Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Application of the Rules on Competition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Services and the European Union

Part of the book series: Legal Issues of Services of General Interest ((LEGAL))

  • 833 Accesses

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to analyse the application of competition rules to welfare services and to analyse whether a sufficient equilibrium between social and economic aspects is ensured. First the scope of competition rules and to whom these rules apply is examined. Defining the concept of an undertaking and determining what is economic and what is not is not an easy task. The concept of undertaking is a dynamic one and the organisation of welfare is in continuous flux. Since the protection of social aspects cannot be afforded by their total exclusion from competition rules it is interesting to analyse whether the competition rules provide sufficient safeguards to avoid endangering the effective provision of welfare. Furthermore, the application of competition articles to welfare services, the extent of protection granted through competition rules and the kind of safeguards competition rules contain are examined. The competition article of primary importance when it comes to an analysis of welfare services is however Article 106 TFEU (ex Article 86 EC) because it contains a justification. An analysis of the proportionality principle is meant to determine to what extent competition can be restricted. Furthermore, since welfare services require state involvement and state financing, state aid rules are examined.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    Gerber 1998.

  2. 2.

    European Commission, I. Report on competition policy 1971, 1–12 cited in Van den Bergh and Camesasca 2001, p. 50.

  3. 3.

    XXIXth Report on Competition Policy 1999, p. 9.

  4. 4.

    Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty [2003] OJ L 001/1.

  5. 5.

    According to Article 1 of the Regulation (EC) 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty [2003] OJ L 001/1, the exemption contained in Article 81(3) is no longer in force since:’Agreements, decisions and concerted practices caught by Article 81(1) of the Treaty which satisfy the conditions of Article 81(3) of the Treaty shall not be prohibited, no prior decision to that effect being required.’

  6. 6.

    Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty, 2004/C 101/08, point 33.

  7. 7.

    For the development of EC Competition law see Gerber 1998.

  8. 8.

    Van den Bergh and Camesasca 2001, p. 7.

  9. 9.

    Scharpf 1999, p. 197.

  10. 10.

    Jones and Sufrin 2008, p. 129, Odudu 2006, Louri 2002, pp. 143–176, Winterstein 1999, pp. 332–333, Karl 2002, Baquero Cruz 2005, Lasok 2004, pp. 383–385, Nihoul 2000, pp. 408–414, Belhaj and Van de Gronden 2004, pp. 682–687, Slot 2003, pp. 580–593 and Bartosch 2007, pp. 563–570.

  11. 11.

    Case C-41/90 Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979, para 21; This definition was reiterated in Joined Cases C-159–160/91 Poucet and Pistre v. Assurances Generales de France [1993] ECR I-637, para 17; Case C-364/92 SAT Fluggesellschaft v. Eurocontrol [1994] ECR I-43, para 18; Joined Cases C-180–184/98 Pavlov v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-6451, para 74; Case 218/00 Cisal di Batistello Venanzio &Co v. Instituto Nazionale per L’Assicurazione Contro Gli Fortuni Sul Lavoro (INAIL) [2002] ECR I-691, para 22.

  12. 12.

    C-475/99 Ambulanz Glöckner [2001] ECR I-8089, para 1; Joined cases C-180/98–C-184/98 Pavlov v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-6451, para 75.

  13. 13.

    Case C-41/90 Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., para 22.

  15. 15.

    Case C-475/99 Ambulanz Glöckner [2001] ECR I-8089, para 10.

  16. 16.

    See Opinions of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-475/99 Ambulanz Glöckner [2001] ECR I-8089 para 67 and Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 AOK-Bundesverband and Others [2004] ECR I-2493, para 27; and Opinion of Advocate General Maduro delivered in Case C-205/03 P, Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR I-6295, para 12.

  17. 17.

    See Opinion of Advocate General Maduro in Case C-205/03 P, Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR I-6295, para 13.

  18. 18.

    Case 118/85 Commission v. Italy [1987] ECR 2599, para 7.

  19. 19.

    Joined cases C-180/98–C-184/98 Pavlov v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-645.

  20. 20.

    Case C-475/99 Ambulanz Glöckner [2001] ECR I-8089, para 19.

  21. 21.

    Joined Cases C-180/98–C-184/98 Pavlov v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-6451, para 75. See also C-309/99 Wouters v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten [2002] ECR I-1577, para 47, and Case C-82/01 P Aéroports de Paris v. Commission [2002] ECR I-9297, para 79.

  22. 22.

    AG Jacobs in his Opinion delivered in Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01, AOK Bundesverband and Others v. Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, [2003] ECR I-2493, para 26.

  23. 23.

    Case C-41/90 Höfner v. Macroton [1991] ECR I-1979.

  24. 24.

    Case C-244/94 Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurance, Société Paternelle-Vie, Union des Assurances de Paris-Vie and Caisse d'Assurance et de Prévoyance Mutuelle des Agriculteurs v. Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche [1995] ECR I-4013.

  25. 25.

    Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfpensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751.

  26. 26.

    Case C-475/99 Ambulanz Glöckner [2001] ECR I-8089.

  27. 27.

    Case C-41/90 Höfner v. Macroton [1991] ECR I-1979.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., para 22.

  29. 29.

    Berend Jan Drijber 2005, pp. 523–533, 528.

  30. 30.

    Case C-343/95 Diego Calì v. SEPG [1997] ECR I-1547; Case C-364/92 SAT Fluggesellschaft v. Eurocontrol [1994] ECR I-43; Case 30/87 Corrinne Bodson v. Pompes Funebres des Regions Liberees SA [1998] ECR 2479; Case T-155/04 SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v. Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR II-4797.

  31. 31.

    Winterstein 1999, pp. 326–327.

  32. 32.

    Case C-364/92 SAT Fluggesellschaft v. Eurocontrol [1994] ECR I-43.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., para 27.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., para 30.

  35. 35.

    Case C-343/95 Diego Calì e Figli Srl v. SEPG [1997] ECR I-1547.

  36. 36.

    Buendia Sierra 1998, 6.

  37. 37.

    Joined cases C-159–160/91 Poucet and Pistre v. Asserances Generales de France [1993] ECR I-637; Case C-218/00 Cisal di Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v. Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) [2002] ECR I-691; Joined cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 AOK Bundesverband et all v. Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co [2004] ECR I-2493.

  38. 38.

    Article 3 para 1 was repealed by TFEU and replaced, in substance, by Articles 3–6 TFEU.

  39. 39.

    Ibid.

  40. 40.

    Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfpensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751; Case C-244/94 Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurance et all v. Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche [1995] ECR I-4013; Joined Cases C 159–160/91, Poucet and Pistre v. Asserances Generales de France [1993] ECR I-637.

  41. 41.

    AG Jacobs in his Opinion in Joined Cases C-115/97–C-117/97 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751.

  42. 42.

    Joined Cases C 159-160/91 Poucet and Pistre v. Asserances Generales de France [1993] ECR I-637.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., para 9.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para 10.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., paras 11, 12.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., para 15.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., para 15.

  48. 48.

    Case C-244/94 Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurance and others v. Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche [1995] ECR I-4013.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., para 8.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., para 9.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., para 11.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., para 19; the Court noted that this kind of solidarity manifested through the exemption from payment of contributions in case of sickness, or the suspension of payment for reasons connected with economic situation already existed in certain groups of life insurance policies.

  53. 53.

    Case C-244/94 Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurance and others v. Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche [1995] ECR I-4013.

  54. 54.

    Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfpensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., para.73.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., para.73.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., para.74.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., para 75.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., para 74.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., para 82.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., para 81.

  62. 62.

    Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfpensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751, para 83.

  63. 63.

    Joined cases C-115/97–C-117/97 Brentjens' Handelsonderneming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen [1999] ECR I-6025.

  64. 64.

    Case C-219/97 Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken BV v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer [1999] ECR I-6121.

  65. 65.

    Joined cases C-180/98–C-184/98 Pavlov v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-6451.

  66. 66.

    Case C-218/00 Cisal di Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v. Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) [2002] ECR I-691.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., para 25.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., para 14.

  69. 69.

    Case C-218/00 Cisal di Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v. Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) [2002] ECR I-691, para 28.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., para 36.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., para 14.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., para 14.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., para 28.

  74. 74.

    Ibid.

  75. 75.

    Ibid.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., para 42.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., para 30.

  78. 78.

    Ibid.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., para 44.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., para 37.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., para 45.

  82. 82.

    Case C-350/07 Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v. Maschinenbau- und Metall- Berufsgenossenschaft [2009] ECR I-1513.

  83. 83.

    Case C-350/07 Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v. Maschinenbau- und Metall- Berufsgenossenschaft [2009] ECR I-1513.

  84. 84.

    Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfpensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751, para 74.

  85. 85.

    PSW (the Wet van 15 mei 1962 houdende regelen betreffende pensioen- en spaarvoorzieningen (Law of 15 May 1962 on pension and savings funds).

  86. 86.

    Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavlov v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-6451.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., para 85.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., para 87.

  89. 89.

    Case C-218/00 Cisal di Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v. Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), [2002] ECR I-691.

  90. 90.

    Joined cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK) and Others v. Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co [2004] ECR I-2493; See Krajewski and Farley 2004, pp. 842–851.

  91. 91.

    Case C-350/07 Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v. Maschinenbau- und Metall- Berufsgenossenschaft [2009] ECR I-1513.

  92. 92.

    Case T-319/99 Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities, [2003] ECR II-357, case which was appealed and it was dismissed by the ECJ in Case C-205/03 P, Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities, [2006] ECR I-6295; see also Krajewski and Farley 2007, pp. 111–124, Van de Gronden 2004, Louri 2005, pp. 87–97, Roth 2007, pp. 1131–1142.

  93. 93.

    Case T-319/99 Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities, [2003] ECR II-357.

  94. 94.

    Buendia Sierra 1999.

  95. 95.

    Case C-411/98 Ferlini [2000] ECR I-8081.

  96. 96.

    Case T-319/99 Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN v. Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II-357, para 30.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., para 32.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., para 33.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., para 36.

  100. 100.

    Ibid., para 39.

  101. 101.

    Ibid., paras 43, 44.

  102. 102.

    Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Case C-205/03 P, Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities, [2006] ECR I-6295, para 40.

  103. 103.

    In sustaining this he mentions previous case-law: AOK-Bundesverband and Others, para 58, and Case 118/85 Commission v. Italy, para 7; point 114 of the Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas in Case C-411/98 Ferlini [2000] ECR I-8081.

  104. 104.

    Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Case C-205/03 P, Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities, [2006] ECR I-6295, para 47.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., para 54.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., para 62.

  107. 107.

    Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Case C-205/03 P Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR I-6295, para 64.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., para 65.

  109. 109.

    Roth 2007, p. 1138.

  110. 110.

    Ibid., 1139.

  111. 111.

    See Mortelmans 2001.

  112. 112.

    Roth 2007, p. 1139.

  113. 113.

    Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered in Case C-205/03 P, Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR I-6295, para 66.

  114. 114.

    Roth 2007, p. 1139.

  115. 115.

    Krajewski and Farley 2007, pp. 111–124; see also Van de Gronden 2004, pp. 87–94; Winterstein 1999, pp. 332–333. In this context see also Karl 2002, pp. 169–171.

  116. 116.

    Krajewski and Farley 2007, p. 120.

  117. 117.

    Bettercare Group Ltd v. Director General of Fair Trading, Case 1006/2/1/01, August 1, 2002; This decision can be found at www.catribunal.org.uk/ (click ‘Judgments’, then search for ‘Bettercare’); see Currie and Bright 2003, pp. 111–124; Van de Gronden 2004, pp. 87–94; Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Case C-205/03 P, Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities, [2006] ECR I-6295, para 24; Prosser 2005.

  118. 118.

    Louri 2005, pp. 87–97, quoting Case No. 1006/2/1/01, BetterCare Group Limited v. Director General of Fair Trading, 1 August 2002, para 190.

  119. 119.

    Case CE/1836-02, BetterCare Group Ltd/North & West Belfast Health & Social Services Trust (Remitted case), 18 December 2003.

  120. 120.

    Policy note 1/2004, The Competition Act 1998 and public bodies, January 2004, OFT443.

  121. 121.

    Louri 2005, p. 95.

  122. 122.

    Decision of the NMa of 10 March 2000, Case No. 181/Ontheffingsaanvraag Zorgkantoren, as quoted by Louri 2005, pp. 87–97.

  123. 123.

    Ibid., 94.

  124. 124.

    Van de Gronden 2004, pp. 87–94.

  125. 125.

    Joined cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01, AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK) and Others v. Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co [2004] ECR I-2493; See Lasok 2004, pp. 383–385; Belhaj and Van de Gronden 2004, pp. 682–687; Slot 2003, pp. 580–593.

  126. 126.

    Joined cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK) and Others v. Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co [2004] ECR I-2493, para 7.

  127. 127.

    Ibid., para 8.

  128. 128.

    Ibid., para 10.

  129. 129.

    Ibid., paras 13–17.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., paras 38–43.

  131. 131.

    Ibid., para 47.

  132. 132.

    This issue is addressed by the Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings OJ L312/47 which will be discussed later.

  133. 133.

    Belhaj and Van de Gronden 2004, p. 685.

  134. 134.

    Ibid., pp. 682–687.

  135. 135.

    Joined cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK) and Others v. Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co [2004] ECR I-2493, para 40.

  136. 136.

    Case C-76/05 Marga Gootjes-Schwarz v. Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach [2007] ECR I-6849.

  137. 137.

    Case C-372/04 The Queen on the application of Yvonne Watts v. Bedford Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health [2006] ECR I-4325.

  138. 138.

    Szyszczak 1990, p. 868.

  139. 139.

    Louri 2002, p. 165.

  140. 140.

    Ibid.

  141. 141.

    See C-380/98 The Queen v. H.M. Treasury, ex parte The University of Cambridge [2000] ECR I-8035.

  142. 142.

    Case T-155/04 SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v. Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR II-4797, para 54.

  143. 143.

    Case T-155/04 SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v. Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR II-4797; See also Case 107/84 Commission v. Germany [1985] ECR 2655, paras 14, 15, and Case T-128/98 Aéroports de Paris v. Commission [2000] ECR II-3929, para 108.

  144. 144.

    Case T-155/04 SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v. Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR II-4797, para 61.

  145. 145.

    Ibid., paras 86–92.

  146. 146.

    For the implications of the functional approach see Spaventa 2003, pp. 271–291 and Hatzopoulos 2002, pp. 683–729.

  147. 147.

    Winterstein 1999, p. 336.

  148. 148.

    Ibid., 338.

  149. 149.

    Joined cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK) and Others v. Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co [2004] ECR I-2493.

  150. 150.

    Case T-319/99 Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities, [2003] ECR II-357.

  151. 151.

    Gyselen 2000, p. 439.

  152. 152.

    Opinion of Advocate General Maduro in Case C-205/03 P Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities, [2006] ECR I-6295, para 30.

  153. 153.

    Krajewski and Farley 2007, pp. 111–124.

  154. 154.

    Ibid.

  155. 155.

    See the problem of the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ in Bishop and Walker 2002, p. 28.

  156. 156.

    For a discussion of effective competition see Bishop and Walker 2002, pp. 11–41.

  157. 157.

    Bishop and Walker 2002, pp. 11–41.

  158. 158.

    If the four conditions contained in Article 81(3) are fulfilled, the prohibition contained in Article 81(1) does not apply to an agreement. Initially Article 81(3) was an exemption and agreements could benefit of an individual exemption granted by the Commission after the agreement was previously notified or of a block exemption granted by the Commission to certain categories of agreements. The Commission had the power to grant such exemptions. However, Regulation 1/2003 grants the Commission, the national courts and the national competition authorities the right to apply Article 81(3) EC, without the need to notify in advance the agreement.

  159. 159.

    Case 13/77 GB-INNO v. ATAB [1977] ECR 2115.

  160. 160.

    Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law, OJ C 372 on 9 December 1997, para 2.

  161. 161.

    SSNIP test is used by the competition authorities to determine the relevant market. It stands for a Small but Significant Non-transitory Increase in Price. In the Commission Notice on the Definition of the Relevant Market for the Purposes of Community Competition Law [1997] OJ C372/5, the test is applied to determine the relevant market by determining whether the customers would switch to other substitutes or other suppliers as a response to a hypothetical small but permanent increase in price in the products and areas under consideration. See also Bishop 1997.

  162. 162.

    Commission Notice on the Definition of the Relevant Market for the Purposes of Community Competition Law [1997] OJ C372/5.

  163. 163.

    According to Ted Marmor ‘the very term managed competition is somewhat oxymoronic. Competition requires the freedom of actors to negotiate about prices and volumes of their goods and services whereas regulation seeks to restrain that freedom’ (in Marmor and Maynard 1994, as quoted by Grass et al. 2001).

  164. 164.

    Enthoven 1988.

  165. 165.

    Bartelsman and Ten Cate 1997, pp. 34–38.

  166. 166.

    Temple Lang 1997, 2006, Gormley 2000 and Constantinesco 1987.

  167. 167.

    See Case 13/77 GB-INNO-BM v. ATAB [1977] ECR 2115.

  168. 168.

