2007 EC Competition Law and Sector-specific Regulatory Case Law Developments with a Nexus to Poland

Poland joined the EU on 1 May 2004. The initial “honeymoon” period has, generally speaking, been a happy one and there have been few prominent cases decided at the administrative level (i.e. the European Commission) or brought before the judiciary (i.e. the European Community Courts). That said, usually following notifications by Polish authorities, the Commission has taken a number of important individual decisions in the field of State aid (including the misuse of aid decisions in the steel sector and the Power Purchase Agreements decision), which have led to litigation before the Community Courts. The Commission’s decisions in Polish cases have already provided important clarifications (e.g. regarding the application of alternative State aid exemptions to pre-accession restructuring cases in Technologie Buczek) and raised significant new legal issues (e.g. the application of the EC State aid rules to pre-accession aid under Protocol No. 8 of the Accession Treaty in Huta Częstochowa or an agent’s actions triggering pre-accession cartel liability in BR/ESBR). Pending actions in these cases can and lead to further case law developments, especially with regard to Protocol No. 8 the Commission’s Rescue & Restructuring Guidelines.competition law, poland, regulatory law, cases

2010 and 2011 EU Competition Law and Sector-specific Regulatory Jurisprudence and Case Law Developments with a Nexus to Poland

This third overview of EU competition and sector-specific regulatory jurisprudential and case law developments with a nexus to Poland covers the years 2010 and 2011. This period of time is worth noting for several reasons. First, EU courts delivered a significant number of judgments in ‘Polish’ cases including an increased number of preliminary rulings. Second, 2010-2011 developments were dominated by judgments and decisions concerning telecoms. Finally, the Commission adopted only a handful of Polish State aid decisions following a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The main developments in telecoms relate to the Court of Justice’s preliminary reference judgment in Tele 2 Polska focusing on the interpretation of Regulation 1/2003 and the PTC v UKE ruling that dealt with number portability charges. Relevant is also the antitrust prohibition decision issued by the Commission against Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. for its refusal to grant access to its wholesale broadband services. In other fields, the Court of Justice delivered three State aid judgments (including two appeals against pre-2010 judgments of the General Court) and two judgments in infringement proceedings (regarding pre EU Accession marketing authorisations for medicines and the reutilisation of data from the public sector). The General Court ruled on appeal in the butadiene rubber cartel case (e.g. in Trade-Stomil v Commission). Finally, the Commission dealt with a merger case with a truly Polish specificity (Kraft Foods/ Cadbury), approved subject to divestiture of the E. Wedel brand

2010 and 2011 EU Competition Law and Sector-specific Regulatory Jurisprudence and Case Law Developments with a Nexus to Poland

This third overview of EU competition and sector-specific regulatory jurisprudential and case law developments with a nexus to Poland covers the years 2010 and 2011. This period of time is worth noting for several reasons. First, EU courts delivered a significant number of judgments in ‘Polish’ cases including an increased number of preliminary rulings. Second, 2010-2011 developments were dominated by judgments and decisions concerning telecoms. Finally, the Commission adopted only a handful of Polish State aid decisions following a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The main developments in telecoms relate to the Court of Justice’s preliminary reference judgment in Tele 2 Polska focusing on the interpretation of Regulation 1/2003 and the PTC v UKE ruling that dealt with number portability charges. Relevant is also the antitrust prohibition decision issued by the Commission against Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. for its refusal to grant access to its wholesale broadband services. In other fields, the Court of Justice delivered three State aid judgments (including two appeals against pre-2010 judgments of the General Court) and two judgments in infringement proceedings (regarding pre EU Accession marketing authorisations for medicines and the reutilisation of data from the public sector). The General Court ruled on appeal in the butadiene rubber cartel case (e.g. in Trade-Stomil v Commission). Finally, the Commission dealt with a merger case with a truly Polish specificity (Kraft Foods/ Cadbury), approved subject to divestiture of the E. Wedel brand.

2007 EC Competition Law and Sector-specific Regulatory Case Law Developments with a Nexus to Poland

Poland joined the EU on 1 May 2004. The initial “honeymoon” period has, generally speaking, been a happy one and there have been few prominent cases decided at the administrative level (i.e. the European Commission) or brought before the judiciary (i.e. the European Community Courts). That said, usually following notifications by Polish authorities, the Commission has taken a number of important individual decisions in the field of State aid (including the misuse of aid decisions in the steel sector and the Power Purchase Agreements decision), which have led to litigation before the Community Courts. The Commission’s decisions in Polish cases have already provided important clarifications (e.g. regarding the application of alternative State aid exemptions to pre-accession restructuring cases in Technologie Buczek) and raised significant new legal issues (e.g. the application of the EC State aid rules to pre-accession aid under Protocol No. 8 of the Accession Treaty in Huta Częstochowa or an agent’s actions triggering pre-accession cartel liability in BR/ESBR). Pending actions in these cases can and lead to further case law developments, especially with regard to Protocol No. 8 the Commission’s Rescue & Restructuring Guidelines

2010 and 2011 EU Competition Law and Sector-specific Regulatory Jurisprudence and Case Law Developments with a Nexus to Poland

