EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

Prague, Czechia

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Table 1: Multitude of aims of EU competition law

Approach

Consequentialist

Deontological

Freedom to compete

Market integration

Fairness

Effective competition structure “ [C]ompeti tion rules of the Treaty, [are] designed to protect not only the competitors or consumers but also to protect the stucture of the market and thus competition as such” (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 June 2009, T-Mobile Netherlands and Others (C-8/08), ECLI:EU:C: immediate interests of individual

Value

Consumer welfare

Consumer well-being

Efficiency and innova tion

“ [C] ompetition,

“ [T]he Commission stated that the clause was, in addition, liable to delay integration in the electronic communica tions sector, since the mar ket integration process would be seriously jeopardised if incumbents such as Telefónica and PT could reinforce their already very strong market position by participating in collusive practices with markets and avoiding the entry of other operators to those markets” (Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016, Telefónica, SA v European Commission (T-216/13), ECLI:EU: T:2016:369, para. 45). the aim of protecting their home

“ [T]he referring court is uncertain as to the com patibility of the restrictions at issue in the main proceed ings with the principles of Community law regarding the freedom of competition of undertakings, and with the action of the European Un ion seeking to improve and protect health. In particular, it asserts that, contrary to that aim, the legislation concerning the organisation of pharmacy ser vices currently in force in the Lazio Region prevents an effective contribu tion to the protection of public health” (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 July 2010, Sbarigia

“ [A] dominant undertaking may demon strate that the exclusionary effect arising from its conduct may be counter balanced, or outweighed, by advantages in terms of ef ficiency which also benefit the consumer” (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2015, Post Danmark

Example

“ [T]he ultimate

“ [I]t is for the dominant undertaking to show that the efficiency gains likely to result from the conduct under consideration counteract any likely negative effects on competition and consumer welfare in the affected markets, that those gains have been, or are likely to be, brought about as a result of that conduct, that such conduct is nec essary for the achievement of those gains in efficiency and that it does not elim inate effective competition, by removing all or most existing sourc es of actual or potential competition” (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 March 2012, Post Danmark A/S v. Konkur rencerådet

if it is fair, gen erally ensures technological progress and improves the qualities of a service or product while ensuring a reduction in costs. It there fore benefits consumers because they can also benefit from products and services of bet ter quality at a better price. In that way competition is a source of progress and development” (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2009, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International (C-42/07), ECLI:EU:C: 2009:519, para. 245).

purpose of the rules that seek to ensure that competition is not distorted in the internal market is to increase the well-being of consumers ” (Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2016, Österre ichische Post sparkasse v. Commission (T-213/01 and T-214/01), ECLI:EU:T: 2006:151, para. 115).

(C-23/14), ECLI:EU: C:2015:651, para. 48).

2009:343, para. 38).

(C-393/08), ECLI:EU:C:

2010:388, para. 15).

(C-209/10), ECLI:EU:C:

2012:172, para. 42).

Sources: Ezrachi (2018); own study (2022)

155