A versenyhatóságok szerepe a médiapluralizmus védelmében

Bár a médiapluralizmus az Európai Unióban alapvető érték, az EU nem rendelkezik kifejezett hatáskörrel a média szabályozására. Valójában a média mint az uniós politika egyik területe hiányzik az EU Szerződésekből, és az EU jogi eszközei is korlátozottak e téren. Mivel azonban a média az egységes piac fontos gazdasági ágazataként is működik, a médiapiacok szabályozása az EU belső piaci és versenyjogi hatásköre alá tartozik. A versenyjog területén a Bizottság közvetlen és kizárólagos hatáskörrel rendelkezik, és messzemenő felügyeleti jogkörrel. Ez a tanulmány bemutatja, hogy általában a versenyjog és különösen az fúziók ellenőrzése alapvető szerepet játszik a médiapiacokon a jelentős gazdasági erő felhalmozódásának ellenőrzésében és megakadályozásában, és azt elemzi, hogy a versenyhatóságok – ugyan közvetettebb módon, mint a médiaszabályozók – miként védhetik meg a versenyképes médiapiacokat. Szerepüket a közelmúltban értelmezték az uniós bíróságok is, amelyek fontos elveket határoztak meg arra vonatkozóan, hogy mi minősül hatékony versenyjogi jogérvényesítésnek – ez kulcsfontosságú azokban a helyzetekben, amikor a médiapiacokat a jogállamiság visszalépése érinti

Sped-Pro: The Impact of Rule-of-Law Backsliding on the Enforcement of (EU) Competition Law

The Sped-Pro judgment concerns an action for annulment of an EU Commission decision rejecting a complaint alleging the abuse of a dominant position by the Polish state-owned railway company PKP Cargo. In this judgment, the General Court for the first time established a direct link between systematic deficiencies in the legal order of a Member State and the ability of its competition authority to investigate and take enforcement action under EU law. The General Court addressed issues of the rule of law as an element of effective competition law enforcement and the case allocation principles between the Commission and National Competition Authorities (NCAs) under the decentralised enforcement system of Regulation 1/2003. The General Court now requires the Commission to examine, when handling complaints, whether an NCA can actually enforce EU law effectively.Kati Cseres: [email protected] Hwija: [email protected] Cseres - University of Amsterdam, NetherlandsKarolina Hwija - University of Amsterdam, NetherlandsBrook O., and Cseres K.J., Policy Report: Priority Setting in EU and National Competition Law Enforcement, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3930189.Commission Decision No. 773/2004 on the case of AT.40459 (COM 12.08.2019).Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (O.J. C 101, 27.04.2004, p. 43).Commission Staff Working Document, Enhancing Competition Enforcement by the Member States’ Competition Authorities: Institutional and Procedural Issues, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0231&from=EN.Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (O.J. L 1, 16.12.2002, p. 1).Cseres K.J., The Commission’s Missed Opportunity to Reclaim Competition Law for the Rechtsstaat, https://verfassungsblog.de/the-commissions-missed-opportunity-to-reclaim-competition-law-for-the-rechtsstaat/.Cseres K.J., EU Competition Law and Democracy in the Shadow of Rule of Law Backsliding, (in:) Colombo C., Eliantonio M., Wright K. (eds.), The Evolving Governance of EU Competition Law in a Time of Disruptions: A Constitutional Perspective, forthcoming, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4032499.Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market (O.J. L 11, 11.12.2018, p. 3).European Commission, Recommendation for Council Recommendation on the 2022 National Reform Programme of Hungary and delivering a Council opinion on the 2022 Convergence Programme of Hungary, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022–05/2022-european-semester-csr-hungary_en.pdf.Judgment of CJEU of 26 February 1986 on the case of M.H. Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching), 152/84.Judgment of CJEU of 14 December 2000 on the case of Masterfoods Ltd v. HB Ice Cream Ltd, C 344/98.Judgment of CJEU of 25 July 2018 on the case of ML, C 220/18 PPU.Judgment of GC of 18 September 1992 on the case of Automec Srl v. Commission of the European Communities, T 24/90.Judgment of GC of 3 July 2007 on the case of Au Lys de France SA v. Commission of the European Communities, T 458/04.Judgment of GC of 26 January 2005 on the case of Laurent Piau v. Commission of the European Communities, T 193/02.Judgment of CJEU of 31 May 2005 on the case of Synetairismos Farmakopoion Aitolias and Akarnanias (Syfait) and Others v. GlaxoSmithKline plc and GlaxoSmithKline AEVE, C 53/03.Judgment of CJEU of 3 May 2007 on the case of Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad, C 303/05.Judgment of CJEU of 5 April 2016 on the case of Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru v. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen, C 404/15 and C 659/15 PPU.Judgment of CJEU of 25 July 2018 on the case of LM, C 216/18 PPU.Judgment of CJEU of 24 June 2019 on the case of European Commission v. Republic of Poland, C 619/18.Judgment of GC of 17 December 2014 on the case of Si.mobil telekomunikacijske storitive d.d. v. European Commission, T 201/11.Judgment of GC of 16 May 2017 on the case of Agria Polska sp. z o.o. and Others v. European Commission, T 480/15.Judgment of GC of 30 May 2013 on the case of Omnis Group Srl v. European Commission, T 74/11.Judgment of GC of 9 February 2022 on the case of Sped-Pro S.A. v. European Commission, T 791/19.Kelemen R.D., Europe’s Other Democratic Deficit: National Authoritarianism in Europe’s Democratic Union, ‘Government and Opposition’ 2017, vol. 52, no. 2.Kozak M., Mainardi J., Rights of Complainants before the European Commission: A Critical Analysis, ‘Journal of European Competition Law & Practice’ 2023, vol. 14, no. 3.Malaga M., Does the ‘More Appropriate’ Authority Need to Be Independent? Rule of Law Implications for Case Referrals with Respect of Concentrations, ‘Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies’ 2022, vol. 15, no. 25.Nehl H.P., Principles of Administrative Procedure in EC Law, Portland 1999.Opinion 2/13 of CJEU of 18 December 2014 (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU).Presidency conclusions of the European Council of 15–16 October 1999 on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union (O.J. D/99, 15–16.10.1999, p. 14).Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (O.J. L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1).Urbańska M., Sikora K., Important Changes to the Competition and Consumer Protection Act Are on the Way, https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/2023/02/important-changes-to-the-competitionand-consumer-protection-act-are-on-the-way.Van Rompuy B., The European Commission’s Handling of Non-Priority Antitrust Complaints: An Empirical Assessment, ‘World Competition’ 2022, vol. 45, no. 2.Van Rompuy B., Independence as a Prerequisite for Mutual Trust between EU Competition Enforcers: Case T-791/19, Sped-Pro v Commission, ‘Journal of European Competition Law & Practice’ 2022, vol. 13, no. 6.White Paper on Modernisation of the Rules Implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty Decentralization (Commission Programme No. 99/027, 28.04.1999).28413114

