A lesson on judicial review from the other European Court in Luxembourg
Legal change sometimes takes unpredictable paths: mid-April, something important happened for European law in Luxembourg, but this did not come from the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”).
Not every reader of this blog is necessarily aware that the ECJ has a sister European Court in Luxembourg, which is called the EFTA Court. This Court has jurisdiction with regard to the EFTA States that are parties to the EEA Agreement (at present Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). It delivers only a limited number of judgments every year, but they often are interesting reads. Since EEA law very much mirrors EU law, these judgments constitute a significant source of inspiration for EU law itself [...]
Effects-based enforcement of Article 101 TFEU: the “object paradox”
A review of all decisions adopted pursuant to Article 81 EC/101 TFEU between the first of January 2000 and the first of January 2011 reveals that, excluding hardcore cartels, the Commission has issued altogether 18 infringement decisions and 10 commitment decisions. This is in addition to 6 negative clearance decisions and 18 exemption decisions adopted under Regulation 17/62. Among the 28 infringement and commitment decisions, 14 related to vertical restraints and 14 to horizontal restraints. Among the 18 infringement decisions, 10 are posterior to the entry into force of Regulation 1/2003 but only 5 have been adopted over the past 5 years and all in relation to horizontal cases.
More [...]
Upcoming judgment in case C-17/10 Toshiba and Others to shed light on the question of parallel proceedings within the ECN
On 14 February, the Court of Justice will deliver a ruling on a preliminary reference by a Czech Regional Court in Brno, which is likely to provide welcome guidance on the issue of parallel proceedings within the ECN and the principle of ne bis in idem.
The case concerns the legality of the Czech NCA’s decision against the Gas Insulated Switchgear cartel, which was also sanctioned by the European Commission’s decision of 24 January 2007.
The Gas Insulated Switchgear cartel and its prosecution in Europe
The nearly world-wide GIS cartel, uncovered in 2004, involved various well-known European and Japanese undertakings (ABB, Alstom, Areva, Fuji Electric, Hitachi, Japan AE Power Systems, [...]
How to deal with Chinese State-owned Enterprises under the EUMR?
On 13 September, the Commission published its decision of 31 March 2011 in China National Bluestar/Elkem. After DSM/Sinochem/JV (decision of 10 May but published in June), this was the second published decision which dealt in some detail with the question how to treat Chinese State-owned Enterprises or SOEs under the EUMR. The question has both procedural and substantive implications.
Procedurally, the question is whether the revenues of other SOEs should be taken into account when calculating the revenues of the SOE involved in the transaction. From a substantive perspective, the Commission may need to analyze competitive effects of a combination of a company with an SOE, taking into acc [...]
Unlimited jurisdiction: the end of a misnomer?
The past decade has seen a flurry of articles published trying to make sense of the degree of control that the EU Courts exercise on complex economic reasoning. By contrast, much less has been written about the Courts’ unlimited jurisdiction on fines, which allows them to increase or decrease the financial sanctions imposed by the Commission (See Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003). This is probably due to the fact that for the past 50 years, such unlimited jurisdiction has been living a quiet life indeed. Over this period – and especially during the last three decades – the EU Courts have wielded this powerful tool with great caution, or at least with significan [...]
UK Pubs And Greek Decoders – The Implications Of The Premier League Case For The Dissemination Of Digital Content
The European Court of Justice is expected to render its judgment in Premier League v QC Leisure in the next few months. At the heart of the case, lies the question whether licensing of intangible media content in one EU Member States exhausts the rights to that content across the EU. The answer of the Court of Justice will have important implications beyond the case at hand.
Advocate General Kokott rendered her opinion on the case on February 3, 2011. She proposes that the licensing of intangible content should be subject to exhaustion in the same way as the sale of physical products. If upheld, that conclusion would have serious repercussions for the licensing of all intangible conten [...]
