Satu-Anneli Kauranen

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 5 (2021), Ausgabe 3, Seite 248 - 251

Tine Mišic

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 5 (2021), Ausgabe 3, Seite 315 - 320

Jerónimo Maillo

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 5 (2021), Ausgabe 3, Seite 321 - 324

Helene Andersson

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 5 (2021), Ausgabe 3, Seite 325 - 329

Heinrich Kühnert, Elisabeth König

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 5 (2021), Ausgabe 3, Seite 216 - 220

Mariya Papazova

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 5 (2021), Ausgabe 3, Seite 221 - 225

Georgia Tzifa, Marilena Nteve, Lukas Šimas

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 4 (2020), Ausgabe 3, Seite 223 - 230

Case C-10/18 P Mowi ASA v European Commission, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 March 2020 The Court upholds the imposition of separate fines for an infringement of the notification and standstill obligations under EU merger control

Francesco Rizzuto, Monika Ewa Lynch

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 4 (2020), Ausgabe 3, Seite 236 - 242

Case C-617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2019 The Court of Justice confirms the continued importance of national competition law as a distinct legal interest to protect. The infringing undertakings can face distinct penalties for the same infringement if an NCA can show that the harm caused to national and EU markets is distinct in its temporal and jurisdictional effects.

Tine Mišic, Valentina Pavušek

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 4 (2020), Ausgabe 4, Seite 314 - 319

Niccolò Colombo, Alejandra Garcia Hoyos

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 4 (2020), Ausgabe 4, Seite 328 - 332

Case T-758/14 RENV Infineon Technologies v Commission, Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 Following a referral from the Court of Justice, the General Court, in exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, held that the Commission did not take sufficient account of the individual participation of Infineon in the single overall agreement and reduced the fine by an additional 5% on account of mitigating circumstances.