is indispensable input in another product, with competitors. This is otherwise known as the Essential Facilities Doctrine. If the Big Data used by attention platforms such as Facebook or Google were to be considered such an indispensable product, these undertakings would be required to share Big Data with competitors. While Big Data enables the dominant positions held by powerful attention platforms today, there are certain aspects of it and its particular uses by such platforms that do not allow for the application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine. Considering the significance of Big Data for these undertakings, however, there may be need for a reform of the Essential Facilities Doctrine. From a purely competition standpoint, allowing the application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Big Data would be beneficial, particularly considering the doctrine’s effect on innovation. However, enforcing an obligation to share Big Data with competitors would be in breach of privacy policies within the EU. While competition decisions made by the Commission do not directly concern rules set forth in such policies, the Commission is still obligated to respect the right to privacy set forth in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus, while the significance of Big Data demands a change in how it is approached by competition law, the Essential Facilities Doctrine is not the appropriate remedy.

In this study, the origin and main parameters of the Essential Facilities Doctrine are analysed through the case-law that developed out of the application of the EC Competition Rules. Besides putting forward the historical roots, the basic criteria and limitations that apply to the Doctrine are elaborated so as to clarify the legal and analytical foundations of the Doctrine in the EU context. In addition, the added value attributed to the Doctrine in realm of competition policies pursued in network-based industries is expounded with special emphasis on telecommunications sectors. With this regard, the potential role of EFD against the challenging effects of &lsquo / convergence&rsquo / phenomenon and the technological changes is discussed. At last, the effects of EFD on the competitive dynamics of Turkish telecommunications sector which is undergoing a liberalisation process are also examined with the accompanied Turkish case-law.

Univ. der Bundeswehr, Diss.--Hamburg, 2002.

De tous les droits de propriété intellectuelle, le droit d’auteur était celui qui semblait le plus éloigné des préoccupations économiques des autorités de concurrence. Conçu à l’origine dans un souci de protection de la création littéraire et artistique, il apparaît aujourd’hui davantage comme un outil de puissance économique tourné vers la protection de l’investissement et, plus généralement, un vecteur de l’activité économique. C’est à ce titre que l’application des règles de concurrence à des pratiques mettant en cause l’exercice ou la gestion de droits d’auteur est désormais considérée comme incontournable. Cette application se doit cependant d’être mesurée. Elle bouscule parfois les principes de la propriété littéraire et artistique et conduit à s’interroger sur une définition plus appropriée des contours de la protection offerte par le droit d’auteur. En outre, la remise en cause, au nom du principe de libre concurrence, de pratiques par ailleurs conformes aux règles du droit d’auteur, n’est pas sans risque. Elle contribue à modeler les contours du droit d’auteur selon une conception propre au droit de la concurrence et peut tendre, parfois, vers un amenuisement des prérogatives des titulaires de droits ou un affaiblissement du niveau de leur protection. À terme, la création pourrait s’en trouver menacée. Il convient donc de rechercher, en toute hypothèse, un équilibre permettant de satisfaire aussi bien à l’exigence de concurrence sur les marchés qu’à l’impératif d’efficacité de la protection du droit d’auteur. / Among all intellectual property rights, copyright seemed to be initially far away from the economic concerns of competition authorities. Originally designed with a view to protecting literary and artistic creation, it now appears more as a tool of economic power turned to investment protection, and, more generally, as a vehicle of economic activity. As such, the application of competition rules to practices based on exercise or management of copyright is now regarded as unavoidable. However, such application must be performed with care and caution as it sometimes bumped into the principles of literary and artistic property and raises questions about a more appropriate definition of the protection offered by copyright. Moreover, the modification of practices complying with copyright rules, in the name of free competition, is not without risk. It leads to draw the outlines of copyright according to considerations designed for competition laws and can aim, sometimes, towards an erosion of the rights of copyright’s owners or a decline of their level of protection. Eventually, creation could be threatened. In any event, it is therefore essential to look for an equilibrium which would satisfy both the requirements and principles of free market competition and the necessity to effectively protect copyright.

