Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Belgium

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions

  • 568 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the impact of the digital economy on competition law enforcement in Belgium. One of its main goals is to assess the major competition issues generated by the growth of online sales platforms and how they should be resolved from a Belgian perspective. The following competition issues are discussed: ‘Most Favoured Nation’ clauses; the question about whether the value of big data should be taken into account for the Belgian merger notification thresholds; the impact of online sales in the market definition of merger cases and restrictions on sales via online sales platforms.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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 199.99
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.

    European Commission (2016) Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market: Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, 2. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0288&from=EN. Accessed 19 May 2017; European Commission, Staff working document on Online Platforms, 1. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-staff-working-document-online-platforms. Accessed 19 May 2017.

  2. 2.

    Belgian Competition Authority (2017) Year Report 2016. https://www.bma-abc.be/sites/default/files/content/download/files/2016_jaarverslag_bma_0.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017.

  3. 3.

    Belgian Competition Authority (2017) Press release n°9-2017, The Belgian Competition Authority confirms the inspection at a company active in the distribution and sale of cooking utensils and wine accessories. https://www.belgiancompetition.be/sites/default/files/content/download/files/20170508_press_release_9_bca.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017; Belgian Competition Authority (2017) Press release n°8-2017, The Belgian Competition Authority confirms the inspection at an undertaking active in the distribution and sale of water softeners.https://www.belgiancompetition.be/sites/default/files/content/download/files/20170505_press_release_8_bca.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017.

  4. 4.

    BCA, Case MEDE-I/O-13/0001, Algist Bruggeman N.V., 22 March 2017.

  5. 5.

    European Commission, Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, OJ 2010 C 130, p. 1.

  6. 6.

    European Commission (2016) Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market: Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, 15. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0288&from=EN. Accessed 19 May 2017.

  7. 7.

    European Commission (2016) Staff working document on Online Platforms, 11–15. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-staff-working-document-online-platforms. Accessed 19 May 2017.

  8. 8.

    European Commission (2017) Final Report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_final_report_en.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017.

  9. 9.

    European Commission (2017) Staff working document on the E-commerce sector inquiry. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017.

  10. 10.

    Together referred to as the ‘E-commerce sector inquiry report’.

  11. 11.

    Cass. 9 juni 2000, Brussels International Trade Mart/S.C. Barlow en Amadeus B.V.B.A., Arr. Cass. 2000, 1071, www.cass.be, J.L.M.B. 2000, 1284, T.B.H. 2000, 493.

  12. 12.

    Code of Economic Law, Belgian Official Journal 29 March 2013, p. 19975 (‘CEL’).

  13. 13.

    Commission Regulation 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ 2010 L 102, p. 1.

  14. 14.

    European Commission, Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, OJ 2010, C 130, p. 1 (‘Guidelines on Vertical Restraints’); Antwerpen 28 September 2009, Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 979; Gent 7 maart 2016, TBM 2016, jg. 4, 403–408; BCA, Case MEDE-I/O-13/0001, Algist Bruggeman N.V., 22 March 2017, 7, 20–22, 28.

  15. 15.

    Article IV.7, Section 1 CEL.

  16. 16.

    Article IV.11 CEL.

  17. 17.

    C. Verdonck and S. De Cock, Belgium. In: Knable Gotts (ed), The Merger Control Review, Law Business Research 2016, p. 113.

  18. 18.

    Article IV.8 CEL; C. Verdonck and S. De Cock, Belgium. In: Knable Gotts (ed), The Merger Control Review, Law Business Research 2016, p. 113.

  19. 19.

    Article IV.10, Section 5 CEL; C. Verdonck and S. De Cock, Belgium. In: Knable Gotts (ed), The Merger Control Review, Law Business Research 2016, p. 113.

  20. 20.

    C. Verdonck and S. De Cock, Belgium. In: Knable Gotts (ed), The Merger Control Review, Law Business Research 2016, p. 113.

  21. 21.

