Keywords
presumption
Article 102 TFEU
Intel case
How to Cite
Number of views: 457
Number of downloads: 454
Abstract
The increasing application of presumptions in European Union competition law proceedings in recent years has contributed to a shift of the burden of proof away from competition authorities to undertakings. The use of presumptions is particularly complex in cases concerning the abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This article indicates a number of problems related to challenging the presumption of the breach of competition rules by a dominant undertaking. The judgment of the Court of Justice in the Intel case provides an interesting background for the analysis in the above context. The article also seeks to offer solutions as to how a dominant undertaking can rebut the presumption of a breach of competition law.
References
Bailey, D. (2010). Presumptions in EU Competition Law. European Competition Law Review 31(9): 21–27.
Bułakowski, K. (2017). Rabaty stosowane przez przedsiębiorstwa dominujące w świetle orzecznictwa TSUE w latach 2011–2015. Internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny 5(6): 28–45.
Castillo de la Torre, F. (2009). Evidence, proof and judicial review in cartel cases. World Competition 32(4): 505–578.
Da Cruz Vilaça, J.L. (2018). The intensity of judicial review in complex economic matters – recent competition law judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 6(2): 173–188.
Fernández, C. (2019). Presumptions and burden of proof in EU competition law: the Intel judgement. Journal of European Competition Law and Practice 10(7): 448–456.
Geradin, D. (2015). Loyalty rebates after Intel: time for the European Court of Justice to overrule Hoffman-La Roche. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 11(3): 579–615.
Ibáñez Colomo, P. (2014). Intel and article 102 TFEU case law: making sense of a perpetual controversy. LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 29: 2–14.
Ibáñez Colomo, P. (2018). The future of article 102 TFEU after Intel. Journal of European Competition Law and Practice 9(5): 293–303.
Kadar, M. (2019). Article 102 and exclusivity rebates in a post-Intel world: lessons from the Qualcomm and Google Android cases. Journal of European Competition Law and Practice 10(7): 439–447.
Kalintiri, A. (2015). The allocation of the legal burden of proof in article 101 TFEU cases: a “clear” rule with not-so-clear Implications. Yearbook of European Law 34: 232–256.
Nihoul, P. (2014). The ruling of the General Court in Intel: towards the end of an effect-based approach in European competition law? Journal of Competition Law and Practice 5(8): 521–530.
Ritter, C. (2018). Presumptions in EU Competition Law. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 6(2): 189–212.
Wils, W. (2014). The judgment of the EU General Court in Intel and the so-called more economic approach to abuse of dominance. World Competition 37(4): 405–434.
License
Copyright (c) 2021 WPiA UAM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.