Interface between Competition and the Internal Market

Vasiliki Brisimi (DPhil, Oxon) is an Associate at Koutalidis Law Firm in Athens, Greece.

The book is particularly interesting for competition lawyers and lawyers with an interest in the internal market. (Translated from the original Dutch)

• I. The Interface between Competition and the Internal Market: Market Separation under Article 102 TFEU II. Methodological Remarks on the Analysis of ‘Market Separation under Article 102 TFEU’ III. Summary of the Chapters of this Book 1 Objectives of Article 102 TFEU and Market Integration: From a Historical Analysis to the Current Jurisdictional Approach I. Introduction II. Objectives of EU Regulation of Unilateral Anti-competitive Conduct (Article 102 TFEU) III. Linking the Objectives of Article 102 TFEU to EU Trade Liberalisation IV. ‘Effect on Trade’: An Analytical Approach to Jurisdictional Elements with the Advantage of Hindsight V. Conclusions 2 Market Separation under Article 102 TFEU: The Role of Dominance I. Introduction II. Cases of Market Separation by Dominant Undertakings under Article 102 TFEUIII. An Analytical Approach to Market Separation by Private Actors under the Free Movement Provisionsand its Relationship to Market Separation by Dominant Undertakings IV. Functionalism and the Significance of Public Enforcement of the Competition Law Provisions V. Beyond Functionalism: The Significance of a Quantitative Threshold for Power VI. The Specific Example of Article 106(2) TFEU VII. Conclusions 3 Market Separation under Article 102 TFEU: The Role of Economic Justifications I. Introduction II. The Analytical Framework for Assessing Market Separation as an Abuse of the Dominant Position III. Conceptual Elements of Measures Constituting a Restriction on Free Movement IV. Establishing Market Separation as an Abuse of the Dominant Position V. The Constitutional Basis for Aligning the Notions of Trade Barrier and Abuse of the Dominant Position VI. Conclusions 4 Market Separation under Article 102 TFEU and the Role of Non-economic Justifications: A Question of Attribution I. Introduction II. Abuse and Public Policy Justifications: Treaty-Based Arguments III. Abuse and Public Policy Justifications: Interpretation of the Case Law IV. Conclusions 5 Shared Responsibility for Market Separation by Dominant Undertakings and the State: The Question of Attribution Revisited I. Introduction II. Abuse and the State Action Defence: Establishing Private Responsibility III. Abuse and the State Action Doctrine: Establishing State Responsibility IV. The Interplay between Private and State Responsibility under the Competition Law Provisions V. Conclusions 6 Principled Attribution of Market Separation to the Dominant Undertaking and the State: A Revised State Action Defence I. Introduction II. From Article 3(1)(g) TEC to Protocol No 27 TFEU: Distinct Substantive Legality Tests and AssociatedEnforcement Mechanisms III. Principled Attribution of Market Separation Controlled: TheExample of the ‘Exhaustion’ of Intellectual Property Rights IV. Conclusions