Consequences of the Cartel between the Member States
Consequences of the Cartel between the Member States
Cartel infringement applies to conduct that is inconsistent with competition and drastically lowering the level of trade with member states. Article 102 of the Treaty specifies that such agreements create a hopeless situation. Over the purpose of a common European market, it should be noted that dealings affecting regional activity fall within the National Cartel scope to a Competition Authority applying a state to maintain free competition within the state.
Article 102 of the Treaty of Lisbon
Article 102 of the Treaty is definite in its rules on competition. This provision provides for the abolition of the abusive position in the EU regional market, which is relevant. Where Article 101 of the Treaty provides for exceptional cases, they correspond only to that provision because the market is supposed to be different from one country to another in terms of territorial and geographical position, which imply that depending on the climate, the territory has goods and services that are separated from other countries.
To understand the relevant market, the dominant position in the relevant market must also be determined by Article 102 of the Lisbon Treaty. Regarding the prevalent abuse of cartel law, one of the European Court of Justice decisions has specified that a company that holds a dominant position on the market has the responsibility only if, through its conduct, it reduces competition.
There is no dominant position within the meaning of Article 102, but only the abuse that society does. In this regard, Article 102 states:
(a) the setting, directly or indirectly, of unfair selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) restricting the development of production, markets, or techniques to the detriment of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to transactions equivalent to those of other tradings parties, placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) contracts subject to the acceptance by third parties of further obligations that, due to their nature or commercial use, are not related to said agreements’ object.
In one of the first cases of Article 82 today Article 102, Hoffman-La Roche, the European Court of Justice defined market dominance, which is still used nowadays: “the dominant position relates to a place of economic strength enjoyed by an enterprise, which enables it to prevent significant competition by being held in the relevant market and giving it the power to operate to an extent considerable apart from its competitors, customers, and ultimately, consumers.
Such a position does not exclude any competition which takes place there where there is a monopoly or quasi-monopoly but enables the enterprise, which benefits from it, if not to determine, at least to have a significant impact on the conditions under which competition will take place, and in any case to act mainly in its disregard as long as such conduct is not to its detriment. “15 For this reason, the ECJ set out agreements in competition with competition because they allow price reductions for regular clients, that all their product needs were bought only by the dominant position in this enterprise.
Hoffman-La Roche also described the concept of abuse of dominant position as a behavior, “which, by recourse to methods other than those which condition competition regular in products or services, has the effect of making it difficult to maintain the degree of competition that still exists on the market. “Abusive behavior consists of mainly exclusionary practices such as predatory.
Pricing, preferential treatment, refusal to supply.
Suppose should be noted that European law does not punish the dominant position per se but only its abuse. Unlike Article 101 of the Treaty, which states that “Any agreement or decision which is prohibited under this Article shall be automatic of no legal value,” Article 102 does not have any consequence for a violation of the prohibition of abuse. The ban’s implications on directly applicable regulations are judged by national civil law.Consequences of the Cartel between the Member States
