Austria

Fussenegger, Gerhard

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54000-4_2

Gerhard Fussenegger⁵

Part of the book series: LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition ((LIDC))

487 Accesses

Abstract

SMEs are not legally defined in Austria in the Austrian legislation on the protection of competition. Therefore, also in accordance with practice in Austria, the answers in Table 2.1 refer to the definition of SME as defined by the European Commission.

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)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Recommendation 2003/361/EC.
2.
See Wirtschaftskammer Österreich (Austrian Economic Chambers), “KMU-Daten für Österreich” available at http://wko.at/Statistik/KMU/WKO-BeschStatK.pdf.
3.
Judgment of the Cartel Court of 28 October 2005, case number 25 Kt 30/05-18, ‘Grazer Fahrschulen’. The judgment is not published. Graz is the second biggest city in Austria with approximately 260,000 inhabitants.
4.
Judgment of the Cartel Court of 29 August 2008, ‘Innsbrucker Fahrschulen’. The judgment and its case number is not published. Innsbruck is the fifth biggest city in Austria with approximately 120,000 inhabitants.
5.
See http://www.bwb.gv.at/Seiten/default.aspx.
6.
Cf. judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 12 December 2011, case number 16 Ok 8/10, ‘Radiusklausel II’.
7.
Bundesgesetz gegen Kartelle und andere Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, BGBl. I Nr. 61/2005, available at http://www.bwb.gv.at/Fachinformationen/rechtlicheGrundlagen/Seiten/Kartellgesetz.aspx.
8.
Referring to EU law, which defines dominance as “the power to behave independently of its competitors, customers and consumer”; see, e.g., ECJ case C-27/76, United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission, ECR 1978, p. 207, pt 65.
9.
Judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 16 July 2008, case number 16 Ok 3/08, ‘Bayrische Staatsforste’.
10.
Reg. BGBL 1989/185.
11.
Judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 4 October 2010, case number 16 Ok 5/10, ‘Printing Chemicals’.
12.
Judgement of the Supreme Court of 6 November 2011, case number 5 Ob 154/07v.
13.
Judgements of the Cartel Supreme Court of 12 September 2007, case number 16 Ok 4/07 and of 15 July 2009, case number 16 Ok 6/09, ‘Pressegrosso I’.
14.
Judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 4 October 2010, case number 16 Ok 5/10, ‘Printing Chemicals’.
15.
Referral for a preliminary ruling of Cartel Court of 12 October 2012, case number 29 Kt 5/09.
16.
ECJ, case C-360/09, Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt, ECR 2011 I-5161.
17.
Which is the second antitrust law in Austria besides the Cartel Act.
18.
Referral for a preliminary ruling of the Cartel Supreme Court of 5 December 2011, case number 16 Ok 4/11, Freight Forwarding Cartel.
19.
Judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 8 October 2008, case number 16 Ok 5/08, Elevator Cartel.
20.
Judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 25 March 2009, case number 16 Ok 4/09, Chemical Industry Wholesale Cartel.
21.
See, e.g., judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 25 March 2009, case number 16 Ok 4/09, Chemical Industry Wholesale Cartel.
22.
See, e.g., judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 8 October 2008, case number 16 Ok 5/08, Elevator Cartel.
23.
Judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 4 October 2010, case number 16 Ok 5/10, Printing Chemicals.
24.
Judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 12 September 2007, case number 16 Ok 4/07, Europay.
25.
Judgment of the Cartel Supreme Court of 25 March 2009, case number 16 Ok 4/09, Chemical Industry Wholesale Cartel.
26.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 14 February 2012, case number 5 Ob 39/11p.
27.
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
28.
E.g., in relation to requests for remedy of cartel behaviour according to Section 26 in connection with Section 36 Austrian Cartel Act.
29.
See Section 29 Austrian consumer protection act (‘Konsumentenschutzgesetz’).
30.
See, e.g., the judgment of the Supreme Court of 31 March 2005, case number 3 Ob 275/04v, according to which different claimants can act within one proceeding if the respective claims issue the same factual or legal issues, which have an effect on the subject (or an essential preliminary question) of the proceedings.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

bpv Hügel Rechtsanwälte OG, Brussels, Belgium
Gerhard Fussenegger

Authors

Gerhard Fussenegger
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerhard Fussenegger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Geneva, Switzerland
Pranvera Këllezi
Addleshaw Goddard, London, United Kingdom
Bruce Kilpatrick
Etude Hirsch Kobel, Geneva, Switzerland
Pierre Kobel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fussenegger, G. (2014). Austria. In: Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P. (eds) Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54000-4_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54000-4_2
Published: 15 February 2014
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-53999-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54000-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics