Search results

1

Compensation of Damages in Standalone Cases: Lessons to Be Learned from a Case Against a State-owned Telecommunication Company. Case Comment to the Judgment of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal of 3 March 2017 (Case No. e2A-27-464/2017)

100%

Zaščiurinskaitė R.

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

|

2017

|

vol. 10(15)

269-278

EN

Private enforcement in Lithuania is still at the early development stage, as only a few infringement decisions of the national competition authority – the Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania – have been followed on by private antitrust claims. Nevertheless, it might be observed that victims of competition law infringements tend to initiate standalone claims for compensation of damages in Lithuania. However, not all of those cases are successful. On 3 March 2017, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania rejected a damages claim for EUR 2.9 million brought by a company that claimed to have been refused infrastructure access (an essential facility) by the dominant state-owned telecommunication company; infrastructure access was necessary for the provision of its own services. The case is interesting and worth mentioning due to the complexity and interrelation of competition law and the regulation of electronic communications (such as the interrelation of dominance in competition law and significant market power under the regulatory framework). The case is also noteworthy becaouse of the lack of involvement by the Competition Council and the Communication Regulatory Authority as well as their position in the dispute. Of relevance is also a change made to the laws related to the dispute and further consequences of the dispute.

2

What Role for EU Competition Law in Regulated Industries? Reflections on the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 Orange Polska v European Commission (Case T-486/11)

100%

Marco Colino S.

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

|

2016

|

vol. 9(14)

265-278

3

Twenty Years of Harmonisation and Still Divergent: Development of Slovak Competition Law

84%

Blažo O.

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

|

2014

|

vol. 7(9)

109-123

EN

Since the time when the first competition rules were adopted after the Velvet Revolution in early 1990s, Slovak competition law has undergone several changes. Three acts on economic competition were subsequently adopted (in 1991, 1994, 2001), each of them several times amended. Although Slovakia became a member of the EU in 2004, the convergence of national competition rules with the law of the European Union is evident in the significant changes that were introduced in 2004. The evolution of Slovak competition rules cannot be considered finished – major amendments are expected in 2014. The following paper will analyze in which aspects Slovak competition law is diverging from the rules of the European Union. Court jurisprudence reviewing administrative decisions issued in competition matters is also important in the assessment of the competition law environment. The paper will provide an overview of those features of Slovak competition law that shall be harmonised, as well as reasons for their harmonisations. Yet it must be stressed that European law is not the universal model of convergence and hence the paper will provide thoughts on which features of Slovak competition law might remain country-specific.

FR

Depuis l'époque où les premières règles de concurrence ont été adoptées après la Révolution de velours en début des années 1990, le droit slovaque de la concurrence a subi plusieurs changements: trois actes sur la concurrence économique ont été adoptés par la suite (1991, 1994, 2001); chacun d'entre eux a également été modifié à plusieurs reprises. Bien que la Slovaquie soit devenue membre de l'UE en 2004, la convergence du droit slovaque de la concurrence vers des règles européennes de concurrence est évidente et des changements importants ont été introduits en 2004. Les modifications de la législation slovaque en matière de la concurrence ne peuvent pas être considérées comme terminées – les modifications considérables sont attendues en 2014. Le présent article analysera dans quels aspects le droit slovaque de la concurrence est divergent. De plus, la jurisprudence des tribunaux, examinant les cas en matière de la concurrence, est importante dans l'évaluation de l'environnement de la réglementation de la concurrence. Cet article offre un aperçu des caractéristiques du droit slovaque de la concurrence qui doit être harmonisé, ainsi que les raisons pour ces harmonisations. D'autre part, il faut souligner que le droit européen n'est pas le modèle universel de convergence et donc l’article présentera des pensées sur lesquelles les caractéristiques du droit national de la concurrence pourraient rester spécifique.

Refine search results

3 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

1 2017

1 2016

1 2014

1 Blažo O.

1 Marco Colino S.

1 Zaščiurinskaitė R.

Compensation of Damages in Standalone Cases: Lessons to Be Learned from a Case Against a State-owned Telecommunication Company. Case Comment to the Judgment of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal of 3 March 2017 (Case No. e2A-27-464/2017)

What Role for EU Competition Law in Regulated Industries? Reflections on the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 Orange Polska v European Commission (Case T-486/11)

Twenty Years of Harmonisation and Still Divergent: Development of Slovak Competition Law