Skip to content

Author: Christian Bergqvist

  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 3 results.

Things That Do Not Make Sense - Superleague and ISU On Ancillary Restraints journal article

Christian Bergqvist

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 8 (2024), Issue 1, Page 17 - 22

Restrictions adopted to support the implementation of a main operation are considered ancillary and are not reviewed separately. The Court of Justice has previously confirmed this - but in the recent cases Superleague and ISU, it decided to preclude the doctrine for restrictions by object. This approach does not make sense, legally or practically, and could neuter the doctrines if confined to effect analysis. Considering its essential nature from a practical perspective, the matter commands a revisit by the Court and comments in the interim, including possible readings that would preserve the core doctrine.

Vertical Distribution Agreements: journal article

What Should Be Considered a Restriction by Object?

Christian Bergqvist

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 7 (2023), Issue 2, Page 84 - 98

While consensus positions continue to emerge regarding what to accept as restrictions by object in horizontal arrangements, little consideration has been given to verticals – presumably because enforcers lost interest several decades ago. But the winds might be changing, and the fact remains that case law has identified a group of vertical restrictions as detrimental to the free market as horizontal hardcore arrangements. In this article, an attempt to capture what to accept as vertical object restrictions will be made, providing guidance for enforcers' renewed interest in the matter. Keywords: Vertical restraints; distribution agreements; by object; hardcore; Article 101

A Single and Continuous Infringement journal article

Christian Bergqvist

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 4, Page 380 - 393

Case law has given rise to the concept of a single and continuous infringement providing for the consolidation of all actions and undertakings supporting an infringement into one, including those with a limited affiliation or effect. This has created a doctrine with immense practical relevance alleviating the burden of proof. Enforcers ‘only’ have to establish an overall anti-competitive plan that is not entirely unknown for the possible members and how they have endorsed central elements willingly. Issues remain open, eg, if the doctrine is confined to horizontal coordination, by object infringements and if it can accommodate several parallel single and continuous infringements. It even appears that the Commission occasionally pushed the doctrine to the limits commanding some scientism against elements of the doctrine. Keywords: single and continuous infringement, consolidation of cases, burden of proof, overall anti-competitive plan

  • «
  • 1
  • »

News


Current Issue

Issue 1 / 2024