• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
Of all publications in the section: 4
Sort:
by name
by year
Article
Katsoulacos Y., Avdasheva S. B., Golovanova S. European Competition Journal. 2016. Vol. 12. No. 2-3. P. 277-297.
Added: Mar 3, 2017
Article
Lundqvist B. European Competition Journal. 2016. No. 11. P. 557-573.

In this article, the Post Danmark II judgment is discussed and analysed in the light of recent rulings by the Court of Justice (ECJ) and the General Court (together CJEU). The article quickly resolves that it is clear that the ECJ with Post Danmark II has, generally and rather stubbornly, kept the competition law doctrine for rebates unchanged and, more specifically, made it obvious that the ECJ does not support a general exclusive as-efficient-competitor test in the rebate abuse arena. However, the article continues and concludes that by clinging on to the competition law doctrine regarding rebate schemes, while making changes to the price discrimination test in Post Danmark I, the ECJ creates unease in the interface between pricing abuses, rebate abuses and discrimination, according to Article 102(c) TFEU. The unease can only be resolved by acknowledging that judged under different tests selective low pricing, selective targeted rebates as exclusionary abuses, and price discrimination under Article 102(c) TFEU should, according to ECJ, be treated rather differently, making it difficult for dominant firms to respond to new entrants

Added: Nov 30, 2018
Article
Lundqvist B. European Competition Journal. 2015. No. 11. P. 557-573.

In this article, the Post Danmark II judgment is discussed and analysed in the light of recent rulings by the Court of Justice (ECJ) and the General Court (together CJEU). The article quickly resolves that it is clear that the ECJ with Post Danmark II has, generally and rather stubbornly, kept the competition law doctrine for rebates unchanged and, more specifically, made it obvious that the ECJ does not support a general exclusive as-efficient-competitor test in the rebate abuse arena. However, the article continues and concludes that by clinging on to the competition law doctrine regarding rebate schemes, while making changes to the price discrimination test in Post Danmark I, the ECJ creates unease in the interface between pricing abuses, rebate abuses and discrimination, according to Article 102(c) TFEU. The unease can only be resolved by acknowledging that judged under different tests selective low pricing, selective targeted rebates as exclusionary abuses, and price discrimination under Article 102(c) TFEU should, according to ECJ, be treated rather differently, making it difficult for dominant firms to respond to new entrants.

Added: Nov 30, 2018
Article
Lundqvist B. European Competition Journal. 2015. No. 11. P. 367-401.

In this paper the recent ECJ judgment in Huawei is discussed in light of the earlier case law from the EU and the US. The Huawei case has been long awaited and many in academia hoped that it would finally deliver answers to if, when and on what terms access to so-called Standard Essential Patents would be granted under EU antitrust law. However, the question is whether Huawei is that case. On the contrary, it seems that the ECJ ruling gives room for speculation even in reference to core issues, some of which are dealt with in this paper.

Added: Nov 30, 2018