Without Enforcement, the EMFA is Dead Letter

Besides important substantive provisions, the EMFA proposal contains various mechanisms concerning the role of national regulatory authorities, the newly established European Board for Media Services (Board) and the Commission. However, this blogpost argues that the proposed tools fail to effectively improve the already available enforcement mechanisms in EU law. We offer three recommendations to improve enforcement of media law and policy in the EU, while remaining within the boundaries of the competences as established by the EU Treaties.</p

Europeanization of Private Law in Central and Eastern Europe Countries (CEECs): Preliminary Findings and Research Agenda

Since its creation, European Union (hereinafter: ‘the EU’) has experienced various enlargements. In 1973, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined the EU. Greece became a Member in 1981 and was followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986. Austria, Finland and Sweden accessed the EU in 1995. In 2004, ten Central and Eastern European Countries (hereinafter: ‘the CEECs’) became EU members. Finally, another two CEECs, i.e. Bulgaria and Romania, joined the EU on 1 January 2007. What impact did previous enlargements have on national systems of private law? It is an important question since there are ongoing accession negotiations with Croatia and Turkey and also other countries (Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine and Moldova) are interested in adhering to the EU. Not only these countries but also Russia has developed specific relationships with the EU which affect its private law system. Learning from previous experience may help structuring better pattern of Europeanization. But the broader question is whether the process of ‘Europeanization’ of private law in CEECs can be considered concluded with membership or ‘regional policies’ are needed to contextualize the implementation of EU law and to govern its spillovers.Table of Contents I. Introduction (Fabrizio Cafaggi and Lukasz Gorywoda) .................................... 1 1. Staging of the Project ................................................................. 4 2. The Scope of the Project ............................................................... 4 3. Domains of the Project ................................................................. 5 4. Institutional Approach...................................................................7 5. Diachronic and Synchronic Approach ......................................................8 6. Patterns of Europeanization of Private Law...............................................9 6.1. Legal factors and diversity of obligations.............................................10 6.2 Market-driven factors inducing adoption of EU-like legislation..........................15 6.3 Socio-economic and institutional factors................................................15 7. Patterns of Legal Europeanization of Private Law.........................................16 8. Different Modes of Adoption of EU Legislation and General Principles.....................18 8.1 Europeanization of private law through legislation .................................... 18 8.2 Modes of adoption through administrative agencies ......................................18 8.3 Modes of adoption through judiciary.....................................................18 8.4 Modes of Europeanization: the role of private organizations.............................18 9. Differences in Sectors ..................................................................18 10. Conclusions ............................................................................18 II. Institutional Framework (Marise Cremona and Karolina Podstawa) ...................... ..20 1. The New Member States of Central and Eastern Europe..................................... 20 1.1 Enlargement and pre-accession strategy................................................. 20 1.2 'Europe' Association Agreements ....................................................... 21 2. Candidates and Potential Candidates .................................................... 23 3. Western Balkans..........................................................................24 3.1 Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAAs) ........................................24 3.2 Potential candidate/candidate status and pre-accession..................................25 4. Turkey ..................................................................................27 4.1 The Association Agreement with Turkey...................................................27 4.2 Turkey as a candidate State.............................................................29 5. The European Neighbourhood Policy........................................................30 5.1 Partnership and Cooperation Agreements .................................................30 5.2 The ENP framework ......................................................................31 6. Russia ..................................................................................33 III. Consumer Law (Hans-W. Micklitz) .......................................................35 1. Four Reasons for Research................................................................35 2. Continuity and Discontinuity ............................................................39 3. Modes of Implementation of Consumer Law .................................................41 3.1 Legislative implementation..............................................................41 3.2 Via separate laws and/or via amendments of the civil law................................42 3.3 Role and function of intermediaries in the implementation process...................... 42 4. Enforcement .............................................................................43 4.1 Internal socio-economic and cultural factors ...........................................43 4.2 External factors .......................................................................45 IV. Europeanization of Competition Law (Kati Cseres and Rozeta Karova) .................... 47 1. Introduction ............................................................................47 2. Continuity v. Discontinuity..............................................................49 3. Modes of Implementation of the Acquis....................................................52 3.1 Legislative implementation..............................................................52 3.2 Judicial implementation of the European competition case-law ...........................58 4. Enforcement .............................................................................59 4.1 Internal socio-economic factors ........................................................59 4.2 External factors .......................................................................61 4.3 Private enforcement ....................................................................64 5. Institutions ............................................................................66 V. Securities Law (Olha O. Cherednychenko) .................................................70 1. Introduction ............................................................................70 2. Continuity vs. Discontinuity ............................................................73 3. Modes of Implementation .................................................................75 3.1 Implementation through legislature and executive .......................................75 3.2 Implementation through judiciary and alternative dispute resolution boards............. 77 4. Enforcement .............................................................................78 4.1 Public enforcement .....................................................................78 4.2 Private enforcement ....................................................................79 5. Institutions ............................................................................80 VI. Preliminary Conclusions (H.-W. Micklitz)................................................8

Europeanization of Private Law in Central and Eastern Europe Countries (CEECs): Preliminary Findings and Research Agenda

Since its creation, European Union (hereinafter: ‘the EU’) has experienced various enlargements. In 1973, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined the EU. Greece became a Member in 1981 and was followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986. Austria, Finland and Sweden accessed the EU in 1995. In 2004, ten Central and Eastern European Countries (hereinafter: ‘the CEECs’) became EU members. Finally, another two CEECs, i.e. Bulgaria and Romania, joined the EU on 1 January 2007. What impact did previous enlargements have on national systems of private law? It is an important question since there are ongoing accession negotiations with Croatia and Turkey and also other countries (Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine and Moldova) are interested in adhering to the EU. Not only these countries but also Russia has developed specific relationships with the EU which affect its private law system. Learning from previous experience may help structuring better pattern of Europeanization. But the broader question is whether the process of Europeanization of private law in CEECs can be considered concluded with membership or ‘regional policies’ are needed to contextualize the implementation of EU law and to govern its spillovers.European law; harmonisation; East-Central Europe