Erik Kjær-Hansen

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 7 (2023), Issue 3, Page 166 - 168

Egzone Osmanaj, Njomëza Zejnullahu

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 7 (2023), Issue 4, Page 216 - 226

The contemporary legal framework in various jurisdictions includes provisions aimed at preventing the abuse of market-dominant enterprises, with the overarching goal of addressing monopolistic practices. This research centres on the examination of competition law in the contexts of Albania and Kosovo, specifically within the realm of addressing abusive behaviour by dominant market players. This article looks at the existing legal framework pertaining to the abuse of dominant market positions in Albania and Kosovo, and how closely it aligns with European legislation in this domain. Additionally, it considers the efficacy of the provisions prohibiting abusive conduct by dominant enterprises. Examining these two distinct legal systems is crucial, because both are currently in the early stages of alignment with EU legislation.Through analysing the legislative frameworks and the decisions rendered by the Competition Authorities in the countries under scrutiny, several key findings emerge: Firstly, the competition legislation in the examined states, particularly in Albania, bears a striking resemblance to the European Union's legal framework. Secondly, it is evident that Albania has devoted more research and attention to the issue of abuse of dominant positions than Kosovo. Specifically, the Albanian Competition Authority has conducted comprehensive investigations across various sectors of the economy, leading to the imposition of fines on dominant enterprises found to engage in abusive practices. Keywords: abusive behaviour; enterprise; dominant position; competition; market

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.

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

Helene Andersson, Amanda Bos Ekman

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 6 (2022), Issue 4, Page 339 - 344

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.