Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
43 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
Wood pulp |
|
|
|
Akzo v Commission (dominance) |
|
|
|
Cartes Bancaires |
|
|
|
Chemidus Wavin v. TERI |
Under English law, VOID clauses severable ifremaining agreement accurately reflects agreement originally reached
What’s left is a matter for national law to decide on validity of e.g. in a licensing agreement, should be plenty of stuff left |
|
|
Commercial Solvents |
|
|
|
Consten & Grundig |
|
|
|
Courage v Crehan |
|
Who can claim for compensation when Art 101 is breached? |
|
Hilti v Commission |
Factors for Assessing Dominance
Tying & bundling - market definition Even if there is clearconnection between the products, they may legitimately be viewed as separatemarkets. Tying and bundling - abuse Attempt to restrict the competition for consumables by tying or bundling is an abuse. |
|
|
Irish Beef |
|
|
|
Maize Seed (Nungesser) |
|
Exclusive licences/ Sole distributorships/ Parallel imports |
|
Oscar Bronner |
|
Refusal of larger undertakings to share distribution schemes & Art 102. |
|
Purple Parking v Heathrow |
Heathrow abused its dominant position by the compulsory relocation of the Claimants' ‘meet and greet' (or ‘valet parking') businesses from the forecourts at Terminals 1 and 3 to the short stay car parks, whilst allowing Heathrow's own valet parking operations to remain in their existing trading locations. |
Abuse of domanance |
|
Sealink/B&I Holyhead |
Owner of an essential facility may have to provide non-discriminatory access to a competitor to avoid abuse of dominance. |
Essential facilities - Art 102 |
|
United Brands (market definition) |
Product market – Demand substitutability:
Geographic market:
|
|
|
United Brands (Abuse of Dominance) |
Dominant Position Definition: “aposition of economic strength which enables the undertaking to preventeffective competition on the relevant market by giving it the power to behaveto an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers andultimately its consumers.” Assessment of Dominance: Inassessing dominance, the tribunal should consider the undertakings relativestrength in the relevant product, geographical and temporal markets. Examples of Abuse ■ requiringdistributors not to sell green bananas (to prevent arbitrage) ■ chargingdistributors different prices without any objective justification [breach ofA102(c)] ■ imposingexcessive prices on some distributors - up to 138% of others - the ECJoverruled the Commission on this point, citing a lack of sufficient evidence ofUB’s costs to support the alleged abuse ■ refusingto supply distributors which had promoted rival brands |
|
|
Volk v Vervaecke |
|
Small dealings |
|
Volvo v Veng |
i) the proprietor arbitrarily refuses to supply spare parts to repairers, ii) prices are fixed at excessive levels, iii) or a decision is made not to make parts for a certain model a while many cars of that model were in circulation, |
Spare parts Refusal to license design rights Abusive behaviours |
|
Windsurfing International v Commission |
The following clauses in patent licensing agreements are incompatible with Art 101 in so far as they restrict competition:
|
Prohibited clauses in a patent licensing agreement |
|
Albany International |
Undertakings agreements made in the context of collective negotiations between employers and employees in pursuit of recognised social policy objectives are not caught by Art 101(1). |
Undertakings: collective negotiations between employers and employees |
|
Continental Can |
|
|
|
Der Grune Punkt |
|
|
|
Devenish v Sanofi [2008] |
Compensatorydamages will be awarded, not exemplary or punitive, or accounts of profits. |
Type of damages awarded nationally |
|
Energie Baden-Wurttemberg AG (EnBW) (Gas Insulated Switchgear Cartel) |
|
Granting of access to documents held by the Commission |
|
European Night Services v Commission |
|
Pro v anti-competitive effects (Art 101(3)) |
|
France Telecom |
|
Factors in determining the product market Dominance Predatory pricing |
|
Garden Cottage v Milk Marketing Board |
Lord Diplock: therights conferred by Article 101 are without further enactment to be given legaleffect in the United Kingdom and enforced accordingly. |