La condition, la forme et la justification théorique des exceptions sont aujourd’hui au coeur du débat sur l’avenir du droit d’auteur. L’objectif primaire de ces normes particulières est de garantir la cohérence du droit d’auteur. Et pourtant les chercheurs s’accordent sur la nécessité de leur reconceptualisation.Cette thèse a pour but de découvrir la signification, les origines et les conséquences de la crise qu’engendre le ressentiment à l’égard des exceptions aux droits de l’auteur dans leur forme actuelle. Tenant compte d’une certaine fragilité axiologique de la matière, elle essaie d’appréhender les phénomènes étudiés selon une posture épistémologique neutre. À cet égard, la théorie des paradigmes scientifiques lui offre un cadre d’analyse scindé en deux. La reconstruction de l’état normal et voulu des principes élaborés par la tradition française du droit d’auteur en matière des exceptions permet de repérer les signes de leur dépassement par la réalité juridique mouvante.De cette analyse résulte d’abord le modèle d’une exception cohérente, internalisé par le droit d’auteur objectif qui a complètement résolu le conflit entre la création et la consommation des oeuvres de l’esprit. Cette image est ensuite confrontée à des forces destructrices ayant leur origine dans des normes extérieures au droit d’auteur objectif. Celles-ci se substituent aux exceptions prévues par le droit d’auteur et remettent en question l’idée de son autarcie.L’idylle du droit d’auteur autosuffisant n’est toutefois pas une utopie. Entre l’état normal et la maladie des exceptions se noue un lien dialectique. Vus ensemble, ces deux éléments s’éclairent réciproquement, de sorte que la crise qui les résume devient un processus réversible. / The condition,shape and theoretical justification of copyright exceptions are at the heart of the debate on the future of copyright. The main objective of these particular rules is to ensure the consistency of copyright law. Yet, researchers agree on the need of their reconceptualization.This doctoral thesis aims to explore the meaning, origins and consequences of the crisis that brings resentment toward copyright exceptions in their present form. Taking into account a certain axiological fragility of the subject, it tries to apprehend it in the respect of a neutral epistemological posture. Therein, the theory of scientific paradigms offers a framework split in two. The reconstruction of the normal and wanted state of the principles developed by the French tradition of copyright in the field of exceptions allows to identify the signs of their violation by the changing legal reality.This analysis reveals, on the one hand, the model of a consistent exception, internalized by the copyright law which completely resolved the conflict between creation and consumption of works of the mind. On the other hand, this image is faced with the destructive forces that originate in the norms that are external to copyright law. These replace the copyright exceptions and, therefore, question the idea of its autarchy.The idyll of the self-sufficient copyright law is, however, not a utopia. A dialectical link can be traced between the normal state of exceptions and their illness.Seen together, these two elements illuminate each other, so that the crisis that summarize them becomes a reversible process.

No description available.

La thèse aborde le droit européen de la télévision sous deux aspects : les régimes administratifs d’accès des émissions télévisées aux réseaux câblés et les droits intellectuels. En ce qui concerne l’accès des émissions aux réseaux câblés, la thèse met en avant le besoin de sauvegarder un service public de l’audiovisuel. Celui-ci est défini comme un ensemble des règles qui visent à la fois le paysage audiovisuel propre à chaque Etat membre (par exemple pluralisme) et le contenu des émissions proprement dit (émissions informatives, éducatives, épanouissement culturel etc.). Le droit communautaire primaire et dérivé, tel qu’interprété par la Cour de justice, fournit les moyens de conciliation entre, d’une part les intérêts généraux et, d’autre part, les exigences découlant de la libre prestation de services et de la libre concurrence. En ce qui concerne l’application des droits intellectuels, la thèse aborde la problématique liée à l’épuisement ou la subsistance de ceux-ci. Dans le cas de la câblodistribution, la Cour a affirmé la subsistance du droit. Cette position est corroboré par la nouvelle directive européenne sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins dans la société de l’information. La thèse appuie la position de subsistance en considérant qu’elle constitue une condition essentielle pour la juste récompense des auteurs. Enfin, la thèse aborde les questions plus spécifiques qui naissent à propos de la convergence technologique et juridique. Tout d’abord, il est avancé que le service public de l’audiovisuel n’est pas uniquement lié à des contraintes techniques, mais essentiellement à des objectifs qualitatifs (contenu des émissions). Ainsi, la thèse plaide en faveur de la pérpetuité du service public de l’audiovisuel dans l’ère du numérique. Par ailleurs, des questions plus spécifiques (comme l’accès à la boucle locale, l’interconnexion des réseaux et la numérisation des infrastructures) ont été examinées.