Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
logo czasopisma

Artykuły

Nr 4 (47) (2023)

The Interpretation of Article 101 (3) of the TFEU by the European Commission

  • Rastislav Funta
  • Andreas Schultz
DOI
https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI47.808
Przesłane
20 listopada 2023
Opublikowane
14.02.2024 — zaktualizowane 21.02.2024
Wersje

Abstrakt

It should be noted that the wording of the primary law provision in Article 101 (3) TFEU is in fact open to classification both as a legal exception and as a general prohibition subject to authorisation. In fact, the interpretation of the primary law provision is strongly influenced by the perspective of secondary law. The purpose of this article is to provide an interpretation of Article 101 (3) TFEU. In the following, the factual requirements will be described from a general perspective in order to facilitate a later understanding of the interpretation of Article 101 (3) TFEU for different types of agreements.

Bibliografia

  1. Aravantinos Stavros, „Competition Law and the Digital Economy: The Framework of Remedies in the Digital Era in the EU” European Competition Journal, (2021): 134-155. doi: 10.1080/17441056.2020.1860565. 2021.
  2. Cleynenbreugel Pieter, „Article 101 TFEU’s Association of Undertakings Notion and Its Surprising Potential to Help Distinguish Acceptable from Unacceptable Algorithmic Collusion” The Antitrust Bulletin, (2020): 423-444. doi: 10.1177/0003603X20929116.
  3. Davies Gareth, „Does the Court of Justice own the Treaties? Interpretative Pluralism as a Solution to Over-Constitutionalisation” European Law Journal, (2018): 358-375. doi: 10.1111/eulj.12298.
  4. Ďuriš Michal, Rastislav Funta, Praktické prípady z práva Európskej únie právo [Practical Cases of European Law]. Brno: MSD. 2021.
  5. Fifeková Elena, Eduard Nežinský, Edita Nemcová, „Global Competitiveness of Europe: a Robustassessment” DANUBE: Law, Economics and Social Issues Review, 9(4), (2018): 245-260.
  6. Funta Rastislav, „Social Networks and Potential Competition Issues” Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, vol. 12 (2020): 106–118. doi: https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.369.
  7. Funta Rastislav, Kristína Králiková, „Obligation of the European Commission to Review National Civil Court Judgements?” Juridical Tribune, Vol. 12. (2022): 215-226. doi: 10.24818/TBJ/2022/12/2.04.
  8. Funta Rastislav, Liudmyla Golovko, Filip Juriš, Európa a Európske právo [Europe and European Law]. 2. doplnené a rozšírené vydanie, Brno: MSD. 2020.
  9. Hajduova Zuzana, Jana Coronicova-Hurajova, Michaela Bruothova, „Determinants of innovativeness of Slovak SMEs” Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 19 issue 1, (2021): 198-208. doi:10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.17.
  10. Ibáñez Pablo, „Article 101 TFEU and Market Integration” Journal of Competition Law & Economics, vol. 12 (4), (2016): 749-779. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2747784.
  11. Jones Alison, Brenda Sufrin, Niamh Dunne, EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2019.
  12. Kindl Jiří, Jan Kupčík, Stanislav Mikeš, Pavel Svoboda, Soutěžní právo. Praha: C. H. Beck. 2021.
  13. Krausová Alžběta, „Abuse of Market Power in ICT Sector” The Lawyer Quarterly, no. 1. (2018): 75-81.
  14. Lopatka John, „Market Definition?” Review of Industrial Organization, 39 (1) (2011): 69-93.
  15. Maziarz Alexander, „Do Non-Economic Goals Count in Interpreting Article 101(3) TFEU?” European Competition Journal, vol. 10 (2), (2015): 341-359. doi: 10.5235/17441056.10.2.341.
  16. Miskolczi-Bodnár Peter, Robert Szuchy, „Joint and Several Liability of Competition Law Infringers in the Legislation of Central and Eastern European Member States” Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory studies, vol. 10 (15) (2017): 85-109. doi: 10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2017.10.15.5.
