Skip to content

The search returned 20 results.




Regulating Zero-Rating in Europe journal article

Changes in the Regulatory Analysis of Zero-Rating by NRAs After the Judgments in C‑34/20 Telekom Deutschland (throttling), C‑5/20 Vodafone (tethering) and C‑854/19 Vodafone (roaming)

Dennis Brouwer, Michiel van Dijk

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 7 (2023), Issue 1, Page 15 - 28

This article analyses the changes in the regulatory analysis of zero-rating by national regulatory authorities in almost seven years of implementation of the European Union’s Regulation on Open Internet Access. The European Court of Justice issued three landmark judgments in cases C‑34/20 Telekom Deutschland (throttling), C‑5/20 Vodafone (tethering) and C‑854/19 Vodafone (roaming). The Court ruled that ‘zero-tariff options’, a form of zero-rating, violate the general obligation of providers of internet access services to treat traffic equally and without discrimination. The Court determined that these options fail to follow the stipulations of Article 3(3) of the Regulation on Open Internet Access. Prior to the judgments, the Open Internet Guidelines drafted by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) recommended that national regulatory authorities should analyse zero-rating under Article 3(2) of the Regulation. BEREC recommended that they conduct a multi-factor analysis of the effects of zero-rating on the market. After the judgments, BEREC published updated guidelines stating that zero-rating as such is prohibited under Article 3(3), unless the zero-rating does not differentiate between applications based on user traffic. The authors argue that the judgments of the Court in conjunction with the updated Open Internet Guidelines provide NRAs and market actors with more legal certainty regarding the legality of zero-rating under the Regulation on Open Internet Access. Keywords: zero-rating; open internet; net neutrality; regulation; internet access service


Sped-Pro v Commission: Beware of the Rule of Law journal article

Rita Ferreira Gomes

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 7 (2023), Issue 1, Page 76 - 79

Case T-791/19 Sped-Pro v Commission, Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 February 2022 With its judgment of 9 February 2022, the General Court annulled a Decision of the European Commission rejecting an antitrust complaint submitted on the grounds of systemic or generalised deficiencies in the rule of law in one Member State. According to the judgment, there should be a limit to the principle of mutual trust and cooperation among Member States within the European Competition Network. This judgment created not only a precedent, but also a powerful protection tool to be used in the future to safeguard of the rule of law.


Illumina v Commission – Confirmation of the European Commission's Renewed Approach to Referrals under Article 22 EUMR (T-227/21 Illumina v Commission) journal article

Jussi Koivusalo, Emilia Rosenblad

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 6 (2022), Issue 3, Page 284 - 289

Case T-227/21 Illumina, Inc. v European Commission, Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 13 July 2022 The General Court held that the European Commission may accept a referral to investigate a concentration that is not subject to national merger control rules even when the referring Member State has introduced a merger control regime of its own. It also held that a concentration is 'made known' to a Member State pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) EUMR only when sufficient information enabling a preliminary assessment of the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph of the same Article is actively submitted to it.


Effective Competition in Digital Platform Markets: journal article

Legislative and Enforcement Trends in the EU and the US

Joseph Antel, Ciara Barbu-O’Connor, John Carroll, Katie Daw, Robert Klotz

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 6 (2022), Issue 1, Page 35 - 55

Efforts to tackle the increasing market power of data driven platforms are taking a new turn. So far, the European Union has been more aggressive and creative than the United States, notably with severe antitrust enforcement action. However, there is a perceived enforcement gap in platform markets, due to increased concentration, rising profit margins, declining market entry and low investment compared to profits, according to many. With the European Commission proposing the Digital Markets Act and the US ramping up on a number of fronts with an intensified interest in Big Tech and a political climate favourable to an emerging legislative consensus for targeted antitrust law reforms in this field, we are on the verge of new rules to bridge this gap more effectively. This article sheds light on the current developments in the EU and the US, as a basis for the juxtaposition of both approaches and attempt to draw conclusions for future debate. Keywords: digital platforms, antitrust enforcement, upfront regulation, Digital Markets Act, gatekeepers, global convergence and cooperation


Aspen: The European Commission’s First Decision on Excessive Pricing in the Pharmaceuticals Sector journal article

Kalpana Tyagi

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 6 (2022), Issue 2, Page 173 - 179

Case AT.40394 Aspen, Commission Decision of 10 February 2021 On 10 February 2021, the Commission entered into a settlement decision with Aspen under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. The Commission investigated 'excessive pricing' by the South Africa-headquartered Aspen in six off-patent cancer drugs in the European Economic Area (EEA). These drugs had been off-patent for well over 50 years, and there seemed no rational prima facie justification for their unfairly high prices. This case note offers a critical discussion on the Commission’s case and Aspen’s well-planned strategy to systematically and uniformly increase prices across the Member States.