THE MECHANISMS OF COMPETITION PROTECTION – SIGNIFICANCE OF APPLYING “THE RULE OF REASON”
Abstract
In the court practice of 21th century the doctrine of the rule of reason is getting more significant despite all the criticism on its behalf in theory. The rule of reason is the essence of this doctrine and one of the crucial elements in the verdicts in the USA and Europe. This rule makes legal restrictive agreements which are not by the law, but improve competition and social wellbeing. In this way, the problems of the law application in Antitrust law in the USA and the Competition law in Europe are overcome. The rule recognizes the specifications of the specific agreement and enables the analyses of the agreement effects. The analyses of court decisions in the USA and Europe law given in this essay, help us understand the way of applying the rule of reason in practice and what are the advantages of this rule compared to per se rule.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Antitrust Modernization Commission (2007). Report and Recommendations. Stratford: Imperial Graphics, pp. 31-47.
Armentano, D. T. (2007). Antitrust: The Case for Repeal. 2rd edition, Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 81-99.
Bork, R. H. (1966). The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market Division: Part II. The Yale Law Journal, 75(3): 377-415.
Bork, R. H. (1993). The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself. New York: Simon & Schuster, pp. 26-27.
Buttigieg, E. (2009). Competition Law: Safeguarding the Consumer Interest: a comparative analysis of US antitrust law and EC competition law. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, pp. 90-91.
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EEC) (2002). Official Journal of the European Communities, C 325, vol. 45, pp. 1-184.
Dashwood, A., Dogman, M., Rodger, B., Spaventa, E & Wyatt, D. (2011). Wyatt & Dashwood´s European Union Law. 6rd edition. London: Hart Publishing Ltd., pp. 729-762.
EUR-Lex European Union (1966), Société Technique Minière (L.T.M.) v Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH (M.B.U.), case 56/65, Retrivied: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/CS/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61965CJ0056, Accessed on: 22 May 2016.
EUR-Lex European Union (1979), Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, case 120/78, Retrivied: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61978CJ0120, Accessed on: 21. May 2016.
EUR-Lex European Union (1986), Pronuptia de Paris GmbH v Pronuptia de Paris Irmgard Schillgallis, case 161/84, Retrivied: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61984CJ0161, Accessed on: 12 May 2016.
EUR-Lex European Union (1998), European Night Services, joined cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 and T-388/94, Retrivied: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61994TJ0374, Accessed on: 9 May 2016.
European Commission (1988). Commission Regulation (EEC) on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of franchise agreements, No 4087/88, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 359, vol. 31, pp. 46-52.
European Commission (1997). Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy. Brusels: EC Publishing, pp. 61-63.
Fundakowski, D. C. (2013). The Rule of Reason: From Balancing to Bureder Shifting. The Civile Practice&Procedure Committee´s Young Lawyers Advisory Panel:Perspective in Antitrust, 1(2), pp. 1-5.
Hildebrand, D. (2005). Economic Analyses of Vertical Agreements: A self-assessment. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, pp. 42-46.
Hovenkamp, H. (2016). Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and Its Practice. 5rd edition, St Paul MN: West Academic Publishing, pp. 454-458.
Montague, G. H. (2001). The Rise and Progres of the Standard Oil. New York – Hong Kong: Books for Business, pp. 41-53.
Monti, G. ( 2007). EC Competition Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29-31.
Sauter, W. (2016). Coherence in EU Competition Law. Oxsford: Oxford University Press, pp. 98-101.
Schrauwen, А. (2005). Rule of Reason: Rethinking another Classic of European Legal Doctrine. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, pp. 5-11.
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1-11.
Starling, K. G. (1999). Increasing the FTC´s Burden: Quick Look Versus Full Rule of Reason, Corporations. Securites & Antitrust Practice Group Newsletter. 3 (2).
Steiner, J. (1992). Textbook on EEC Law. 3trd edition, London: Blackstone Press, pp. 137-142.
Supreme Justia Court (1896), United States v. Realty Multy-List, 163 U.S. 427, Retrieved: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/427/case.html, Accessed on: 8 May 2016.
Supreme Justia Court (1899), Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211, Retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/175/211/case.html Accessed on: 02 April 2016.
Supreme Justia Court (1911), Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 221 U.S. 1, Retrieved: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/221/1/case.html, Accessed on: 3 May 2016.
Supreme Justia Court (1964), United States v. First Nat´l Bank of Lexington 376, U.S. 665, Retrivied: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/665/case.html, Accessed on: 5 May 2016.
Supreme Justia Court (1977), Continental T. V Inc v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36, Retrieved: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/36/case.html, Accessed on: 5 April 2016.
Vukadinović, R. D. (2008). Uvod u institucije i pravo EU. 1rd edition, Kragujevac: Pravni fakultet u Kragujevcu, Centar za pravo Evropske unije, str. 334-368.
Weatherill, S., Beaumont, P. R. (1993). EC Law, UK: Penguin Books, pp. 701-704.
Which, R. & Bailey, D. (2015). Competition Law. 8rd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 143-144.
Whish, R. & Sufrin B. E. (1987). Article 85 and the Rule of Reason. Yearbook of European Law, 7(1): 1-37.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
© University of Niš, Serbia
Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-ND
ISSN 0354-4699 (Print)
ISSN 2406-050X (Online)