  17. Niels Gunnar, Helen Ralston, „Two-Sided Market Definition: Some Common Misunderstandings” European Competition Journal, 17:1. (2021): 118-133. doi: 10.1080/17441056.2020.1851478.
  18. Nováčková Daniela, Jana Vnuková, „Competition Issues Including in the International Agreements of the European Union” Juridical Tribune, vol. 11, (2021): 234-250. doi: 10.24818/TBJ/2021/11/2.06.
  19. Osztovits András, „Quantifying Harm in Action for Damages Based on Breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Some Remarks on the Draft Guidance Paper of the European Commission”, [in:] Recent Developments in European and Hungarian Competition Law, ed. Osztovits András. Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar. 2012.
  20. Patakyová Maria, „Enhanced Digitalisation and Competition Law Enforcement in Slovakia” TalTech Journal of European Studies, Vol. 11. (2021): 83-101. doi: 10.2478/bjes-2021-0016.
  21. Peráček Tomáš, „The Perspectives of European Society and the European Cooperative as a form of Entrepreneurship in the Context of the Impact of European Economic Policy” Online Journal Modelling the New Europe, 34 (2021): 38-56. doi: 10.24193/OJMNE.2020.34.02.
  22. Peráček Tomáš, František Vojtech, Mária Srebalova, Bernard Pekar, Beáta Mikusova-Merickova, Matej Horvat, „Restriction on the Re-Export of Medicinal Products and the Supervision of Compliance with it by Public Administration Bodies” European Pharmaceutical Journal, vol. 65 (2017): 24-30. doi: 10.1515/afpuc-2017-0009.
  23. Plavčan Peter, Rastislav Funta, „Regulatory Concepts for Internet Platforms” Online Journal Modelling the New Europe, no. 35 (2021): 44-59. doi: 10.24193/ojmne.2021.35.03.
  24. Schweitzer Heike, Justus Haucap, Wolfgang Kerber, Robert Welker, Modernizing the Law on Abuse of Market Power. Report for the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (Germany), September 17. 2018.
  25. Signoret Laurin, „Code of Competitive Conduct: A New Way to Supplement EU Competition Law in Addressing Abuses of Market Power by Digital Giants” European Competition Journal, no. 16 (2020): 221-263. doi: 10.1080/17441056.2020.1787625.
  26. Šmejkal Václav, „EU Control of Concentrations: Update to the Reality of Gobal Business?” The Lawyer Quarterly, No. 4 (2020): 1-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3624825.
  27. Šmejkal Václav, „How to Control Global Mega-Mergers? On Premises of the Discusseed Amendment to the EU Merger Control Regulation”, [in:] Právo v měnícím se světě. Aleš Čeněk. Plzeň. 2020.
  28. Smulders Ben, Eric Gippini-Fournier, Some Critical Comments on the Report of the Global Competition Law Centre on the Directly Applicable Exception System and the Direct Applicability of Article 81 (3) EC: Positive Enforcement and Legal Certainty. (2010): 1-12. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1476962.
  29. Šramel Bystrík, Ján Machyniak, Dušan Gutan, „Slovak Criminal Justice and the Philosophy of its Privatization: An Appropriate Solution of Problems of Slovak Justice in the 21st Century?” Social Sciences, 9 (2020): 2-13.
  30. Šramel Bystrík, Libor Klimek, „The Prosecutorial Monopoly of the Slovak Public Prosecution Service: No Access to Justice for the Injured Party?” Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 5 (2022): 22-45. doi: 10.33327/AJEE-18-5.2-a000201.
  31. Šramel Bystrík, Peter Horvá, Ján Machyniak, „Peculiarities of Prosecution and Indictment of the President of the Slovak Republic: Is Current Legal Regulation Really Sufficient?” Social Sciences, 8 (2019): 1-20.
  32. Stehlík Václav, Ondrej Hamuľák Michal Petr, Právo Evropské unie: ústavní základy a vnitřní trh [European Union law: constitutional foundations and the internal market]. Praha: Leges. 2017.
  33. Stehlík Václav, Ondrej Hamuľák, Legal issues of EU Internal Market: Understanding the Four Freedoms. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. 2013.
  34. Whish Richard, David Bailey, Competition Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2021.

Pobrania

Brak dostępnych danych do wyświetlenia.