Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recent Developments in Romanian Jurisprudence Regarding the Application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Consistent Application of EU Competition Law

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 9))

  • 1030 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents an analysis of the latest developments in the Romanian courts concerning the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Romanian jurisprudence applying Article 101 is increasingly sophisticated in the areas of enforcing the right of defence of the accused enterprise, restriction of competition by object, and the determination of fines. Article 102 TFEU remains to be enforced by the Romanian Competition Council and subsequently applied by the courts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Consiliul Concurentei, Raport Anual 2014, http://www.consiliulconcurentei.ro/ro/publicatii/rapoarte-anuale.html. Accessed 29 Oct 2015.

  2. 2.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=105415. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  3. 3.

    Not published (the decisions that are not published are the ones that for specific reasons are not included on the website of the deciding court or in the judicial reporters published later).

  4. 4.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=89693. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  5. 5.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=93097. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  6. 6.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=93097. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  7. 7.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=89693. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  8. 8.

    A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. v. Italy, ECHR, appl. No.43509/08, decision of 27.09.2011, paras.38–44.

  9. 9.

    Not yet published.

  10. 10.

    Curtea Suprema de Justitie. Buletinul Jurisprudentei. 1999.

  11. 11.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=85008. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  12. 12.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=98697. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  13. 13.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=73123. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  14. 14.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=101320. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  15. 15.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=60976. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  16. 16.

    http://www/scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuerry%5B0%5D.Value=80643. Accessed 30 Oct 2015.

  17. 17.

    The same issue is apparent at the level of the Court of Justice of the European Union. This can explain why ECJ felt compelled in the case of Groupement des Cartes Bancaires v. Commission (C-67/13 P) to re-affirm the basic difference between agreements restricting the competition by “object” and those that only have the effect of restricting it, by emphasizing the former do not represent the rule.

  18. 18.

    C-67/13 P, para.58.

  19. 19.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=105357. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  20. 20.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=105330. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  21. 21.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=105415. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  22. 22.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=101040. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  23. 23.

    Case C-172/14, para. 54.

  24. 24.

    Case C-172/ 14, para. 51.

  25. 25.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-2/01&language=en.

  26. 26.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=93102. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  27. 27.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=101320. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  28. 28.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=65278. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  29. 29.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=69968. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  30. 30.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=60836. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  31. 31.

    Not yet published.

  32. 32.

    Not yet published.

  33. 33.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=106650. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  34. 34.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=105330. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  35. 35.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=106650. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  36. 36.

    http://www.scj.ro/1093/Detalii-jurisprudenta?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=67800. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  37. 37.

    Not yet published.

  38. 38.

    Not yet published.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bucharest, Faculty of Law, Bucharest, Romania

    Sorin David

Authors
  1. Sorin David
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sorin David .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Sector 5, Romania

    Adriana Almășan

  2. School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

    Peter Whelan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

David, S. (2017). Recent Developments in Romanian Jurisprudence Regarding the Application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. In: Almășan, A., Whelan, P. (eds) The Consistent Application of EU Competition Law. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47382-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47382-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47381-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47382-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation