Autor: Krusha Bhatt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25058/1794600X.1788

The theme of the present article is to deliver the notion that in order to enforce competition rules which, are aimed at maintaining a balance between profitability of the competitors and welfare of the consumers, the crucial aspect in attainting it is a healthy competitive market. Therefore, an attempt is made to analyses the role and practice of the European Courts and the Commission in protecting the structure of the competitive market as a means to secure the interests of the consumers and competitors. To convey the notion of the paper, sustenance from one of the imperative decisions given by the European Court of Justice purporting the predominant idea has been taken from the case of GlaxoSmithKline v Commission  and other relevant cases from the locales of Article 101 coupled with Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The idea is to critically discuss the rationale of the decision delivered by the hierarchy of courts, the object-effect dichotomy under Article 101(1) for apprehending anti- competitive conduct, and to reflect upon the Commission guidelines.

El tema de este artículo es dar una noción, para poder fortalecer las reglas de competitividad que apuntan a mantener un balance entre la rentabilidad de los competidores y el bienestar de los consumidores, cuyo aspecto crucial es conseguir un mercado competitivo y sano. Entonces, se realiza un intento por analizar el rol y la práctica de las Cortes Europeas y la Comisión al proteger la estructura de un mercado competitivo como medio para asegurar los intereses de los comsumidores y competidores. Para expresar el concepto de esta investigación, se sustenta en una de las decisiones imperativas tomadas por la Corte Europea de Justicia que, avalando la idea predominante, ha sido tomada del caso de GlaxoSmithKline contra la Comisión y otros casos relevantes de los locales del Artículo 101 junto con el Artículo 102 del Tratado del Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea. La idea es discutir de manera crítica el fundamento de la decision dictada por la jerarquía de tribunales, la dicotomía objeto-efecto bajo el Artículo 101(1) por aprehender conductas anticompetitivas y, además, reflexionar sobre las directrices de la Comisión.

O tema do presente artigo é transmitir a noção de que para fazer cumprir as regras de concorrência que, visam manter o equilíbrio entre a rentabilidade dos concorrentes e o bem-estar dos consumidores, o aspecto crucial para a sua concretização é um mercado competitivo saudável. Por conseguinte, procura-se analisar o papel e a prática dos Tribunais Europeus e da Comissão na proteção da estrutura do mercado competitivo como meio de salvaguardar os interesses dos consumidores e concorrentes. Para transmitir a noção do documento, o fundamento é uma das decisões imperativas proferidas pelo Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias, alegando a ideia predominante, foi tirada do processo GlaxoSmithKline / Comissão e outros casos relevantes das localidades do artigo 101.º juntamente com o artigo 102.º do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia. A ideia é discutir criticamente a razão de ser da decisão proferida pela hierarquia dos tribunais, a dicotomia objeto-efeito nos termos do artigo 101.º, n.º 1, para a apreensão de comportamentos anticoncorrenciais, e refletir sobre as orientações da Comissão.

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.