|
However this method produces another question how to define the new concept of ‘liable. The Court has not provided us a clear definition until now. And it seemed that the Court would conclude an activity liable to abuse its dominant position contrary to Article 86(1) in combination with Article 82 soon after they claimed that they accepted such method and no reasons were given.This problem needs to be further paid attention to.
4.3 Effect on Trade between Member States
For Article 82(1) to apply in combination with Article 82 the effects of such State measure should be capable of affecting intra-community trade.However activities just liable to abuse dominant position probably can not actually affect trade between Member States. Considering such dilemma the Court dealt with it as it is not necessary to prove that trade is actually been affected, a mere potential effect being enough for the condition to be fulfilled.
Generally speaking, it seems that the Court was prone to think of abuse of a dominant position under Article 86(1) with Article 82 as a legal problem and not a factual problem. Therefore the Court left itself more discretionary jurisdictional power in such kind of cases. Otherwise, it led to more academic disputes hereby.
5. Conclusion
As the most important instrument to liberalization the Community market, Article 86(1) should paid more concerns and respects. As we have seen, there exists much vagueness within Article 86(1). And though this paper indicated some of them, but in fact it provides more questions than answers and therefore can not make Article 86(1) legible once and for ever but is the beginning of research on it.
【注释】See, See, Richard Whish, Competition Law, the Fourth Edition, P. 190.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 131.
See, Burrgenbach, A, ‘La notion d’ ”enterprise publique” (repport international)’ in Concorrenza tra settore pubblico nella CEE, Colloquio di Bruxelles della ‘Ligue Inernationale contre la concurrence delorale’ 5-6 March RDI anno XII 229.
Section 1 of Chap. 1, ‘Rules on Competition’ Title V – Common Rules on Competition, taxation and approximation of laws, part three: Community Politics of the EC Treaty.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 131.
See, Valentine Korah, EC Competition Law, the Fourth Edition, P. 93.
Commission Directive (EEC) 80/723 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings OJ L195/35-37 amended by Commission Directive (EEC) 85/413 OJ L229/20 and by Commission Directive (EEC) 93/84 OJ L254/16.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 36.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 37.
See, Case C-41/90, Hofner v. Macroton , Para. 32-33; Case C-179/90, Merci Converzionali Porto di Genova v. Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA , Para. 21.
Art. 2(1) of Commission Directive (EC) 94/46 amending Directive (EEC) 88/301 and Directive (EEC) 90/388 in particular with regard to satellite communication OJ L268/19-20. Although the concept was provided by the Commission to explain such undertakings in communication sector, we can have no doubt that such concept can extend to other sectors and therefore has a more general meaning, as many scholars said.
See definition of ‘special rights’ contained in Commission Directive (EC) 94/46 on satellite communications OJ L268/15.
See, Faull & Nikpay, The EC Law of Competition, 1999, P. 277.
See, Richard Whish, Competition Law, the Fourth Edition, P. 192.
See, Faull & Nikpay, The EC Law of Competition, 1999, P. 277-278.
So the Court always said that the activity of maintaining an exclusive rights are compatible the Treaty. See, for instance, Case 157/94, Para. 46.
See, Case 13/77 INNO v. ATAB , n. 4, supra, at §42.
This question will be discussed in the third part.
This part is the last field I wonder to investigate because full of uncertainty. So I can not gave a conclusion but provide some significant questions and summarize the work done by other legal masters.
See the analysis in the first part of this paper.
See, Faull & Nikpay, The EC Law of Competition, 1999, P. 279.
See the definitions of public undertaking, exclusive rights and special rights in the first part.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 16.
See, Case C-41/90, Hofner v. Macroton , Para. 32-33; Case C-179/90, Merci Converzionali Porto di Genova v. Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA , Para. 22.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 16.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 18.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 18.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 18-19.
See, Faull & Nikpay, The EC Law of Competition, 1999, P. 287.
See, Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi Anonimi Etaira (ERT) v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis (DEP) ECR I-2925, 4 CMLR 540, Para 31.
See, Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorasso Anonimi Etaira (ERT) v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis (DEP) , paragraph 31; Case C-18/88, RTT v. GB-INNO-BM SA , paragraph 17; Case C-320/91, Corbeau , paragraph 9; Case C-323/93, Societe Civile Agricole du Centre d’Insemination de la Crespelle v. Cooperative d’Elevage et d’ Insemination Artificielle du Department de la Mayenne , paragraph 17; Case C-67/96, Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfpensioenfonds Textielindustrie ,paragraph 91; Joint Cases C-147-148/97, Deutsche Post AG v. Gesellschaft fur Zahlungssysteme MbH (GZS) and Citicorp Kartenservice GmbH , paragraph 39; Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorasso Anonimi Etaira (ERT) v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis (DEP) , paragraph 35.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 11.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 12.
See, Richard Whish, Competition Law, the Fourth Edition, P. 15.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 158.
See, Case C-41/90, Hofner v. Macroton , Para. 32-33; Case C-179/90, Merci Converzionali Porto di Genova v. Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA , Para. 29.
See, Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorasso Anonimi Etaira (ERT) v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis (DEP) , Para.38.
See, Case C-179/90, Merci Converzionali Porto di Genova v. Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA , Para. 17.
See, Case C-18/88, RTT v. GB-INNO-BM SA , Para. 19.
See, Case C-323/93, Societe Civile Agricole du Centre d’Insemination de la Crespelle v. Cooperative d’Elevage et d’ Insemination Artificielle du Department de la Mayenne , Para 18.
See, Case C-67/96, Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfpensioenfonds Textielindustrie , Para 93.
See, Jointed Cases C-147-148/97, Deutsche Post AG v. Gesellschaft fur Zahlungssysteme MbH (GZS) and Citicorp Kartenservice GmbH , Para. 48.
See, See, Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorasso Anonimi Etaira (ERT) v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis (DEP) , Para.38 and 39.
See, Case 30/87 Bodson ECR 2479, Para. 24-25.
See, Case C-41/90, Hofner v. Macroton , Para. 32-33; Case C-179/90, Merci Converzionali Porto di Genova v. Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA ], Para. 20.
|
