Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 5 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.



Recent Developments in the Essential Facility Doctrine: journal article

Bronner Is Still Alive!

Aleksander Maziarz

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 6 (2022), Issue 2, Page 120 - 128

The aim of the article is to analyse the recent judgments in which the CJEU found that the dominant entity's behaviour regarding access to its infrastructure constitutes an abuse within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. The article will focus on the analysis of why, in matters related to infrastructure, which is often considered an essential facility, the essential facilities doctrine, established in the jurisprudence of the CJEU was not applied. This will allow us to answer the question whether this doctrine is still needed. The article analyses the cases of Slovak Telekom, Lithuanian Railways and Google Shopping in this respect. Keywords: essential facility; abuse of dominant position; refusal to supply



Let´s Dance! Excessive Royalties and the Economic Value of Music (C-372/19 SABAM) journal article

Behrang Kianzad

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 2, Page 172 - 176

Case C-372/19 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Weareone.World BVBA and Wecandance NV, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 The most recent excessive pricing case considered by Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) revolved around fees imposed by a national royalty collective society (SABAM) on two Belgian festival organizers (Weareone.World BVBA and Wecandance NV). The Belgian national court submitted the case to CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether the imposition of fees was to be considered an abuse of dominant position, and further, whether the fees levied were to be considered unfair and excessive in light of Article 102(a) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  • «
  • 1
  • »