    See Case 267/86 Van Eycke v. Aspa [1998] ECR 4796.

  169. 169.

    Case 13/77 GB-INNO-BM v. ATAB [1977] ECR 2115, para 33.

  170. 170.

    Maduro 1998.

  171. 171.

    Case 267/86 Paul Van Eycke v. ASPA NV [1988] ECR 4769.

  172. 172.

    Article 10 EC was repealed and replaced by Article 4(3) TFEU.

  173. 173.

    Case C-245/91 Ohra Schadeverzekeringen NV [1993] ECR I-5851.

  174. 174.

    Case C-2/91 Meng [1993] ECR I-5751.

  175. 175.

    Repealed and replaced in substance by Article 4(3) TEU.

  176. 176.

    Ibid., para 19.

  177. 177.

    Advocate General Jacobs in Albany laid down three conditions for ipso facto immunity: the agreement must be made within the formal framework of collective bargaining between both sides of industry; the agreement should be concluded in good faith; and it must ‘delimit the scope of collective bargaining immunity, so that the immunity extends to those agreements for which is truly justified’., paras 190–194.

  178. 178.

    Case 26/76 Metro [1977] ECR 1875, para 43; Case 42/84 Remia v Commission [1985] ECR 2545, para 42; Synthetic Fibres, OJ 1984 L 207, 17, para 37; and Ford/Volkswagen, OJ 1993 L 20, 14, para 23.

  179. 179.

    Joined cases C-115/97 to C-117/97 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie, [1999] ECR I-5751.

  180. 180.

    Joined cases C-115/97–C-117/97 Brentjens' Handelsonderneming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen, [1999] ECR I-6025.

  181. 181.

    Case C-219/97 Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken BV v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer [1999] ECR I-6121.

  182. 182.

    Case C-35/99 Arduino [2002] ECR I-1529.

  183. 183.

    Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Federico Cipolla and Others v. Rosaria Fazari, née Portolese, and Roberto Meloni [2006] ECR I-11421.

  184. 184.

    Article 10 EC was repealed and replaced by Article 4(3) TFEU.

  185. 185.

    Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered in Case C-35/99 Arduino [2002] ECR I-1529.

  186. 186.

    Article 10 EC was repealed and replaced by Article 4(3) TFEU.

  187. 187.

    Ibid., para 91.

  188. 188.

    Maduro 1998, p. 29.

  189. 189.

    Ibid.

  190. 190.

    Article 10 EC was repealed and replaced in substance with Article 4(3) TFEU.

  191. 191.

    Case 42/84 Remia v. Commission [1985] ECR 2545; Case C-250/92 Gøttrup-Klim [1994] ECR I-5641.

  192. 192.

    For the rule of reason see Odudu 2002, pp. 100–105 and Monti 2002, pp. 1057–1099.

  193. 193.

    See Metropole.

  194. 194.

    See Wouters and Meca Medina.

  195. 195.

    Joined Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, R-384/94 ENS, Eurostar, EPS, UIC and SNCF v. Commission (European night services) [2008] ECR II-311.

  196. 196.

    Korah 1986, pp. 92–93.

  197. 197.

    S.1 of the Sherman Act (Act of July 2, 1890) establishes that: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal…".

  198. 198.

    Joliet 1967, p. 5.

  199. 199.

    Ibid.

  200. 200.

    Areeda 1986.

  201. 201.

    Black 1997, pp. 145–161, Forrester and Norral 1984, Gyselen 1984, Kon 1982, Manzini 2002, pp. 392–399, Schechter 1982, Steindorf 1984 and Whish and Sufrin 1987.

  202. 202.

    Manzini 2002, pp. 392–399.

  203. 203.

    Ibid.

  204. 204.

    Wesseling 2005.

  205. 205.

    Jones and Sufrin 2004 , p. 182.

  206. 206.

    Case 56/65 La Technique Miniere v. Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 35.

  207. 207.

    Case C-399/93 OudeLuttikhuis [1985] ECR I-4515 para 10; See also Case C-250/92 Goettrup-Klim & Co. [1994] ECR I-5641.

  208. 208.

    Cases C-56 and 58/64 Consten-Grundig v. Commission [1966] ECR 341.

  209. 209.

    Case C-26/76 Metro v. Commission [1977] ECR 1875.

  210. 210.

    Case T-112/99 Métropole télévision (M6), Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux, France Télécom and Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) v. Commission of the European Communities [2001] ECR II-02459, para 107.

  211. 211.

    White Paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty [1999] OJ C132/1, para 57.

  212. 212.

    Joliet 1967.

  213. 213.

    Case C-309/99 Wouters v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten [2002] ECR I-1577; See also Vossestein 2002, pp. 841–863, Denman 2002), Andrews 2002, pp. 281–285 and O’Loughlin 2003, pp. 62–69.

  214. 214.

    Case C-309/99 Wouters v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten [2002] ECR I-1577, para 97.

  215. 215.

    Ibid.

  216. 216.

    Ibid., para 110.

  217. 217.

    Advocate General Leger in his Opinion in Case C-309/99 Wouters v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, [2002] ECR I-1577, para 105.

  218. 218.

    See Nazzini 2006, p. 524.

  219. 219.

    Case C-519/04 P Meca Medina [2006] ECR I-6991.

  220. 220.

    Ibid., para 45.

  221. 221.

    Commission Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance which do not Appreciably Restrict Competition Under Article 81(1) [2001] OJ C 368/13.

  222. 222.

    Case C-185/91 Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr v. Gebrüder Reiff GmbH & Co. KG. [1993] ECR I-5801.

  223. 223.

    Article 10 EC was repealed and changed in substance by Article 4(3) TEU.

  224. 224.

    Communication from the Commission ‘Report on Competition in Professional Services’ COM (2004) 83 final, para 37.

  225. 225.

    Ibid., paras 38, 39.

  226. 226.

    Professional Services—Scope for more. Follow-up on Comptition in Professional services (SEC (2005) 1064).

  227. 227.

    Case 8/72 Vereeniging van Cementhandelaren v. Commission of the European Communities [1972] ECR 977.

  228. 228.

    Commission decision relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty concerning case COMP/A.38549—Belgian Architects' Association, [2005] OJ 4/10.

  229. 229.

    Czech Office for Protection of Competition, Press Releases, February 17, 2003; available at: http://www.compet.cz/en/information-centre/press-releases/competition/czech-medical-chamber-fined-450000-czk/.

  230. 230.

    German Competition Authority, Press Releases, April 19, 2007; available at: http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wEnglisch/News/Archiv/ArchivNews2007/2007_04_19.php.

  231. 231.

    Van den Bergh and Camesasca 2006.

  232. 232.

    Jones and Sufrin 2008, p. 981.

  233. 233.

    Health Insurance Act—Zorgverzekeringswet (Stb. 2005, 358, entry into force on 1 January 2006, Stb. 2005, 649).

  234. 234.

    Communication from the Commission ‘Report on Competition in Professional Services’ COM (2004) 83 final paras 59–64.

  235. 235.

    Ibid., para 60.

  236. 236.

    Ibid., paras 62, 63.

  237. 237.

    Commission Decision relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.512—Vitamins), [2003] OJ L6/1; See also Case T- 26/02 Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co.Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR II-497.

  238. 238.

    They are not subject to competition rules except where the decisions are meant to confer special or exclusive rights.

  239. 239.

    Monti 2002, pp. 1057–1099.

  240. 240.

    Case T-112/99 Métropole Télévision (M6) v. Commission [2001] ECR II-2459, para 76.

  241. 241.

    Case C-399/93 Oude Luttikhuis [1997] ECR I-4515; Case 258/78 Nungesser v. Commission [1982] ECR. 2015; Case 161/84 Pronuptia [1986] ECR 353; Joined Cases T374, 384 & 388/94 European Night Services v. Commission [1998] ECR. II-3141; Case C-250/92 Goettrup-Klim & Co. [1994] ECR I-5641.

  242. 242.

    Case T-112/99 Métropole Télévision (M6) v. Commission [2001] ECR II-2459, para.76; Case C-234/89 Delimitis v. Henniger Bräu [1991] ECR I-935, para 31; Joined Cases T374, 384 & 388/94 European Night Services v. Commission [1998] ECR. II-3141.

  243. 243.

    Gyselen 2002, pp. 181–197, referring to the interests balanced under Article 81(3) states: […] the balancing test under Article 81-3 EC is about weighing an agreement’s benefits against the harm that some of its clauses may cause for competition. It is not about comparing apples (social welfare benefits of whatever kind and wherever they are located) versus “oranges” (harmful effects on competition in a particular market); See also Bourgeois and Bocken 2005, pp. 111–121.

