European Union Law

European Union Law

Write 1200 words ( an essay!!!!)introduction, main body and conclusion with no subheading!!!!!
QUESTION:

Critically discuss the types of anti-competitive conduct that are covered by Article 101 TFEU, and the extent to which conduct by undertakings that can damage competition will be deemed illegal. Your answer should be illustrated by specific case examples (CASE LAW),and evidence of background reading.?

Sources: A bibliography must be given at the end and any other sources acknowledged. References should be given at the bottom of each page as footnotes.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR EU LAW
The answer that demonstrates accurate understanding of the relevant law appropriate to the question. An answer that demonstrates the ability to analyse legal concepts and to explain/argue them in relation to the question.
The answer should be clearly discussed with relevant cases referred to and a clear understanding of the legal issues relating to them.

Readind list

1 Steiner & Woods, “EU Law”, 11th Edition, 2012, chapters (check contents).

2 Craig & De Burca,”EC Law: Text,Cases,& Materials”,5th edition, (check contents).

3 Wyatt & Dashwood,”European Community Law”,chapters (check contents).

4 Weatherill,S,”Cases and Materials on EU Law”, chapters (check contents).

5 A Kaczorowska, “European Union Law”, 1st Edition 2009, Cavendish

6 Ward “A Critical Introduction to European Law”,3rd Edition,2009,Cambridge
Journal ARTILES
Graham C, “Methods for determining whether an agreement restricts competition: comment on Allianz Hungaria”
(European. Law. Review 2013, 38(4), 542-551)
Brouwer, O, Goyder J, Mes D, “Developments in EC competition law in 2007: An overview”
(Common Market Law Review 45: 1167-1205, 2008)

Bailey D, “Restrictions of Competition by object under Article 101 TFEU”
(Common Market Law Review 49: 559-600, 2012)

OLDER JOURNAL ARTICLES
13 ARTICLE 81 EC BETWEEN TIME PRESENT AND TIME PAST: A
NORMATIVE CRITIQUE OF “RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION” IN
EULAW – RENATO NAZZtNt*

Mortelmans K,”Towards convergence in the application of the rules on free movement and competition?”
(Common Market Law Review,June 2001,pages 613-649).

Rivas J, & Stroud,F, “Developments in EC competition law in 2001: An overview”.

DEVELOPMENTS IN EC COMPETITION LAW IN 2004: AN OVERVIEW
SVEN B. VOLCKER

1 DEVELOPMENTS IN EC COMPETITION LAW IN 2005: AN OVERVIEW
SVEN B. VOLCKER
EU LAW – COMPETITION POLICY

ARTICLE 101 TFEU

1 INTRODUCTION

Why regulate competition?

Objectives of EU competition policy

101(1) – prohibition
101(2) – consequences
101(3) – exemptions

Enforcement: Regulation
1/2003 – has replaced

Regulation 17/62

Abolishes “notification procedure”

2 TYPES OF ASSOCIATION COVERED

UNDERTAKINGS

Case 86/398 Polypropylene

Case C-159/91 Poucet v AGF

Case C-343/95 Diego Cali

1 AGREEMENTS

Case 41/69 ACF Chemiefarma

Case 86/398 {supra.}

2 DECISIONS

Eg. of trade associations

3 CONCERTED PRACTICES

What amounts to collusion?

Normal oligopolistic behaviour?

(See criticisms by R WHISH)

Case 48/69 ICI v Commission

Case 40/73 Suiker Unie

Cases 29 & 35/83 Cram & Rhinezink

Case C-89/85 Woodpulp
Case T-11/89 Huls AG v Commission

3 OBJECT OR EFFECT

Art 101 – agreements whose OBJECT or EFFECT is ……?

Which agreements are anti-competitive?

Note US approach:
1 “PER SE” rules
2 “Rule of reason” approach

Is this applied to Art 101?

Art 101(3) allows for EXEMPTIONS

Is there a need for a “rule of reason”?

(See opposing views in Craig)

HORIZONTAL AGREEMENTS

Are they anti-competitive?
(See Art 101(1) (a) to (e) )

VERTICAL AGREEMENTS
Types of vertical agreement include:

(1) EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTION

Cases 56 & 58/64 Consten & Grundig

Case 56/65 Maschinenbau Ulm

Latter stated: “object OR effect”
OBJECT = per se illegal

EFFECT = rule of reason applied

Which is “exclusive distribution”?

Volkswagen (Commission Decision 1998)

Nintendo (Commission
Decision 2002)

Glaxo Wellcome [2001]

(2) SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION

Case 26/76 Metro-SB-Grossmarkte

Qualitative v quantitative criteria

(3) FRANCHISING

Case 161/84 Pronuptia

(4) EXCLUSIVE PURCHASING

Case 23/67 Brasserie de Haecht

Case 234/89 Delimitis

Case T-25/99 Roberts

(5) EXCLUSIVE LICENSING

Case 258/78 Nungesser

4 THE DE MINIMUS DOCTRINE

2001 Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance
Case 5/69 Volk

5 WHICH MAY AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES

Case 56/65 {supra.}

CONCLUSIONS RE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The approaches taken?

Case T-112/99 M6 and others

6 ARTICLE 101(3) EXEMPTION

Four conditions for an exemption

The agreement must:

(1) Improve production or promote technical or economic progress

(2) Allow consumers a fair share of the benefit

(3) Must not impose superfluous restrictions

(4) Must not allow the elimination of too much competition

Re Bayer [1976]

Prym-Werke [1973]

Chappee/Buderus [1970]

Transocean Marine Paint [1967]

ACEC/Berliet [1968]

BLOCK EXEMPTIONS

Eg – Vertical Restraints Regulation 2790/99

Same 4 conditions are reflected in block exemptions

Sanctions

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
BEST16
error: Content is protected !!