Michele Giannino

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 7 (2023), Issue 4, Page 260 - 264

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 January 2023 in Case C‑42/21 P Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v Commission In Lithuanian Railways,1 the Court of Justice of the EU (the CJEU) considered the question of whether the doctrine of essential facilities applied to a dominant undertaking that had destroyed its own infrastructure that was also used by competitors. Both the European Commission (EC)2 and the General Court (the GC)3 had previously answered that question in the negative. Adjudicating an appeal filed against the judgment of the GC, the CJEU embraced this strict position and narrowed down the application of the doctrine to ‘access refusal’ conducts. On its side, the CJEU clarified that the doctrine of essential facilities did not apply when assessing whether ‘infrastructure destruction’ conduct done by a dominant undertaking amounts to a violation of Article 102 TFEU.

Jerónimo Maillo

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 1, Page 49 - 58

Lena Hornkohl

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 3, Page 280 - 286

Michael Tagliavini

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 3, Page 330 - 334

Case C-132/19 P Groupe Canal + v Commission, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2020 On 9 December 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered a seminal judgment (Judgment) in Groupe Canal + v Commission and clarified that the Commission is not entitled to accept commitments having an adverse effect on pre-existing contractual rights of third parties. The case is extremely relevant given that it constitutes one of the few instances where the CJEU has reviewed a commitment decision and because of its possible implications for the Commission’s commitments policy. The Judgment also provides relevant clarifications with reference to the Alrosa ruling.

Rita Paukštė

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 3, Page 205 - 209

Thomas Wilson, Arjun Chandran

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 4, Page 324 - 327

Case C-39/18 P Commission v ICAP and Others, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2019 The Court of Justice’s judgment in the ICAP case confirms that European Courts will not shy away from annulling Commission decisions due to violations of procedural rights and that there is a general trend towards scrutinizing Commission decisions more closely. The Court’s ruling makes it clear that the Commission must provide sufficient reasons concerning the methodology used when setting the fine for a cartel facilitator. At the same time, it can be expected that the Commission will continue to prosecute cartel facilitators rigorously, as the Court did not take issue with the facilitator doctrine as such.

Baskaran Balasingham

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 3 (2019), Issue 4, Page 363 - 370

Effectiveness and due process require careful balancing in order to safeguard a workable enforcement environment. On the one hand, the legal qualification of collusive conduct has been facilitated to some degree by a broad interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU and the use of presumptions. On the other hand, the burden and standard of proof, as well as the judicial review in relation to EU cartel proceedings satisfy the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article argues that the EU Courts have succeeded in establishing a proper balance between effective cartel enforcement and the protection of fundamental rights. Keywords: Article 101 TFEU, Cartel Enforcement, Effectiveness, Fundamental Rights, Judicial Review