  244. 244.

    Guidelines on the Application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty [2004] OJ C 101/97, para 33, Case T-112/99, Metropole Television (M6) v. Commission [2001] ECR II-2459, para 77.

  245. 245.

    Guidelines on the Application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty [2004] OJ C 101/97, para 33.

  246. 246.

    Odudu 2006.

  247. 247.

    Frantz 1988, pp. 64–65; Odudu 2006, p. 130.

  248. 248.

    Odudu 2006, p. 131.

  249. 249.

    Ibid., 135.

  250. 250.

    Article 81(3) EC.

  251. 251.

    Cases 56 and 58/64 Etablissements Consten SA & Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v. Commission [1966] ECR 299.

  252. 252.

    For different categories of efficiency see: Gyselen 2002, pp. 181–197 and Faull and Nikpay 2007, para 2.127–2.153.

  253. 253.

    Guidelines on the Application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty [2004] OJ C 101/97, para 59.

  254. 254.

    Ibid., para 64.

  255. 255.

    Ibid., para 65.

  256. 256.

    Ibid., para 66.

  257. 257.

    Ibid., para 67.

  258. 258.

    Ibid., para 68.

  259. 259.

    Ibid., para 70.

  260. 260.

    Ibid., para 71.

  261. 261.

    Ibid., para 72.

  262. 262.

    Monti 2002, p. 1061.

  263. 263.

    Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty (2004/C 101/08).

  264. 264.

    Kjolbye 2004, p. 572.

  265. 265.

    Ibid.

  266. 266.

    Lugard and Hancher 2004, pp. 410–442.

  267. 267.

    Commission Decision 2000/475/EC of 24 January 1999 (CECED), OJ [2000] L187/47; See also Van Gerven 2004, pp. 429–430 and Vedder 2003.

  268. 268.

    XXXth Report on Competition Policy, 2000, paras 96–97, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/annual_reports/2000/en.pdf

  269. 269.

    Commission Decision 93/49/EEC of 23 December 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.814-Ford/Volkswagen) [1993] OJ L20/14, paras 23, 28, 36.

  270. 270.

    Gyselen 2002.

  271. 271.

    OJ C 3/2 of 6 January 2001.

  272. 272.

    Vth Environmental Action Programme (OJ C 138, 17 May 1993, p. 1); European Parliament and Council Decision No 2179/98/EC of 24 September 1998 (OJ L 275, 10 October 1998, p. 1).

  273. 273.

    See Komninos 2005.

  274. 274.

    Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty (2004/C 101/08), para 42.

  275. 275.

    Odudu 2006, p. 160.

  276. 276.

    See Arnull et al. 2000, pp. 539–541 and Koopmans 1986, pp. 928–929.

  277. 277.

    Article 3 para 1 of the EC Treaty was repealed and replaced in substance by Articles 3 and 6 TFEU.

  278. 278.

    Article 2 EC was repealed and replaced in substance by Article 3 TEU.

  279. 279.

    Case 6/72 Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc v. Commission [1973] ECR 215, para 22.

  280. 280.

    See Bouterse 1994, pp. 138–140.

  281. 281.

    Cases T-528/93, T-543/93 & T-546/93 Metropole and Others v. Commission [1996] ECR II-649 para 118.

  282. 282.

    Odudu 2006, p. 161.

  283. 283.

    Example: Article 6 EC referring to the environment; Article 127(2) EC referring to employment; Article 153(2) referring to consumer protection; Article 157(3) referring to industrial policy.

  284. 284.

    Amato 1997, p. 116.

  285. 285.

    Odudu 2006, p. 164.

  286. 286.

    Ibid., 174.

  287. 287.

    Monti 2002, p. 1070.

  288. 288.

    Baquero Cruz 2002, pp. 63–66.

  289. 289.

    Wesseling 2000, pp. 48–49.

  290. 290.

    Monti 2002, p. 1070.

  291. 291.

    Ibid., 1092; Bouterse 1994 and Schmid 2000, pp. 156–157.

  292. 292.

    Odudu 2006.

  293. 293.

    Monti 2002, p. 1097.

  294. 294.

    Article 6 referring to environment states: ‘Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3’; Article 127(2) referring to employment states: ‘The objective of a high level of employment shall be taken into consideration in the formulation and implementation of Community policies and activities’; Article 151(4) referring to culture states: ‘The Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of this Treaty’; Article 153(2)referring to culture states: ‘Consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Community policies and activities’; Article 159(1) referring to economic and social cohesion states: ‘The formulation and implementation of the Community's policies and actions and the implementation of the internal market shall take into account the objectives set out in Article 158 and shall contribute to their achievement.’ .

  295. 295.

    For a broader discussion referring to the national interest see Monti 2002, pp. 1057–1099.

  296. 296.

    Komninos 2005, p. 6.

  297. 297.

    Monti 2002, p. 1083.

  298. 298.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L 024/1, Article 21(4).

  299. 299.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered in Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98, Pavlov v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-6451, para 90.

  300. 300.

    Ford/Volkswagen, OJ 1993 L 20, p. 14, para 23.

  301. 301.

    Case 42/84 Remia v Commission [1985] ECR 2545, para 42.

  302. 302.

    Case 26/76 Metro [1977] ECR 1875.

  303. 303.

    Schmid 2000, pp. 153–170.

  304. 304.

    Monti 2002, pp. 1057–1099.

  305. 305.

    Press Release IP/02/461 22 March 2002.

  306. 306.

    Case C-219/97 Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken BV v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer [1999] ECR I-6121.

  307. 307.

    Van den Bergh and Camesasca 2001, p. 62.

  308. 308.

    Case C-202/88 French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (Telecommunication Terminal Equipment) [1991] ECR I-1223, para 12.

  309. 309.

    Van der Woude 1991, p. 4.

  310. 310.

    AG Tesauro in his Opinion in Case C-202/88 French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (Telecommunication Terminal Equipment) [1991] ECR I-1243, para 11.

  311. 311.

    Ibid.

  312. 312.

    Bacon 1997b, pp. 283–291.

  313. 313.

    Ibid., 291.

  314. 314.

    Slot and Skudder 2001, p. 122.

  315. 315.

    Hancher 1999, p. 721.

  316. 316.

    Ibid., 725.

  317. 317.

    Buendia Sierra 1999, p. 62.

  318. 318.

    See Buendia Sierra 1999.

  319. 319.

    Advocate General Jacobs in his Opinion in Joined Cases C-115/97 to C-117/97 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751, distinguishes between ERT-type, Höfner -type and Corbeau-type cases.

  320. 320.

    Case C41/90 Höfner [1991] ECR 1979; Case C-55/96 Job Centre Coop. arl [1997] ECR I-7119, Case C-163/96 Silvano Raso [1998] ECR I-533; Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfpensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751; Case C-209/98 Entreprenørforeningens Affalds/Miljøsektion (FFAD) v. Københavns Kommune [2000] ECR-3743; Cases C-180-184/98, Pavlov v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-6451; Case C-475/99 Firma Ambulanz Glöckner v. Landkreis Südwestpfalz [2001] ECR I-8089.

  321. 321.

    Buendia Sierra 1999, p. 160.

  322. 322.

    Ibid.

  323. 323.

    Commission Directive 88/301/EEC on competition in the markets in telecommunications terminal equipment, [1988] OJ L 131, 73–77.

  324. 324.

    Commission Directive 90/388/EEC on competition in the markets for telecommunications services, [1990] OJ L192, 10–16.

  325. 325.

    Commission Directive 88/301/EEC on competition in the markets in telecommunications terminal equipment, [1988] OJ L 131, 73–77, recital 13; Commission Directive 90/388/EEC on competition in the markets for telecommunications services, [1990] OJ L192, 10–16, recitals 13–17.

  326. 326.

    Case C-18/88 Régie des télégraphes et des téléphones v. GB-Inno [1991] ECR I-5941, para 24.

  327. 327.

    Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfpensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751, para 93.

  328. 328.

    Hancher 1994, p. 116.

  329. 329.

    For a discussion on defining dominance, see Korah 2007, Azevedo and Walker 2002 and Jones and Sufrin 2008.

  330. 330.

    Korah 2007.

  331. 331.

    Case C-41/90 Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979.

  332. 332.

    Case C-475/99 Firma Ambulanz Glöckner v. Landkreis Südwestpfalz [2001] ECR I-8089.

  333. 333.

    Case C-260/89 Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis [1991] ECR I-2925.

  334. 334.

    Ibid., para 37.

  335. 335.

    Case C-18/88 RTT v. INNO-BM SA [1991] ECR I-5973.

  336. 336.

