2012 | 5(6) | 261-288
Article title

Standard of Judicial Review of Merger Decisions Concerning Oligopolistic Markets

Title variants
Languages of publication
This article analyses the way in which standard of judicial review of the European Commission’s (EC) decisions concerning oligopolistic markets was exercised by EU judiciary. In the recent years we could observe an increasing role played by the GC and the ECJ in shaping the legal framework in which mergers are assessed. In fact, the EU judiciary has not only extended the previously narrow scope of the original merger regulation but it has also contributed significantly towards increasing the legal certainty by elaborating a reliable set of legal criteria for the assessment of oligopolistic markets, which also reflected the economic theory. The EU judiciary has also very often acted as a ‘filter’ to the novel theories introduced in the EC decisions. All of the aforementioned developments would not be possible without the high standard of judicial review exercised by EU courts and ‘special judicial techniques’ used by them.
Cet article porte sur la manière dont le contrôle juridictionnel des décisions de la Commission Européenne relatives aux concentrations des entreprises sur les marchés oligopolistiques a été effectué par les juridictions européennes. Dans les dernières années, on pouvait observer l’accroissement de rôle du Tribunal et de la Cour dans le développement du cadre juridique dans lequel les concentrations sont évaluées. En réalité, la branche judiciaire de l’UE a élargi le champ d’application du règlement sur les concentrations. Ainsi, elle a également contribué considérablement a l’augmentation de la certitude juridique grâce aux développements des critères qui servent à évaluer les marchés oligopolistiques, ce qui reflet également les théories économiques. Les cours européennes ont fréquemment agie en tant qu’un ‘filtre’ des nouvelles théories qui ont été avancée par la Commission Européenne. Tous les développements en question ne serraient pas possible sans le niveau élevé de contrôle juridictionnel ainsi que ‘les techniques judiciaires spécifiques’ employées par les cours.
Physical description
  • Adam Mickiewicz University, Department of Law and Administrative Science, Chair of European Law
  • Bailey D., ‘Standard of Proof in EC Merger Proceedings: A Common Law Perspective’ (2003) 40(4) Common Market Law Review.
  • Będkowski – Kozioł M., ‘Glosa do wyroku Sądu Pierwszej Instancji z 13.7.2006 r. w sprawie T-464/04 IMPALA v. Komisja, O.J. 2006 Nr C 224 z 16.9.2006 r., s. 35 (Comment on the judgment of the CFI of 13.7.2006 in T – 464/04 Impala)’ (2006) 4 Kwartalnik Prawa Publicznego.
  • Calzado Ruiz J., Barbier De La Serre E., ‘Judicial Review of Merger Control Decisions After the Impala Saga: Time for Policy Choices?’ (2009) The Antitrust Review – Global Competition Review.
  • Etter B., ‘The Assessment of Mergers in the EC under the Concept of Collective Dominance’ (2000) 23(3) Journal of World Competition.
  • Garcia Perez M., ‘Collective Dominance Under the Merger Regulation’ (1998) 23(5) European Law Review.
  • Golding J., ‘The Impala case: a quiet conclusion but a lasting legacy’ (2010) 31(7) European Competition Law Review.
  • Haupt H., ‘Collective Dominance Under Article 82 E.C. and E.C. Merger Control in the light of the Airtours Judgment’ (2002) 23(9) European Competition Law Review.
  • Jurkowska – Gomułka A., ‘Polish Antitrust Legislation and Case Law Review 2010’ (2011) 4(5) YARS.
  • Kaseberg T., ‘Case C-413/06 P, Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America v. Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2008, nyr.’ (2009) 46(1) Common Market Law Review.
  • Kokkoris I., Merger Control in Europe. The Gap in the ECMR and National Merger Legislation, Routledge 2011.
  • Kokkoris I., ‘Assessment of Mergers Inducing Coordinated Effects in the Presence of Explicit Collusion’ (2008) 31(4) World Competition.
  • Langer J., ‘The Airtours Judgment: A Welcome Lecture on Oligopolies, Economics and Joint Dominance’ (2003) 10 Columbia Journal of European Law.
  • Legal H., ’Standards of proof and standards of judicial review in EU competition law’, [in:] Hawk B. (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute 2006, vol. 32.
  • Manowska M. (ed.), Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. Tom 1 [Code of Civil Procedure. Commentary. Vol. 1], Warszawa 2011.
  • Nicholson M., Cardell S., McKenna B., ‘The Scope of Review of Merger Decisions under Community Law’ (2005) 1(1) European Competition Journal.
  • Nikpay A., Houwen F., ‘Tour de Force or a Little Local Turbulence? A Heretical View on the Airtours Judgment’ (2003) 24(5) European Competition Law Review.
  • O’Donoghue R., Feddersen C., ‘Case T – 342/99, Airtours plc v. Commission, Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002, nyr.’ (2002) 39(5) Common Market Law Review.
  • Reeves T., Dodoo N., ‘Standard of Proof and Standards of Judicial Review in European Commission Merger Law’ (2006) 29 Fordham International Law Journal.
  • Skoczny T., ’Wyrok Sądu Pierwszej Instancji z dnia 6 czerwca 2002 r. w sprawie T-342/99 Airtours plc. przeciwko Komisji Wspólnot Europejskich’, [in:] Jurkowska A., Skoczny T. (eds.), Orzecznictwo sądów wspólnotowych w sprawach konkurencji w latach 1964–2004 [Case – law of the Community Courts in competition casus 1964–2004], Warszawa 2007.
  • Skoczny T., ‘Glosa do wyroku w sprawie C – 413/06 P Bertelsmann AG i Sony Corportation of America (sprawa Impala II)’ [in:] Jurkowska–Gomułka A. (ed.), Orzecznictwo sądów wspólnotowych w sprawach konkurencji w latach 2004–2009 [Case – law of the Community Courts in competition cases 2004- 2009], Warszawa 2010.
  • Skoczny T., Jurkowska A., Miąsik D. (eds.), Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz [Act on Competition and Consumer Protection. Commentary], Warszawa 2009.
  • Stawicki A., Stawicki E. (eds.), Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz [Act on Competition and Consumer Protection. Commentary], Warszawa 2010.
  • Stroux S., ‘Is EC Oligopoly Control Outgrowing Its Infancy?’ (2000) 23(3) World Competition.
  • Stroux S., ‘Collective dominance under the Merger Regulation : a serious evidentary reprimand for the Commission’ (2002) 27(6) European Law Review.
  • Van Rompuy B., ‘The Standard of Proof in EC Merger Control. Conclusions from the Sony BMG Saga’, IES Working Paper 4/2008.
  • Venit J., ‘Two Steps Forward and No Steps Back: Economic Analysis and Oligopolistic Dominance After Kali & Salz’ (1998) 35(5) Common Market Law Review.
  • Vesterdorf B., ‘Standard of Proof in Merger Cases: Reflections in the Light of Recent Case Law of the Community Courts’ (2005) 1(1) European Competition Journal.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.