    Article IV.61, Section 2, 2° CEL; C. Verdonck and S. De Cock, Belgium. In: Knable Gotts (ed), The Merger Control Review, Law Business Research 2016, p. 113.

  22. 22.

    The Law of 6 June 2017 regarding the insertion of a Title 3 ‘Actions for damages for competition law infringements’ in Book XVII of the Code of Economic Law, regarding the insertion of definitions set out in Book XVII, Title 3 and Book I and regarding different modifications to the Code of Economic Law, Belgian Official Journal 16 June 2017, p. 63596 (‘Law implementing Directive 2017/104’).

  23. 23.

    Art. 45 of the Law implementing the Damages Directive.

  24. 24.

    Article 1382 of the Belgian Civil Code, Code Napoléon 3 September 1807; Rb. Kh. Brussel 24 november 2014, A.R.A/08/06816, Commissie/Otis e.a., TBM 2015, 37–46; Brussel 14 januari 2015, 2010/AR/3112, NMBS/Electrabel, TBM 2016, 33–47; Rb. Kh. Brussel 24 april 2015, A/12/02291 en A/12/02293, Belgische Staat/Liftenproducenten, TBM 2015, 212–227; D. Gerard, Belgium. In: K. Gotts (ed), The Private competition enforcement review, Law Business Research Ltd 2016, p. 62.

  25. 25.

    Art. 15 of the Law implementing the Damages Directive.

  26. 26.

    D. Gerard, Belgium. In: K. Gotts (ed), The Private competition enforcement review, Law Business Research Ltd 2016, p. 62.

  27. 27.

    In article 49, §1, 1° of the Royal Decree of 14 January 2013 regarding the determination of the implementation rules of public procurement and of public works concessions, Belgian Official Journal 14 February 2013, err., Belgian Official Journal 26 March 2013, an example of punitive damages can be found.

  28. 28.

    Art. XVII.35–69 CEL; E. De Baere, A. Maertens and K. Willems, Belgische class action. Tien pijnpunten, NJW 2015, pp. 522–535.

  29. 29.

    Procedure laid down in Article XVII.1–34 of the CEL. It concerns summary proceedings and gives rise to a judgment on the merits. However, urgency does not have to be proved to initiate these proceedings.

  30. 30.

    Article IV.16, §2, 2° and 4° of the CEL.

  31. 31.

    BCA, Case MEDE-I/0-15/0002, Immoweb, 7 November 2016.

  32. 32.

    The German Bundeskartellamt and the Higher regional tribunal of Düsseldorf have already decided that online real estate platforms and real estate advertisements in journals constitute separate markets: Bundeskartellamt (2015) Clearance of Merger of Online Real Estate Platforms. http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidung/EN/Fallberichte/Fusionskontrolle/2015/B6-39-15.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. Accessed 5 June 2017.

  33. 33.

    BCA, Case MEDE-I/0-15/0002, Immoweb, 7 November 2016, §13–14.

  34. 34.

    F. E. Gonzalez-Diaz, The law and economics of most-favoured nation clauses, Competition law and policy debate 2015(1), p. 26.

  35. 35.

    Commission Case AT.39847, Ebooks, 25 July 2013.

  36. 36.

    In this case, however, also some other clauses were under investigation that were related to the price offered by the e-book retailers (Amazon and its competitors) at the retail level; Commission Case COMP/AT.40.153, E-books MFNs and related matters, 13 January 2017.

  37. 37.

    See Press release in Commission Case COMP/38427, Pay Television Film Output Agreements: Commission (2004) Press release Commission closes investigation into contracts of six Hollywood studios with European pay-TVs. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-04-1314_en.htm?locale=en. Accessed 19 May 2017.

  38. 38.

    F. E. Gonzalez-Diaz, The law and economics of most-favoured nation clauses, Competition law and policy debate 2015(1), p. 42.

  39. 39.

    Please note that in Commission Case Pay Television Film Output Agreements, the investigation against Universal and Paramount remained open, as they did not offer any commitments.

  40. 40.