    Ibid., para 15.

  337. 337.

    Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751, paras 112–121.

  338. 338.

    Temple Lang and O'Donoghue 2002, p. 34.

  339. 339.

    Temple Lang and O'Donoghue 2002 and Abbamonte 1998, pp. 414–433.

  340. 340.

    Faulhaber 1975.

  341. 341.

    Abbamonte 1998, p. 417.

  342. 342.

    According to the fully distributed cost method, all costs, including common costs, are allocated to all outputs—See Abbamonte 1998, p. 417.

  343. 343.

    Ibid.

  344. 344.

    Deutsche Post AG [2001] OJ L125/27; See also: Bergman 2001, pp. 351–354, Bartosch 2001, pp. 195–210, Diez Estella 2006, pp. 184–196, Temple Lang and O'Donoghue 2002, p. 83 and Nicolaides 2001, pp. 390–393.

  345. 345.

    Deutsche Post AG [2001] OJ L125/27, para 6.

  346. 346.

    Ibid., footnote 8.

  347. 347.

    Bergman 2001, pp. 351–354.

  348. 348.

    Case T-175/99 UPS Europe SA v. Commission [2002] ECR II-1915.

  349. 349.

    Notice from the Commission on the application of the competition rules to the postal sector and on the assessment of certain State measures relating to postal services [1998] OJ C 39/2.

  350. 350.

    Joskow and Klevorick 1979.

  351. 351.

    Bork 1978.

  352. 352.

    See Temple Lang and O'Donoghue 2002.

  353. 353.

    Areeda and Turner 1975, p. 697.

  354. 354.

    Ibid.; For criticism see Scherer 1976a, Areeda and Turner, Posner 1976, Scherer 1976b.

  355. 355.

    Jones and Sufrin 2008, p. 445.

  356. 356.

    Ibid.

  357. 357.

    See Williamson 1977.

  358. 358.

    Temple Lang and O'Donoghue 2002, p. 20.

  359. 359.

    Commission Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/30.698-ECS/AKZO), [1985] OJ L374/1, para 79.

  360. 360.

    Case C-62/86 AKZO Chemie BV v. Commission of the European Communities [1991] ECR I-3359.

  361. 361.

    Jones and Sufrin 2008, p. 450.

  362. 362.

    See Posner 1976, p. 188 and Areeda and Turner 1976, p. 706.

  363. 363.

    See Yamey 1972 and Edlin 2002.

  364. 364.

    Case T-30/89 Tetra Pak International SA v. Commission of the European Communities [1991] E.C.R. II-1439.

  365. 365.

    Ibid., para 150.

  366. 366.

    Hancher and Buendia Sierra 1998.

  367. 367.

    Case C-189/95 Criminal proceedings against Harry Franzen [1997] ECR I-5909.

  368. 368.

    Case C-202/88 French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities [1991] ECR 1223, para 36.

  369. 369.

    Case C-179/90 Merci convenzionali porto di Genova SpA v. Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA [1991] ECR I-5929, para 21.

  370. 370.

    Case 72/83 Campus Oil Ltd and others v. Minister for industry and energy and others [1984] ECR 2752.

  371. 371.

    Ibid., para 19.

  372. 372.

    Case C-179/90 Merci convenzionali porto di Genova SpA v. Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA [1991] ECR I-5929.

  373. 373.

    Case C-18/88 RTT v. INNO-BM SA [1991] ECR I-5973.

  374. 374.

    Case C-157/94 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699, paras 30–32; Case C-158/94 Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic [1997] ECR I-5789, paras 41–43.

  375. 375.

    Case C-159/94 Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic [1997] ECR I-5815.

  376. 376.

    Vedder 2001, p. 116.

  377. 377.

    Pappalardo 1991, pp. 29–39.

  378. 378.

    Buendia Sierra 1999, p. 274.

  379. 379.

    Communication from the Commission-Services of general interest in Europe [2001] OJ C 17/04.

  380. 380.

    Nihoul and Rodford 2004, p. 612.

  381. 381.

    Ibid., 614–615.

  382. 382.

    Ibid., 615.

  383. 383.

    Ibid., 617.

  384. 384.

    Ibid., 599.

  385. 385.

    Case T-289/03 British United Provident Association Ltd (BUPA) and Others v. Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR II-00081, para 166.

  386. 386.

    Ibid., para 172.

  387. 387.

    Communication on services of general economic interest [2001] OJ C17/4, Annex II.

  388. 388.

    Schwarze 2006, p. 690.

  389. 389.

    Ibid., 679.

  390. 390.

    Tridimas 1999, p. 69.

  391. 391.

    Jacobs 1999.

  392. 392.

    Ibid., 8.

  393. 393.

    Ibid.

  394. 394.

    Ibid.

  395. 395.

    Case C-157/94 Commission v. Netherlands [1997] ECR 523, para 37.

  396. 396.

    See Sect. 3.5.2.1.1.

  397. 397.

    Buendia Sierra 1999, p. 302.

  398. 398.

    Ibid., 306.

  399. 399.

    Case C-157/94 Commission v, Netherlands [1997] ECR 523, para 43.

  400. 400.

    Buendia Sierra 1999, p. 306.

  401. 401.

    Case C-320/91 Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533, para 16.

  402. 402.

    Case 155/73 Sacchi [1974] ECR 409, para 15.

  403. 403.

    Case C-320/91 Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533, para 19.

  404. 404.

    Ibid., para 19.

  405. 405.

    Case C-393/92 Almelo [1994] I-1477, para 49; See Hancher 1995.

  406. 406.

    Opinion of Advocate General Darmon given in Case 393/92 Municipality of Almelo and others v. NV Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij [1994] ECR I-1477.

  407. 407.

    Case T-260/94 Air Inter [1997] ECR II-0997.

  408. 408.

    Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751.

  409. 409.

    Ibid., para 109.

  410. 410.

    See Gyselen 2000, pp. 425–448.

  411. 411.

    Case 238/82 Duphar and Others [1984] ECR 523, para 16.

  412. 412.

    Gyselen 2000, pp. 425–448.

  413. 413.

    Case C-475/99 Firma Ambulanz Glöckner v. Landkreis Südwestpfalz [2001] ECR I-8089.

  414. 414.

    See Buendia Sierra 1999, Edward and Hoskins 1995, p. 167, Hatzopoulos 1994, pp. 67–90 and Kovar 1996.

  415. 415.

    Communication of the Commission, Universal Service for Telecommunications in the Perspective of Fully Liberalised Environment, COM (96) 73.

  416. 416.

    Gerardin 2000, p. 181.

  417. 417.

    Ibid., 185.

  418. 418.

    Quigley 1988.

  419. 419.

    For state aid analysis see: Bacon 1997a, La Chimia 2007, pp. 513–534, Hancher et al. 2006, Kurcz and Vallindas 2008, pp. 159–182, Ross 1989, p. 167, Slootboom 1995 and Winter 2004, pp. 475–504.

  420. 420.

    Some authors consider that the test involves determining whether five conditions are met: ‘(a) aid must be granted by the state or through state resources; (b) this aid must confer and advantage to the recipient; (c) the advantage must favour certain (selected) undertakings or economic activities; (d) aid must affect trade between Member States; and (e) aid must distort competition in the common market’; see Nicolaides et al. 2005, p. 10.

  421. 421.

    See Case C-380/98 The Queen ex parte The University of Cambridge v. H.M. Treasury [2000] ECR I-8035.

  422. 422.

    State Aid Action Plan-Less and Better Targeted State Aid: A Roadmap for State Aid Reform 2005–2009 COM 2005 107 final, 7.

  423. 423.

    Report from the Commission on the state of play in the work on the guidelines for state aid and services of general economic interest (SGEIs), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/sieg_en.pdf .

  424. 424.

    Case 240/83 Procureur de la République v. Association de défense des brûleurs d'huiles usagées (ADBHU) [1985] ECR 531.

  425. 425.

    Case C-387/92 Banco de Crédito Industrial SA, now Banco Exterior de España SA v. Ayuntamiento de Valencia [1994] ECR I-877.

  426. 426.

    Case T-106/95 FFSA and Others v. Commission [1997] ECR II-229.

  427. 427.

    Ibid., para 139.

  428. 428.

    Case 173/73 Italy v. Commission [1974] ECR 709, para 13.

  429. 429.

    Case T-106/95 FFSA and Others v. Commission [1997] ECR II-229, para 178.

  430. 430.

    Bovis 2005, pp. 79–109.

  431. 431.

    Case C-53/00 Ferring SA v. Agence centrale des organismes de sécurité sociale (ACOSS) [2001] ECR I-9067; see also Louis and Vallery 2004, pp. 53–74.

