The thesis explores the interface between competition law and market integration, in the application of Article 102TFEU. It focuses on ‘market separation’ and addresses conduct that has the intent, or effect, of hindering cross-border trade, either in the form of geographic price discrimination or in the form of exclusionary abuses, in which out-of-State competitors are affected. In doing so, the thesis delves into a comparative analysis of the Treaty requirements under Article 102TFEU when applied in market separation cases and the Treaty requirements under the free movement provisions. It begins with a comparison of the objectives of the two sets of provisions and assesses how their historical link is echoed, presently, in the requirement of ‘effect on trade’ under Article 102TFEU (Chapter I). Following this, the thesis explores the asymmetry as between the addressees of the two sets of provisions (Chapter II). It is argued that ‘undertaking with a dominant position’, as a distinct condition of the application of Article 102TFEU, is the outer limit to any expansive view of direct horizontal applicability of the freedoms. Therefore, alleged market separation by dominant undertakings should be subject to Article 102TFEU alone. Subsequently, the material scope of the prohibitions contained in the two sets of provisions is addressed. Here, it is argued that, in the vast majority of market separation cases, there is nothing special about the interface between competition law and the Internal Market. Rather, the inherent limits of economic integration, as reflected in the notion of trade barriers, should also be taken into account under the enforcement of Article 102TFEU against dominant undertakings (Chapter III). Tensions between competition law and the Internal Market may, nevertheless, arise when non-economic values, as reflected in the notion of justified trade barriers, come into play. In these cases, the interface between competition law and the Internal Market is better conceptualised as a question of unclear attribution of the market distorting effect to the undertaking and/or the State (Chapter IV). A revised defence of shared responsibility for the market separation is proposed, which would render the legality of State intervention under the free movement provisions a necessary condition for the application of Article 102TFEU against the dominant undertaking (Chapters V and VI).
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:581145 |
| Date | January 2012 |
| Creators | Brisimi, Vasiliki |
| Contributors | Ezrachi, Ariel; Ziegler, Katja |
| Publisher | University of Oxford |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:10e3935d-ce31-437c-94b6-5d67af5d4e15 |
Page generated in 0.0089 seconds