    F. E. Gonzalez-Diaz, The law and economics of most-favoured nation clauses, Competition law and policy debate 2015(1), p. 42.

  41. 41.

    European Commission (2017) Staff Working Document to the Final Report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017.

  42. 42.

    F. E. Gonzalez-Diaz, The law and economics of most-favoured nation clauses, Competition law and policy debate 2015(1), p. 42.

  43. 43.

    BCA (2017) Evaluation des seuils de notification des concentrations en Belgique, p. 5. https://www.belgiancompetition.be/sites/default/files/content/download/files/20170516_evaluation_seuils.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  44. 44.

    E.g. Commission case M.7217, Facebook/Whatsapp, 3 October 2014.

  45. 45.

    European Commission (2017) Staff Working Document to the Final Report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry, §635–636. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017.

  46. 46.

    BCA (2017) Evaluation des seuils de notification des concentrations en Belgique, p. 5. https://www.belgiancompetition.be/sites/default/files/content/download/files/20170516_evaluation_seuils.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  47. 47.

    BCA (2017) Evaluation des seuils de notification des concentrations en Belgique, p. 5. https://www.belgiancompetition.be/sites/default/files/content/download/files/20170516_evaluation_seuils.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  48. 48.

    This section does not give an exhaustive overview of all Belgian merger decisions in which online sales have been discussed. The research was focused on decisions from 2010 in the wholesale/retail sectors and the sector of media, telecommunication and ICT.

  49. 49.

    In the BCA’s Nationale Loterij case, it was also found that the physical and non-physical distribution of sports betting belonged to separate product markets. However, this case did not concern a merger, but a complaint of infringement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and their Belgian equivalents; BCA, Case MEDE-P/K-13/0012 and CONC-P/K-13/0013, Stanleybet Belgium NV/Stanley International Betting Ltd en Sagevas S.A./World Football Association S.P.R.L./Samenwerkende Nevenmaatschappij Belgische PMU S.C.R.L. t. Nationale Loterij NV, 22 September 2015.

  50. 50.

    BCA, Case CONC-C/C-12/0004, Rexel Belgium SA/La Grange Beheer SA – Immo LG SPRL, 21 May 2012, §40–41.

  51. 51.

    BCA, Case CONC-C/C-12/0004, Rexel Belgium SA/La Grange Beheer SA – Immo LG SPRL, 21 May 2012, §41.

  52. 52.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-11/0010, Belgacom NV/Wireless Technologies BVBA, 23 June 2015.

  53. 53.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-11/0010, Belgacom NV/Wireless Technologies BVBA, 23 December 2011; C. Verdonck and S. De Cock, Belgium. In: Knable Gotts (ed), The Merger Control Review, Law Business Research 2016, p. 107–108.

  54. 54.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-11/0010, Belgacom NV/Wireless Technologies BVBA, 23 June 2015.

  55. 55.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-11/0010, Belgacom NV/Wireless Technologies BVBA, 23 June 2015, §115.

  56. 56.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-11/0010, Belgacom NV/Wireless Technologies BVBA, 23 June 2015, §117.

  57. 57.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-11/0010, Belgacom NV/Wireless Technologies BVBA, 23 June 2015, §158.

  58. 58.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-11/0010, Belgacom NV/Wireless Technologies BVBA, 23 June 2015, §158.

  59. 59.

    Proximus agreed into the following commitments: (i) to give competitors using The Phone House network the right to withdraw from the network without any repercussions and within a relatively short time frame; (ii) to inform consumers in a clear way about which competitors would still offer services through the respective The Phone House points of sale; (iii) to clearly inform customers when a respective point of sale would become an exclusive Proximus point of sale; and (iv) to appoint a Monitoring Trustee; C. Verdonck and S. De Cock, Belgium. In: Knable Gotts (ed), The Merger Control Review, Law Business Research 2016, p. 108.

  60. 60.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-11/0010, Belgacom NV/Wireless Technologies BVBA, 23 December 2011.