  432. 432.

    Case C-53/00 Ferring SA v. Agence centrale des organismes de sécurité sociale (ACOSS) [2001] ECR I-9067, para 21.

  433. 433.

    Opinion of Advocate General Leger delivered in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH, Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v. Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH [2003] ECR I-7747.

  434. 434.

    See Rizza 2004 and Nicolaides 2003, pp. 561–573.

  435. 435.

    Nicolaides 2003.

  436. 436.

    Case C-126/01 Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie v. GEMO SA [2003] ECR I-13769.

  437. 437.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delievred in Case C-126/01 Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie v. GEMO SA [2003] ECR I-13769, para 112.

  438. 438.

    Case C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España [1994] ECR I-877; Case T-106/95 FFSA and Others v. Commission [1997] ECR II-229.

  439. 439.

    Case 240/83 ADBHU [1985] ECR 531; Case C-53/00 Ferring [2001] ECR I-9067.

  440. 440.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delievred in Case C-126/01 Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie v. GEMO SA [2003] ECR I-13769, para 115.

  441. 441.

    Ibid., para 116.

  442. 442.

    Ibid., para 118.

  443. 443.

    Ibid., para 119.

  444. 444.

    Ibid., para 120.

  445. 445.

    For criticism of the proposed solution of distinguishing between the ‘compensation’ and ‘state aid’ approach see Nicolaides 2003, pp. 561–573.

  446. 446.

    Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered in Joined Cases C-34/01 to C-38/01 Enirisorse SpA v. Ministero delle Finanze [2003] ECR I-14243, paras 154–155.

  447. 447.

    See Bovis 2005.

  448. 448.

    See Case C-173/73 Italy v. Commission [1974] ECR 709, para 27; Case C-56/93 Belgium v. Commission [1996] ECR I-723 para.79; Case C-241/94 France v. Commission [1996] ECR I-4551, para.20; and Case C-5/01 Belgium v. Commission [2002] ECR I-3452, paras 45, 46.

  449. 449.

    Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH, Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v. Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH [2003] ECR I-7747.

  450. 450.

    Ibid., para 88.

  451. 451.

    Ibid., para 89.

  452. 452.

    Ibid., para 90.

  453. 453.

    Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH, Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v. Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH [2003] ECR I-7747, para 92.

  454. 454.

    Ibid., para 93.

  455. 455.

    Hatzopoulos 2008.

  456. 456.

    See Hatzopoulos 2008.

  457. 457.

    Ibid.

  458. 458.

    See Decision 2005/842/EC [2005] OJ l312/67, recital 7 and Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation OJ C297/4, recital 9.

  459. 459.

    Chavrier 2006, pp. 274–287.

  460. 460.

    Hatzopoulos 2008.

  461. 461.

    Case T-289/03 British United Provident Association Ltd BUPA and Others v Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR II-00081.

  462. 462.

    Sauter 2008.

  463. 463.

    Case T-289/03 British United Provident Association Ltd (BUPA) and Others v. Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR II-00081, para 100.

  464. 464.

    Ibid., paras 105–108.

  465. 465.

    Ibid., para 166.

  466. 466.

    Ibid., paras 165–170.

  467. 467.

    Ibid., para 186.

  468. 468.

    Ibid., paras 186–196.

  469. 469.

    Ibid., paras 196, 197.

  470. 470.

    Ibid., para 198.

  471. 471.

    Ibid., paras 112–116.

  472. 472.

    Ibid., paras 117–122.

  473. 473.

    Ibid., para 226.

  474. 474.

    Ibid., para 227.

  475. 475.

    Ibid., paras 227–233.

  476. 476.

    Ibid., paras 234–237.

  477. 477.

    Ibid., paras 238–243.

  478. 478.

    Ibid., para 248.

  479. 479.

    Ibid., para 250.

  480. 480.

    Ibid., para 251.

  481. 481.

    Ibid., para 256.

  482. 482.

    Sauter 2008, p. 11.

  483. 483.

    Decision 2005/842/EC [2005] OJ l312/67.

  484. 484.

    Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation OJ C297/4.

  485. 485.

    Decision 2005/842/EC, [2005] OJ l312/67.

  486. 486.

    Ibid., Art. 1.

  487. 487.

    Ibid., recital 12 of the Preamble.

  488. 488.

    Ibid., recital 13 of the Preamble, and Art. 6.

  489. 489.

    Ibid., recital 16 of the Preamble.

  490. 490.

    Decision 2005/842/EC [2005] OJ l312/67, Article 5(1).

  491. 491.

    Ibid., Article 5(2).

  492. 492.

    Ibid., Article 5(3).

  493. 493.

    Ibid., Article 5(4).

  494. 494.

    Framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation, OJ C297/4.

  495. 495.

    Nicolaides 2002, pp. 313–319.

  496. 496.

    Case C-39/94 Syndicat francais de l'express international v. La Poste [1996] E.C.R. I-3547.

  497. 497.

    Nicolaides 2002, pp. 313–319.

  498. 498.

    Nicolaides 2003, pp. 561–573.

  499. 499.

    Guidelines for the Telecommunications Sector, O.J. 1991, C-233/2.

  500. 500.

    Abbamonte 1998.

  501. 501.

    Guidelines for the Telecommunications Sector, O.J. 1991, C-233/2.

  502. 502.

    Hancher and Buendia Sierra 1998.

  503. 503.

    See Slotboom 1995, pp. 289–301.

  504. 504.

    See Case C-482/99, French Republic v. Commission (‘Stardust Marine’), [2002] ECR I-4397.

  505. 505.

    Glinos et al. 2005, p. 66.

  506. 506.

    Case C-482/99 French Republic v. Commission (‘Stardust Marine’) [2002] ECR I-4397.

  507. 507.

    Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2000] ECR I-2099; See Kuhn 2001.

  508. 508.

    Case C-482/99 French Republic v. Commission (“Stardust Marine”) [2002] ECR I-4397, para 37; See also case annotation Leigh Hancher, ‘Case C-482/99, French Republic v. Commission (“Stardust Marine”) ‘2003 C.M.L.R. 40, 739–751.

  509. 509.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered in Case C-482/99 French Republic v. Commission (‘Stardust Marine’) [2002] ECR I-4397, para 54.

  510. 510.

    Joined Cases 67/85 R, 68/85 R and 70/85 R, Kwekerij Gebroeders van der Kooy BV and others v. Commission of the European Communities [1985] ECR 01315, para 37.

  511. 511.

    Case C-303/88 Italian Republic v. Commission of the European Communities [1991] ECR I-1433 paras 11, 12.

  512. 512.

    Case C-482/99 French Republic v. Commission (‘Stardust Marine’) [2002] ECR I-4397, para 56.

  513. 513.

    See Commission Decisions in ENI-Lanerossi [1989] OJ L 16/52; Leeuwarden [1982] OJ L 277/15; Intermills I [1982] OJ L 280/30; Boch/Noviboch [1985] OJ No L 59/21; Alfa-Fiat (C) [1989] OJ L 394/9.

  514. 514.

    Case C-305/89 Italian Republic v. Commission of the European Communities [1991] ECR I-01603.

  515. 515.

    Case 303/88 Italy v. Commission (ENI-Lanerossi) [1991] ECR I-1433.

  516. 516.

    C-305/89 Italian Republic v. Commission of the European Communities [1991] ECR I-01603, para 20.

  517. 517.

    Communication on the Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC to public undertakings in the manufacturing sector [1993] O.J. C307/3, para 29.

  518. 518.

    Case C-39/94 Syndicat Français de l'Express International and Others v. La Poste and Others [1996] ECR I-3547.

  519. 519.

    Ibid., para 61.

  520. 520.

    Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI- Chronopost [1998] OJ L164/37.

  521. 521.

    Ibid.

  522. 522.

    Case T-613/97 UFEX and Others v. Commission [2000] ECR II 4055.

  523. 523.

    Ibid., para 75.

  524. 524.

    Joined Cases C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P and C-94/01 P, Chronopost SA, La Poste and French Republic v. Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others [2003] ECR I-6993.

  525. 525.

    Ibid., para 38.

  526. 526.

    Ibid., para 40.

  527. 527.

    Joined cases C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P Chronopost SA, La Poste and French Republic v. Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others [2008] I-4777.

  528. 528.

    Ibid., paras 148, 149.

  529. 529.

    Hancher and Buendia Sierra 1998.

  530. 530.

    Nicolaides 2001, pp. 390–393.

  531. 531.

    Parish 2003, pp. 70–89.

  532. 532.

    Directive 80/723 [1980] OJ L195/35; this Directive has been amended several times, the latest amendment being Directive 2006/111, [2006], OJ L318/17.