This third overview of EU competition and sector-specific regulatory jurisprudential and case law developments with a nexus to Poland covers the years 2010 and 2011. This period of time is worth noting for several reasons. First, EU courts delivered a significant number of judgments in ‘Polish’ cases including an increased number of preliminary rulings. Second, 2010-2011 developments were dominated by judgments and decisions concerning telecoms. Finally, the Commission adopted only a handful of Polish State aid decisions following a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The main developments in telecoms relate to the Court of Justice’s preliminary reference judgment in Tele 2 Polska focusing on the interpretation of Regulation 1/2003 and the PTC v UKE ruling that dealt with number portability charges. Relevant is also the antitrust prohibition decision issued by the Commission against Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. for its refusal to grant access to its wholesale broadband services. In other fields, the Court of Justice delivered three State aid judgments (including two appeals against pre-2010 judgments of the General Court) and two judgments in infringement proceedings (regarding pre EU Accession marketing authorisations for medicines and the reutilisation of data from the public sector). The General Court ruled on appeal in the butadiene rubber cartel case (e.g. in Trade-Stomil v Commission). Finally, the Commission dealt with a merger case with a truly Polish specificity (Kraft Foods/ Cadbury), approved subject to divestiture of the E. Wedel brand

2008 and 2009 EU Competition Law and Sector-specific Regulatory Case Law Developments with a Nexus to Poland

The 2008 issue of YARS contained an overview of EU law developments in the period of time from 2004 to 2007. This overview covers the years 2008-2009. It confirms that State aid cases remained numerous (6 in total) and that the Commission’s enforcement activities in the area of State aid control continued at a similar pace as before. With respect to other areas of competition law and policy, the overall picture shows a relatively high level of scrutiny in mergers (5) and antitrust cases or inquiries (2). Moreover, EU Courts adopted several decisions in Polish cases, notably in the regulatory field (electronic communications) and State aid control (partial annulment in Huta Częstochowa (Operator) as well as the rejection of a request for interim measures in Technologie Buczek). The regulatory court cases show the Commission’s consistency in pursuing Member States in their failure to implement or to correctly implement the EU Electronic Communications package. In the state aid related Huta Częstochowa (Operator) judgement, the General Court (GC, formerly the Court of First Instance, CFI) partially annulled the scrutinised Commission decision since the Commission failed to identify the actual benefit related to the receipt of the aid in question. The jury is still out in the case concerning Technologie Buczek because the interim measures judgement says little about the potential outcome of the pending main appeals.Le YARS de 2008 contenait un aperçu des développements du droit de l'UE pendant la période de 2004 à 2007, alors que celui-ci couvre les années 2008-2009. Il confirme que les cas d'aides d'État sont restés nombreux (6 au total) et que la mise en œuvre du contrôle des aides d'État par la Commission a continué au même rythme. En ce qui concerne les autres secteurs du droit de la concurrence et de la politique de concurrence, le nombre de contrôles des concentrations et des cas ou des enquêtes antitrust est relativement élevé (2). En outre, les cours de l'UE ont rendu plusieurs arrêts dans des cas polonais, notamment dans le domaine réglementaire (communications électroniques) et du contrôle d'aides d'État (l'annulation partielle dans Huta Częstochowa (opérateur) ainsi que le rejet d'une demande de mesures provisoires dans Technologie Buczek). Les arrêts dans le domaine réglementaire montrent la cohérence de la Commission dans les actions contre les États membres qui ont manqué à leur obligation de mettre en oeuvre, ou de mettre en œuvre correctement, le Paquet Télécom de l'UE. Dans l'arrêt Huta Częstochowa (opérateur) concernant les aides d'État, le Tribunal (précédemment le Tribunal de Première Instance, TPI) a partiellement annulé la décision de la Commission puisque la Commission n'a pas réussi à identifier l'avantage réel de la réception de l'aide en question. Le jury est toujours en train de délibérer dans le cas concernant Technologie Buczek parce que l'arrêt sur les mesures provisoires dit peu sur les résultats potentiels des appels principaux en cours

Soldats d’entre-deux

Originaires d’espaces frontaliers ou membres d’un groupe national sans État, les soldats « d’entre-deux » se trouvent dans un conflit potentiel de loyauté vis-à-vis de leur État souverain, surtout quand celui-ci exige une fidélité exclusive à partir de l’entrée en guerre en 1914. Comment agissent ceux des Empires multinationaux allemand et austro-hongrois au cours de la Première Guerre mondiale ? Leur comportement anticipe-t-il la fondation d’États nationaux en Europe centrale après 1918 ou, au contraire, témoigne-t-il de leur sens du devoir à l’égard de l’autorité légitime ? En étudiant comment s’ordonnent des appartenances multiples dans les ego-documents produits par des soldats de la troupe ou des gradés, cet ouvrage restitue la complexité et l’hétérogénéité des armées centrales, de l’Alsace à la Galicie, en passant par l’Italie. Si la plupart des hommes furent loyaux à leur Empire, cette loyauté reposait sur des conceptions parfois antagonistes, voire des attentes pour l’après-guerre, et leurs témoignages révèlent des expériences particulières de la Grande Guerre – des particularités longtemps tues à l’est de l’Europe et méconnues à l’ouest