  61. 61.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-11/0010, Belgacom NV/Wireless Technologies BVBA, 23 June 2015, §280–284; C. Verdonck and S. De Cock, Belgium. In: Knable Gotts (ed), The Merger Control Review, Law Business Research 2016, p. 108.

  62. 62.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-10, Delhaize NV/Koninklijke Ahold NV, 15 March 2016.

  63. 63.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-10, Delhaize NV/Koninklijke Ahold NV, 15 March 2016, §16–18, §39.

  64. 64.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-10, Delhaize NV/Koninklijke Ahold NV, 15 March 2016, §18.

  65. 65.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-10, Delhaize NV/Koninklijke Ahold NV, 15 March 2016, §22 and §46.

  66. 66.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-10, Delhaize NV/Koninklijke Ahold NV, 15 March 2016, §47.

  67. 67.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-10, Delhaize NV/Koninklijke Ahold NV, 15 March 2016, §48–49.

  68. 68.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-10, Delhaize NV/Koninklijke Ahold NV, 15 March 2016, §104.

  69. 69.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-10, Delhaize NV/Koninklijke Ahold NV, 15 March 2016, §105.

  70. 70.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-10, Delhaize NV/Koninklijke Ahold NV, 15 March 2016, §136.

  71. 71.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-10, Delhaize NV/Koninklijke Ahold NV, 15 March 2016, §150.

  72. 72.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-14/0007, Acquisition of Club NV and Club Luxemburg SA by ZuidNederlandse Uitgeverij NV and Standaard Boekhandel NV, 10 June 2014, §64.

  73. 73.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-14/0007, Acquisition of Club NV and Club Luxemburg SA by ZuidNederlandse Uitgeverij NV and Standaard Boekhandel NV, 10 June 2014, §63.

  74. 74.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-14/0007, Acquisition of Club NV and Club Luxemburg SA by ZuidNederlandse Uitgeverij NV and Standaard Boekhandel NV, 10 June 2014, §59 and 60.

  75. 75.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-14/0007, Acquisition of Club NV and Club Luxemburg SA by ZuidNederlandse Uitgeverij NV and Standaard Boekhandel NV, 10 June 2014, §69.

  76. 76.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-14/0007, Acquisition of Club NV and Club Luxemburg SA by ZuidNederlandse Uitgeverij NV and Standaard Boekhandel NV, 10 June 2014, §70.

  77. 77.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-14/0007, Acquisition of Club NV and Club Luxemburg SA by ZuidNederlandse Uitgeverij NV and Standaard Boekhandel NV, 10 June 2014, §131.

  78. 78.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-14/0007, Acquisition of Club NV and Club Luxemburg SA by ZuidNederlandse Uitgeverij NV and Standaard Boekhandel NV, 10 June 2014, §140.

  79. 79.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-14/0007, Acquisition of Club NV and Club Luxemburg SA by ZuidNederlandse Uitgeverij NV and Standaard Boekhandel NV, 10 June 2014, §141.

  80. 80.

    BCA, Case MEDE-C/C-14/0007, Acquisition of Club NV and Club Luxemburg SA by ZuidNederlandse Uitgeverij NV and Standaard Boekhandel NV, 10 June 2014, §150.

  81. 81.

    BCA, Case CONC-C/C-16/0035, Cebeo NV/Group Cheyns NV and Cheyns NV, 14 December 2016, §94.

  82. 82.

    BCA, Case CONC-C/C-16/0035, Cebeo NV/Group Cheyns NV and Cheyns NV, 14 December 2016, §136–149.

  83. 83.

    BCA, Case CONC-C/C-16/0035, Cebeo NV/Group Cheyns NV and Cheyns NV, 14 December 2016, §20.

  84. 84.

    BCA, Case CONC-C/C-16/0035, Cebeo NV/Group Cheyns NV and Cheyns NV, 14 December 2016, §66.

  85. 85.

    BCA, Case CONC-C/C-16/0035, Cebeo NV/Group Cheyns NV and Cheyns NV, 14 December 2016, §66.