  533. 533.

    Directive 85/413 [1985] OJ L 229/20.

  534. 534.

    Directive 2000/52 [2000] OJ L193/75.

  535. 535.

    Para 14 of the Preamble to the Directive 2006/111, [2006], OJ L318/17.

  536. 536.

    Directive 2000/52 [2000] OJ L193/75.

  537. 537.

    Directive 2005/81 [2005] O.J. L312/47.

  538. 538.

    See Directive 2005/81 [2005] OJ L312/47.

  539. 539.

    Article 1(b), second subpara, of Directives 92/50, 93/36 and 93/37 [2001] OJ L 285/1.

References

  • Abbamonte GB (1998) Cross- subsidisation and community competition rules: efficient pricing versus equity. ELRev 23(5):414–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Amato G (1997) Antitrust and the bounds of power: the dilemma of liberal democracy in the history of the market. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews P (2002) Self-regulation by professions—the approach under EU and US competition rules. ECLR 23(6):281–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Areeda P (1986) The rule of reason—a catechism on competition. Antitrust Law J, 571

    Google Scholar 

  • Areeda P, Turner DF (1975) Predatory pricing and related practices under Section 2 of the Sherman act. Harv Law Rev 88:697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Areeda P, Turner DF (1976) Scherer on predatory pricing: a reply. Harv Law Rev 89:891

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnull A et al (2000) Wyatt and dashwood’s European Union law, 4th edn. Sweet and Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo JP, Walker M (2002) Dominance: meaning and measurement. ECLR

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon K (1997a) State regulation of the market and EC competition rules: articles 85 and 86 compared. ECLR 18(5):283–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon K (1997b) State Aids and General Measures. YEL

    Google Scholar 

  • Baquero Cruz J (2002) Between competition and free movement: the Economic constitutional Law of the European community. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 63–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Baquero Cruz J (2005) Beyond competition: services of general interest and European community law. In: De Búrca G (ed) The welfare state: in search of solidarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartelsman E, Ten Cate P (1997) Competition in health care: a Dutch experiment. CPB Report, pp 34–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartosch A (2001) Joined Cases C-147/97 and C-148/97 Deutsche Post AG v. Gesellschaft fur Zahlungssysteme mbH (GZS) and Citicorp Kartenservice GmbH CKG. Judgenment of the Full Court of 10 February 2000. CMLRev 38:195–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartosch A (2007) Social housing and European state aid control. ECLR 28(10):563–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Belhaj S, Van de Gronden JW (2004) Some room for competition does not make a sickness fund an undertaking. Is EC competition law applicable to health care sector? (Joined cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-453/01 and C-355/01 AOK), ECLR, 25(11): 682–687

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman MA (2001) A prohibition against losses? The commission’s deutsche post decision. ELCR 28(8):351–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop W (1997) Editorial: the modernization of DG IV. ECLR 481

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop S, Walker M (2002) The economics of EC competition Law, 2nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London, pp 11–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Black O (1997) Per se rules and rules of reason: what are they? ECLR 18(3):145–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Bork RH (1978) The antitrust paradox, basic books

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois J, Bocken J (2005) Guidelines on the application of article 81(3) of the treaty or how to restrict a restriction. Leg Issues Econ Integr 32(2):111–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouterse RB (1994) Competition and integration: what goals count? Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovis CH (2005) Financing services of general interest in the EU: how do public procurement and state aids interact to demarcate between market forces and protection? Eur Law J 11(1):79–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buendia Sierra JL, Hancher L (1998) Cross-subsidization and EC Law. CMLRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Buendia Sierra JL (1999) Exclusive rights and state monopolies under EC law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chavrier G (2006) Etablissement public de santé, logique économique et droit de la concurrence. Revue du Droit de la Sécurité Sociale, pp 274–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantinesco V (1987) L’article 5 CEE, de la bonne foi à la loyauté communautaire. In: Capotorti F, Ehlermann C-D, Frowein J, Jacobs F, Joliet R, Koopmans T, Kovar R (eds) Du droit international audroit de l’intégration: Liber Amicorum Pierre Pescatore. NomosVerlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie K, Bright C (2003) Is better care a better pill? ECLR 24(1):41–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Czech Office for Protection of Competition, Press Releases (2003) available at: http://www.compet.cz/en/information-centre/press-releases/competition/czech-medical-chamber-fined-450000-czk/

  • Denman D (2002) European court of justice: anti-competitive agreements—professional rules—Nederlands bar. ECLR 23(6)

    Google Scholar 

  • Diez Estella F (2006) Abusive practices in the hospital services? part 1. ECLR 27(4):184–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Drijber J (2005) Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-453/01 and C-355/01, AOK Bundesverband et al., judgment of the Full Court of 16 Mar 2004, not yet reported. CMLRev 42

    Google Scholar 

  • Edlin AS (2002) Stopping above cost predatory pricing. Yale LJ 111:941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edward D, Hoskins M (1995) Article 90: deregulation and EC Law. Reflections arising from the XVI FIDE conference. CMLRev 32:167

    Google Scholar 

  • Enthoven AC (1988) Theory and practice of managed competition in health care finance. Elsevier Science, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Faull J, Nikpay A (2007) The EC law of competition. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulhaber (1975) Cross-subsidization: pricing in public enterprises. Am Econ Rev, 966

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester I, Norral C (1984) The laicization of community law: self-help and the rule of reason: how competition law is and could be applied. CMLRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Frantz RS (1988) X-Efficiency : theory, evidence and applications. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerardin D (2000) The opening of state monopolies to competition: main issues of the liberalization process. In: Gerardin D (ed), The liberalization of state monopolies in the european union and beyond. Kluwer Law International, Hague p 181

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber D (1998) Law and competition in twentieth century Europe: protecting prometheus. Claredon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • German Competition Authority, Press Releases (2007) Available at: http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wEnglisch/News/Archiv/ArchivNews2007/2007_04_19.php

  • Glinos I, Boffin N, Baeten R (2005) Cross-border care in Belgian hospitals: an analysis of belgian. Dutch and English Stakeholder Perspectives. Observatoire Social Europeen, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormley LW (2000) The development of general principles of law within article 10 (ex article 5) EC. In: Bernitz U, Nergelius J (eds) General principles of European community law. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyder DG (1998) EC competition law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Grass S et al (2001) Managed competition in health care in the netherlands and germany—theoretical foundations, Empirical findings and policy conclusions, Discussion paper, available at http://www.rsf.uni-greifswald.de/bwl/pdf/2001/04_2001.pdf

  • Gyselen L (1984) Vertical restraints in the distribution process: strength and weakness of the free rider rationale under EEC competition law. CMLRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyselen L (2000) C-67/96 Albany v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie; Joined Cases C-115–117/97, Brentjens’ Handelsondeneming v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de handel in bouwmaterialen; and C-219/97, Drijvende Bokken v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de vervoer- en havenbedrijven. Judgments of the Full Court of 21 September 1999, not yet reported. CMLRev 37:425–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyselen L (2002) The substantive legality test under article 81-3 EC treaty—revisited in light of the commission’s modernization initiative. In: Von Bogdany A, Mavroidis P, Meny Y (eds) European integration and international co-ordination: studies in transnational economic law in honour of claus- dieter Ehlermann. Kluwer Law International, Hague, pp 181–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L(1995) Case C-393/92, Gemeente Almelo and Others v. Energiebedrijf IJsselmij NV, Judgement of 27 April 1994 (full Court) CMLRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L (1994) Casenote on corbeau. CMLRev 31:116

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L (1999) Community, state and market. In: Craig P, De Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L, Buendia Sierra J-L (1998) Cross-subsidization and EC Law. CMLRev, 901

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L, Ottervanger T, Slot PJ (2006) EC state aids, 3rd edn. Chancery Law, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (1994) L’Open network provision (ONP) moyen de deregulation. RTDE 30(1):67–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2002) Killing national health and insurance systems but healing patients? The european market for health care services after the judgments of the ecj in vanbraekel and peerbooms. CMLRev 39:683–729

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2008) Public procurement and state aid in national healthcare systems. Research papers in law 1, college of Europe

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs FG (1999) Recent developments in the principle of proportionality in EC law. In: Ellis E (ed) The principle of proportionality in the laws of Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Joliet R (1967) The rule of reason in antitrust law, american, german and common market law in comparative perspective, Le Haye

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A, Sufrin B (2004) EC competition law, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A, Sufrin B (2008) EC competition law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Joskow PJ, Klevorick AK (1979) A framework for analyzing predatory pricing policy. Yale LJ 89:213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karl B (2002) Competition law and health care systems. In: McKee M, Mossialos E, Baeten R (eds) The impact of EU law on health care systems. Mardaga, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjolbye L (2004) The new commission guidelines on the application of article 81(3): an economic approach to article 81. ECLR 25(9):572

    Google Scholar 

  • Komninos AP (2005) Non-competition concerns: resolution of conflicts in the integrated article 81 EC, working paper (L) 08/05, available at http://www.competition-law.ox.ac.uk/lawvle/users/ezrachia/CCLP%20L%2008-05.pdf

  • Kon S (1982) Article 85 para 3: a case for application by national courts. CMLRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans T (1986) The role of law in the next stage of European integration. Int Comp Law Q 35:928–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korah V (1986) EEC competition policy—legal form or economic efficiency? CLP 85:92–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Korah V (2007) An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practice, 9th edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovar LR (1996) Droit communautaire et service public: esprit d’ orthodoxie ou pensee laicisee. RTDE 32(3):552

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M, Farley M (2004) Limited competition in national health systems and the application of competition law: the AOK bundesverband case. ELRev 29(6):842–851

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M, Farley M (2007) Non-economic activities in upstream and downstream markets and the scope of competition law after FENIN. ELRev 32(1):111–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T (2001) Implications of the ‘Preussen Elektra’ judgement of the European Court of Justice on the community rules on State aid and free movement of goods – preliminary ruling of 13 March 2001, Case C-379/98, Preussen Elektra v. Schlesweg LIEI, pp 361–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurcz B, Vallindas D (2008) Can general measures Be…selective? Some thoughts of the interpretation of a state aid definition. CMLRev, pp 159–182

    Google Scholar 

  • La Chimia A (2007) Conquering the last frontier of protectionism; the legality of tied aid under the ec treaty internal market rules. ELRev, pp 513–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasok KPE (2004) When is an undertaking not an Undertaking. ECLR 25(7):383–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis F, Vallery A (2004) Ferring revisited: the Altmark Case and State financing of public service obligations. World Competition 27(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Louri V (2002) Undertaking as a jurisdictional element for the application of EC competition rules. Leg Issues Econ Integr 29(2):143–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louri V (2005) The FENIN judgement: the notion of undertaking and purchasing activity. Leg Issues Econ Integr 32(1):87–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Lugard P, Hancher L (2004) Honey, I shrunk the article! A critical assessment of the commission’s notice on article 81(3) of the EC treaty. ECLR 25(7):410–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Maduro PM (1998) We the court. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini P (2002) The European rule of reason—crossing the sea of doubt. ECLR 23(8):392–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Marmor T, Maynard (1994) Cross-national transfer of health policies ideas: the case of managed competition, Workshop Comparative Health Policy Study Group, International Political Studies Association, Berlin, Manuscript der Autoren

    Google Scholar 

  • Monti G (2002) Article 81 EC and public policy. CMLRev 39:1057–1099

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortelmans K (2001) Towards convergence in the application of the rules on free movement and on competition? CMLRev 38:613

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazzini R (2006) Article 81 EC between time present and time past: a normative critique of “restriction of competition” in EU law. CMLRev 43:497–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaides P (2001) Effective competition in network industries: an assessment of commission decision 2001/354 imposing a fine on deutsche post for abusing its dominant position in parcel delivery. ECLR 22(9):390–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaides P (2002) Distortive effects of compensatory aid measures: a note on the economics of the ferring judgement. ECLR 23(6):313–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaides P (2003) Compensation for public service obligations: the floodgates of state aid. ECLR 24(11):561–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaides P, Kekelekis M, Buyskes P (2005) State aid policy in the European community. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Nihoul P (2000) Do workers constitute undertakings for the purpose of the competition rules? ELRev 25(4):408–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Nihoul P, Rodford P (2004) EU electronic communications law. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Loughlin R (2003) EC Competition rules and free movement rules: an examination of the parallels and their furtherance by the ECJ Wouters decision. ECLR 24(2):62–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Odudu O (2002) A new economic approach to article 81(1). ELRev 27(1):100–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Odudu O (2006) The boundaries of ec competition law—the scope of article 81. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pappalardo A (1991) State measures and public undertakings: article 90 of the EEC treaty revisited. ECLR 12(1):29–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Parish M (2003) On private investor principle. ELRev 28(1):70–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner RA (1976) Antitrust law: an economic perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser T (2005) The limits of competition law: markets and public services. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Quigley C (1988) The notion of state aid in the EEC. ELRev 13:242

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizza C (2004) The financial assistance granted by member states to undertakings entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest. In: Biondi A, Eeckhout P, Flynn J (eds) The law of state aid in the European union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross M (1989) A review of developments in state aids 1987–1988. CMLRev 26:167

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth W-H (2007) Case C-205/03 P, Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 11 July 2006 [2006] ECR I-6295’. CMLR, pp 1131–1142

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauter W (2008) Risk equalisation in health insurance and the new standard for public service compensation in the context of state aid and services of general economic interest under EU law, TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2008–042, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1310673#

  • Scharpf F (1999) Governing in Europe: effective and democratic? Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schechter MC (1982) The rule of reason in European competition law. LIEI

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer FM (1976a) Predatory pricing and the Sherman act: a comment. Harv Law Rev 89:869

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer FM (1976b) Some last words on predatory pricing. Harv Law Rev 89:901

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid C (2000) Diagonal competence conflicts between European competition law and national regulation—a conflict of laws reconstruction of the dispute on book price fixing. European Review of Private Law, pp 153–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze J (2006) European administrative law. Sweet and Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Slootboom MM (1995) State aid in community law: a broad or narrow definition. ELRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Slot PJ (2003) Applying the competition rules in the healthcare sector. ECLR 24(11):580–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Slot PJ, Skudder A (2001) Common features of community law regulation in the networkbound sectors. CMLRev 38:122

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotboom MM (1995) State aid in community law: a broad or narrow definition. ELRev 20(3):289–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaventa E (2003) Public services and european law: looking for boundaries. In: Bell J, Dashwood A (eds) Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies. Hart, Oxford, pp 271–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Steindorf E (1984) Article 85 and the rule of reason. CMLRev

    Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak E (1990) Foster v. British Gas. CMLRev 27:868

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (1997) The core of the constitutional law of the community—article 5 EC. In: Gormley LW (ed) Current and future perspectives on ec competition law. Kluwer, London/TheHague/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (2006) Checks and balances in the European Union: the institutional structure and the “community method”. EPL 12:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J, O’Donoghue R (2002) Defining legitimate competition: how to clarify pricing abuses under article 82 EC. Fordham Int’l LJ 26:83

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (1999) Proportionality in community law: searching for the appropriate standard of scrutiny. In: Ellis E (ed) The principle of proportionality in the laws of Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 69

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Gronden JW (2004) Purchasing care: economic activity or service of general (economic) interest. ECLR 25(2):87–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh R, Camesasca P (2001) European competition law and economics. Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh R, Camesasca P (2006) European competition law and economics: a comparative perspective, 2nd edn. Sweet and Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Woude M (1991) State intervention: article 90: competing for competence. ELRev Supp

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gerven (2004) The application of article 81 in the new Europe. In Hawk (ed) Annual proceedings of the fordham corporate law institute, international antitrust law and policy 2003, New York, pp 429–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder H (2001) Environmental protection and free competition: a new balance? LIEI 28(1):116

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder H (2003) Competition law and environmental protection in Europe: towards sustainability? Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Vossestein AJ (2002) Case C-35/99, Arduino, judgment of 19 February 2000, Full Court; Case C-309/99, Wouters et al. v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, judgment of 19 February 2002, Full Court; not yet reported. CMLRev 39:841–863

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesseling R (2000) The modernisation of EC antitrust law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesseling R (2005) The rule of reason and competition law: various rules, various reasons. In: Schrauwen A (ed) Rule of reason, rethinking another classic of european legal doctrine. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Whish R, Sufrin B (1987) Article 85 and the rule of reason. Yearbook of European Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1977) Predatory pricing: a strategic and welfare analysis. Yale LJ 87:284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter JA (2004) Re(de)fining the notion of state aid in article 87(1) of the EC treaty. CMLRev 87(1):475–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterstein A (1999) Nailing the jellyfish: social security and competition law. ECLR 326–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamey BS (1999) Predatory price cutting: notes and comments. J L Econ 15:129

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry, 45 Avenue d’Auderghem, 1040, Brussels, Belgium

    Laura Nistor

Authors
  1. Laura Nistor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Nistor .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C.ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors/editors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nistor, L. (2011). The Application of the Rules on Competition. In: Public Services and the European Union. Legal Issues of Services of General Interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-805-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation