The Gazprom Case: Lessons of the Past For the Future

• Authors: Višinskienė Dalia , Nasutavičienė Justina
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Under the EU Merger Regulation, if the Commission has concerns that a merger may significantly affect competition in the European Union, the merging companies may propose modifications to the project that would guarantee continued competition on the market. The Commission may declare a concentration compatible with the common market following such a modification by the parties and attach to its decision conditions and obligations intended to ensure that the undertakings comply with the commitments. In other words, commitments have to be offered by the parties but the Commission may introduce conditions and obligations if they are required to ensure the enforceability of commitments. Meanwhile the scope to propose merger modifications and the level of discretion of the competition authority are quite different under the Law on Competition of the Republic of Lithuania, adopted almost two decades ago. The goal of this paper is to reveal those differences and, with the help of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania in the Gazprom case, to explain how this may impact future cases.

Keywords

EN

commitments; concentrations; EU competition law; Law on Competition of the Republic of Lithuania; Merger Regulation; the Gazprom case

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 10(16)
• Pages: 33-56

Dates

published

2017-12-31

Contributors

author

Višinskienė Dalia

author

Nasutavičienė Justina

References

• Banevičienė, A. (2005). Koncentracijos sampratos skirtumai remiantis Lietuvos ir Europos bendrijos teisės normomis, reguliuojančiomis koncentracijas. Jurisprudencija 72(64).
• Banevičienė, A. (2009). Nehorizontalių koncentracijų teisinis reguliavimas pagal Europos Bendrijos ir Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos teisę, doctoral dissertation, Mykolas Romeris University Vilnius. Retrieved from: http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa-0001:E.02~2009~D_20091202_092341-45797/DS.005.0.01.ETD (5.04.2017).
• Cook, C. J., Kerse, C. S. (2000). E. C. Merger Control. London: Sweet&Maxwell.
• Cseres, K. J. (2005). Competition Law and Consumer Protection. Hague: Kluwer Law International.
• Hellstrom, P., Maier-Rigaud, F. and Wenzel Bulst, F. (2009). Remedies in European Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Journal 1.
• Hoeg, D. (2014). European Merger Remedies: Law and Policy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• Layne – Farrar, A., Geradin, D. and Petit, N. (2012). EU competition law and economics, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
• Maier-Rigaud, F.P. and Frank, P. (2016). Behavioural versus Structural Remedies in EU Competition Law [in:] P. Lowe, M. Marquis and G. Monti (eds.). European Competition Law Annual 2013, Effective and Legitimate Enforcement of Competition Law. Hart Publishing, 207-224.
• Niels, G., Jenkins, H. and Kavanagh, J. (2011). Economics for Competition Lawyers, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• van Bael, I. (2001). Due Process in EU Competition Proceedings. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn.

Identifiers

ISSN

1689-9024

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2017.10.16.3