  86. 86.

    European Commission (2017) Staff working document on the E-commerce sector inquiry, §463. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  87. 87.

    European Commission (2017) Staff working document on the E-commerce sector inquiry, §470. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  88. 88.

    Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, §54.

  89. 89.

    Guidelines on Restraints, §54.

  90. 90.

    N. Petit and D. Henry, Vertical Restraints under EU Competition Law: conceptual foundations and practical framework. In: Gheur and Petit (Eds), Vertical restraints and distribution agreements under EU competition law, Bruylant 2011, pp. 123–168.

  91. 91.

    European Commission (2017) Staff working document on the E-commerce sector inquiry, §467. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  92. 92.

    European Commission (2017) Staff working document on the E-commerce sector inquiry, §509. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  93. 93.

    European Commission (2017) Final Report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry, §41. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_final_report_en.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017.

  94. 94.

    European Commission (2017) Final Report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry, §43. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_final_report_en.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017.

  95. 95.

    European Commission (2017) Staff working document on the E-commerce sector inquiry, §502–503. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  96. 96.

    CJUE, C-439/09, Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS v. Président de l’Autorité de la Concurrence, ECR 2011 I-09419, pt 47.

  97. 97.

    CJEU, C-230/16, Coty Germany vs. Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, 6 December 2017; The Advocate General’s opinion has been published on 26 July 2017. Advocate General Wahl has followed the viewpoint of the Commission in its E-commerce sector inquiry report to the following extent. First, he states that restrictions of use of online sales platforms may constitute infringements of article 101§1 of the TFEU, but the effects of the restrictions on competition have to be examined. Restrictions on the use of online sales platforms do not have to be classified as restrictions by object. Second, the restriction on the use of online sales platforms at issue in this case does not amount to the hardcore restrictions of competition law under Article 4, b) and c) of Regulation 330/2010. The Court of Justice’s ruling goes in the same direction. It decides that Article 101§1 of the TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a contractual clause which prohibited authorized distributors in a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed to preserve the luxury image of those goods from using in a discernible manner third-party platforms for the internet sales of the contract goods, on the conditions (1) that the clause has the objective of preserving the luxury image of those goods, (2) that it is laid down uniformly and not applied in a discriminatory fashion and (3) that it is proportionate in the light of the objective pursued.

  98. 98.

    European Commission (2017) Staff working document on the E-commerce sector inquiry, §442, §449–451, §456. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  99. 99.

    European Commission (2017) Staff working document on the E-commerce sector inquiry, §490–492. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  100. 100.

    European Commission (2017) Final Report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry, §13 and §56. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_final_report_en.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017; R. Eccles, Online sales and competition law controls, International Journal of Franchising Law 2015 (13), p. 7; T. Kramler, The European Commission’s E-commerce sector inquiry, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2017, p. 81.

  101. 101.

    European Commission (2017) Final Report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry, §12. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_final_report_en.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017.

  102. 102.

    European Commission (2017) Final Report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry, §13. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_final_report_en.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017.

  103. 103.

    One might think of artificial intelligence, robots, self-driving cars, smartphones integrated in the human body.

  104. 104.

    The current Regulation 330/2010 expires on 31 May 2022.

  105. 105.

    Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations (EC) No 2006/2004 and (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC (‘Geo-blocking regulation’).

  106. 106.

    ECN (2017) Outcome of the meeting of ECN DG’s on 17-02-2017. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/ECN_meeting_outcome_17022017.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Altius, Brussels, Belgium

    Steffie De Cock

Authors
  1. Steffie De Cock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffie De Cock .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Addleshaw Goddard LLP, London, United Kingdom

    Bruce Kilpatrick

  2. Kobel Avocat Attorney-at-law, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pierre Kobel

  3. Këllezi Legal, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pranvera Këllezi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

De Cock, S. (2018). Belgium. In: Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P., Këllezi, P. (eds) Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71419-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71419-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71418-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71419-6

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation