Autor: Krusha Bhatt
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25058/1794600X.1788
Keywords: EU Competition Law, Consumer Welfare, Competitors, Market Structure, Object- Effect Dichotomy.
Palabras claves: Derecho de la Competencia de la Unión Europea, bienestar del consumidor, competidores, estructura del mercado, dicotomía objeto-efecto.
Palavras-chave: Direito da Concorrência da UE; Bem-estar do consumidor; Concorrentes; Estrutura de mercado; Dicotomia objeto-efeito.
Para citar este artículo:
Bhatt, K. (2020). The indirect route of securing interest of consumers and competitors under the EU competition law. Revista Misión Jurídica, 13(20), 88-96.
Referencias
Books, Articles and Journals:
Richard Whish and David Bailey, Competition Law, 8th Ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015).
Wolf Sauter, ‘ Coherence in EU Competition Law’, Oxford University Press, first ed. 2016.
Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, (2004/C 101/07) Commission Notice, Official Journal of the European Union, C 101/81.
Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation Agreements, Official Journal of European Union, (2011/C 11/01).
Commission’s Guidance on Article 102 Enforcement Priorities, OJ [2009] C 45/7.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings [1990] OJ L257/13.
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation), Official Journal L 024, 29/01/2004 P. 0001- 0022.
Bright EU Competition Policy: Rules, Objectives and Deregulation (1996) 16 OJLS 535.
Speech/05/512 of 15 September 2005 delivered by Neelie Kroes, a member of European Commission on European Competition Policy – Delivering Better Markets and Better Choices.
SPEECH/05/537, 23 September 2005; Lowe Innovation and Regulation of Dominant Firms; 23 September 2008 and Alumnia converging paths in unilateral conduct, 3 December 2010.
Cases:
Case C-501/06 P, GlaxoSmithKline v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2009:610.
Case 6/72, Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission, [1973] ECR 215.
Case C-8/ 08, T- Mobile Netherlands BV v Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, [2009] ECR I- 4529.
Case- 56/64, Consten and Grunding, ECLI:EU:C1966:41.
Case C‐67/13 P, Groupement des Cartes Bancaires, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2204.
Joined Cases C‐403/08 and C‐429/08, 631, Football Association Premier League, ECLI:EU:C:2011.
Case C‐32/11, Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt, ECLI:EU:C:2013:160.
Case C-209/07, Beef Industry, ECLI:EU:C:2008:643.
Case C-280/08 P, Deutsche Telekom v Commission, [2010] ECR I-9555.
Case C-52/09, Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige, [2011] ECR I-527.
Case C-209/10, Post Denmark, EU:C: 2012:172.
Case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, [1979] ECR 461.
Case T-203/01, Michelin v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2003:250.
Case C-95/04 P, British Airways Plc v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2007:166.
Case 6/73 and 7/73, Commercial Solvents v Commission, [1974] ECR 223.
Case COMP/M.2220, General Electric/Honeywell [2004] OJ L48/1.