Applicability of Art 101 in the UK |
|
Hofner & Elser v Macrotron |
The concept of an undertakingcomprises every entity engaged in economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity, and the way in which it is financed. , including the Federal Employment Office |
Definition of undertaking |
|
IMS Health v NDC Health |
A refusal togrant a copyright license by a dominant undertaking may not, in itself, beabuse. The following 3 conditions must allbe met for abuse to occur: 1) the refusal prevented theemergence of a new product for which there was demand 2) refusal was unjustified 3) refusal would excludecompetition on a secondary market. |
Refusal to grant a copyright license by a dominant undertaking |
|
Intel fines |
Imposition of Euro 1.06 billion foranticompetitive rebates and payments to distributors to delay launch of rivalproducts |
Fines |
|
‘Magill’/ Radio Telefis Eireann v Commission |
|
Refusal to license copyright/ abuse of dominance |
|
Metro Grossmarkte v Commission |
TBC |
|
|
Microsoft cases esp [2007] |
Microsoft held a dominantposition on the OS market Accused of (i) tying WindowsMedia Player to Windows 2000 OS; and (ii) non-disclosure of interoperabilityinformation. For tying to be unlawful: 1. the tying andtied products should be separate; 2. the undertakingimposing the tie is dominant in the market for the tying product; 3. customers aredenied the chance to obtain the tying product without the tied product; and 4. competition isforeclosed. (ii) The CFI held that the 3conditions outlined in IMS Health (see above) for finding abuse had been met,and there was no objective justification for the refusal to supplyinteroperability information. |
Abuse of dominance Four factors for tying to be unlawful |
|
Moosehead v Whitbread |
TM must be ancillary to tech know how not vice versa |
TM licensing |
|
SAT Fluggesellschaft v Eurocontrol |
Were Eurocontrol an Undertaking?
Held not to be an undertaking |
Undertakings and public bodies |
|
TetraPak I [1988] v Commission |
Tetra abused its dominant position by the acquisition of the exclusive licence which had the effect of strengthening its already dominant position, further weakening existing competition and rendering even more difficult the entry of any new competition |
Abuse of dominant position -exclusionary |
|
Tetrapak II |
The Commission found that T was abusing its dominant position in the aseptic market in breach Art 102 by tying in sales of non-aseptic filling machines to carton sales and setting predatory prices for cartons and non-aseptic machines. |
Abuse of dominant position -exploitatative |
|
Viho Europe v Commission |
A parent company and 100% owned subsidiary form part of a single economic entity, if the subsidiaries do not enjoy true autonomy. Upshot is that agreements may fall outside of Art 101(1) |
|
|
Akzo Nobel v Commission (Undertakings) |
Rebuttable presumption of decisive influence where parent has a majority/sole shareholding. BUT even if 100% owned, it is necessary that parent company can AND IN FACT DOES exercise decisive influence over subsidiary. Upshot is that parent company can be liable for actions of subsidiary |
|
|
MOTOE |
Undertakings The classification of activities, whether economic or not, should be carried separately for each activity. E.g. greek motocross association was an undertaking when arranging motocross competition events but not when assessing safety. |
|
|
Reuters/ BASF |
Can be an individual, such as a sole inventor |
|
|
Pavlov |
Any offering of goods and services on a market is typically considered to be an economic activity |
|
|
Wouters |
Professionals such as members of a Bar are undertakings. They therefore belong to an association of undertakings. Art 101 doesn't concern (i) spheres outside of economic activity nor (ii) the exercise of powers of a public authority. |
|
|
Erauw Jacquery v LaHesbigonne (1988) |
Prohibition on the sale or export of basic seeds not withinArticle 101 since considerable investment had been made in developing the basic seed. Court had to strike balance between the scale of research and investment into the technology and the restriction of competition.
|
|