Skip to content

Keyword: Review

The search returned 13 results.

Lithuanian Railways: The Court of Justice Narrows Down the Scope of Application of the Doctrine of Essential Facilities journal article

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.

CK Telecoms and the Assessment of Horizontal Mergers in Oligopolistic Markets: Does the More Economic Approach Entail Stricter Judicial Review? (T-399/16 CK Telecoms) journal article

Justin Lindeboom, Yasmine L. Bouzoraa

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 4, Page 423 - 430

Case T-399/16 CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd v European Commission, Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 28 May 2020 The General Court annulled the European Commission’s decision prohibiting the acquisition of Telefónica Europe plc, operating on the UK retail telecommunications market under the brand name ‘O2’, by CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd, operating on the same market under the brand name ‘Three’. In the first judgment on the application of the Significant Impediment to Effective Competition (SIEC) test to horizontal concentrations on oligopolistic markets, the General Court held that the Commission had failed to demonstrate that the concentration would significantly impede effective competition.

Commitments and Protection of Third-Party Contractual Rights: The CJEU Overturns for the First Time a Commitments Decision in the Canal + Judgment (C-132/19 P Canal +) journal article free

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.

News


Current Issue

Issue 1 / 2024