Competition Law - Science topic

I particularly want to know which section(s)/provisions of the Competition legislation in Austria deal with small and medium-sized enterprises?

Researching about Mergers and Acquisition in digital space

I am currently looking at the recent uber cases and wonder how this interlinks.

If anyone in legal study or practice can advise me on some current issues in banking regulation, particularly in the EU context, then please get in touch. I'm beginning to scope out potential topics for my dissertation and am struggling to narrow down my list.

At present, I'm looking at:

Legitimacy of the ECB

Banking Regulation post-2008 financial crisis

Competition Law implications on Syndicated Lending

Any help is very much appreciated?

The long dispute between Hynix (producer of DRAM) and Rambus, patent owner and licensor of related IP rights seems to be over. However a lot of questions remained unanswered. It is already practice that such disputes end with a settlement. However there is also a public enforcement dimension to these cases. In Europe the cases brought before the CJEU (General Court) are based on antitrust law. In the U.S. the litigation started with a similar action initiated by the FTC, but most of the confrontation was related to IP law and the allegations brought by Rambus against Hynix. Rambus is a very successful patent litigant and they won even in this case. However, a little but important battle was a success for Hynix. They succeeded to obtain the reduction of the total amount of royalties to be paid with $250,000,000 with reference to Rambus' spoliation of evidence (JEDEC documentation).

In Europe the actions for annulment against the Commission decisions giving authority to the commitments undertaken by Rambus in 2009 were withdrawn on 5 July 2013.

eiml.webs.com/ (for more links and case references)

It is commonly accepted that 2/10 is the average ratio of sales efficiency. However, where this figure comes from?

I am writing my proposal for the topic: intellectual property education in higher education in Zimbabwe and am struggling to find a theoretical framework or conceptual framework.

In a case of Coal India v. Gulf Oil the Competition Appelate Tribunal (COMPAT) has laid down that the bidders were engaged in the bid rigging. they all colluded and boycotted the e-reverse auction. but is this anything to do with reverse auction by setting a ceiling limit for prices as a policy of government?

It is argued that decision to revalue fixed assets is backed by various management motives which also include debt contracting, earning management etc. I hypothesize a relationship between the managements’ decision to revalue fixed assets and the quality of corporate governance of firms? Please share your thoughts and leanings/experience.

It is notorious that broadcasting is one of the means where free speech and freedom of opinion are made effective, and also it is notorious that it produces positive and negative externalities. The question puts a dilemma, between free speech/freedom of opinion and necessity of stimulating production of positive externalities and inhibiting production of negative externalities.

I would like to have a comparative idea of how is the situación in the different EU Member States. It will be interesting to have different perspectives of how useful can it be the criminalization of cartels in Competición Law. 

Competition law and international cooperation: Is there a bibliography on the extraterritorial jurisdiction and competition law?

Can trade be something else than free? Can trade still be possible in the absence of competition? We all understand the idea of perfect competition which presupposes among other things trade in homogeneous products. In an economy dominated by services and complex products (that can never be homogeneous) comparison between products is not possible on objective bases. We do not buy products, but images that appeal to us and fit to our self image. Would you consider that the notion of trade and competition should be revisited and maybe redefined?

In the field of competition law, the rules concerning the prohibitions against the restrictive practices engaged by two or several undertakings and the abusive practices adopted by one or several undertakings holding a dominant position on the relevant market or on an adjacent one, allow the parallel application of the Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU with the national corresponding provisions. Recently the OFT, the British Competition Authority has introduced new rules on penalties meant to preserve the respect for the right of defence of the undertakings, by avoiding the double jeopardy. You can find these new rules attached below.

A new case of the General Court concerning the respect due to the fundamental rights in the field of competition law. Undertakings are most usually no natural persons, but they still have fundamental rights. The matter concerns the rights of defence and right to privacy and the relevant secondary law provision is the following:

Article 20 (4) Reg 1/2003- The Commission's powers of inspection:

Undertakings and associations of undertakings are required to submit to inspections ordered by decision of the Commission. The decision shall specify the subject matter and purpose of the inspection, appoint the date on which it is to begin and indicate the penalties provided for in Articles 23 and 24 and the right to have the decision reviewed by the Court of Justice. The Commission shall take such decisions after consulting the competition authority of the Member State in whose territory the inspection is to be conducted.

It is obvious that the fundamental rights have been considered by the EU law-maker when the Regulation has been passed, but the judicial review of the Commission inspection prerogatives in a specific case is still a possible way to challenge a Commission Decision concerning an infringement of competition law. Any reflections on the Court jurisprudence concerned with fundamental rights and competition rules?

It is no secret that the European Union law can be characterized by different degrees of integration, all depending on the policy area involved. EU competition law is one of the most integrated areas, with very well established jurisprudence. Time to time, the European Commission, the executive authority in this field of law, issues non-binding legal acts, notices & recommendations, with the pursuit of explaining the law. The role of these acts is an advisory one and the interpretation of law expressed by these Commission documents is, of course, built on the jurisprudence of the EU Courts. The Commission, by publishing and distributing its view of the law, in the form of non-binding legal acts, it creates certain expectations and therefore it is obliged to act accordingly to them. It may create the expectation that a certain type of behaviour is not anti-competitive by its object, or that an undertaking within certain thresholds will not be subject to any allegation concerning an infringement of a specific provision.

In a recent Opinion to a pending case, Expedia Inc, the AG Kokott has maintained that the national authorities and Courts are also obliged to respect the Commission's view of the law, expressed by its Recommendations and Notices., because a different conclusion will lead to an infringement of the general principles of law, foremost:

* the principle of equal treatment

* the principle of duty of sincere cooperation

* the principle of legal certainty

* the principle of level playing field

* the principle of uniform and effective application of EU law.

See points 36-38 in the Opinion attached hereby.

The result can be that a non-binding act becomes 'binding' due to the fundamental pursuit of preserving the respect for general principles of EU law. The national authorities and court are though allowed to adopt a divergent view, if they can justify it and this justification can be judicially reviewed.

This equation could be translated into:

Soft law + Union exclusive competence + Preservation of general principles of EU law = Binding law

European Union competition law ensures that corporations do not abuse their market power, free competition prevails over cartels and monopolies. But when we track the unfolding of competition in the history of this policy, we are faced with an ambiguous situation. Has competition law really created the desired level field?