Andreangeli, Arianna

English

Presented at The Limits of Competition Law, Santorini, Greece (jointly organised by UCL Faculty of Laws and IMEDIPA)</p

Edinburgh Research Explorer

[now 81 and 82] of the EC Treaty, COM (99) 101 final (Apr. 28, 1999); see also Council Regulation 1/2003, recitals 2-4,

11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v. Einfuhr und Vorrastelle fur Getreide und Futtermittel,

12633/87, decision of

28(1998); cf. Case T-201/04, Microsoft, supra note 96, para. 331; see also id. at para. 434-37. For commentary, see, inter alia, Roberto Pardolesi and Andrea Renda, The European Commission’s case against Microsoft: Kill Bill?, 27(4) W.

28743/03, admissibility decision of

33. In EU law, see, e.g., Case T-67/00, JFE and others v Commission,

44; see also para. 42; see also Case

57, repealed by Council Regulation 1/2002, The Implementation of the Rules on Competition Laid Down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty,

7; for commentary, see Arianna Andreangeli,

87; see also Case T-201/04, Microsoft, supra note 96, especially

9; see also Thomas Franck, Democracy, Legitimacy and the Rule of Law:

93; see also Arianna Andreangeli, EU Competition enforcement and Human Rights 22 et seq.

A Concise Guide to the Rule of

also Oliveira v Switzerland,

and French Laboratories Ltd. v The Netherlands, App.

Andreangeli, supra note 113,

Andreangeli, supra note 117,

Andreangeli, supra note 22,

Andreangeli, supra note 22, at 223.

Artistic Freedom Versus Privacy—A Delicate Balance, 38(5) Int’l Rev. of Intell. Prop.

available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/457&format=HTML&

Balan v Moldova, supra note 78,

Boehringer Mannheim v Commission,

C-418/01, IMS Health GmbH, supra note 104, para. 48; cf.

Case 14/68, Walt Wilhelm v Bundeskartellamt,

Commission Decision 94/19/EEC, Sea Link v Stena Line,

Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities,

Commissioner, European Commission for Competition, Many Achievements, More to Do, Speech at the IBA Conference “Private and Public Enforcement of EU Competition Law—5 years on,”

Council Regulation 17/62 ,

Council Regulation No 1/03; see also Article 3, Council Regulation No 17/62.

Council Regulation No 1/2003.

Dawn of a New Era?

Denis Waelbroeck, supra note 53,

Denis Waelbroeck, supra note 53, 470; see also Andreangeli, supra note 22, at

Discussion Paper, para. 239-40; see also IMS Health, supra note 104, at para.

Discussion Paper, supra note 110, at para. 235; see also 2009 Guidance, supra note 111, at para. 89; see also Case T-201/04, Microsoft, supra note 96, para. 705 et seq ; cf.

E.C.R. 491, para. 13; Opinion 2/94, Re: Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights,

E.C.R. 491; more recently, Case C-60/00, Carpenter v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,

Ekaterina Rousseva, Abuse of Dominant Position Defences: Objective Justification and

Emberland, supra note 15, at 193.

Emberland, The Human Rights of Companies: Exploring

For commentary see inter alia Emberland, supra note 15, at 25

for commentary, see, e.g.,

Francis v United Kingdom, supra, note 31, para. 57; see also, mutatis mutandis,

Fundamental Rights of the European Union art.

Guidance at para. 81; see also Case T-201/04, Microsoft, supra note 96, para.389-90, 434-35. For commentary, inter alia, Arianna Andreangeli, Interoperabilty as an “Essential Facility” in the Microsoft Case: Encouraging Competition or Stifling Innovation?,

Guidance, supra note 111, at

Guidance, supra note 111, at para. 82; cf.

Guidance, supra note 111, at para. 87; cf., inter alia, Hutten-Czapska v Poland, supra note 110,

Guidance, supra note 111, at paras. 86-9. For commentary, see Larouche, supra note 118,

Hatzopoulos, supra note 123,

id. at paras. 27-28; see also Office of Fair Trading, Powers of Investigation,

IMS Health GmbH, supra note 104, para. 48. For commentary, see, e.g., case comment to Case T-201/04,

IMS Health supra note 104, para. 49; see also Opinion of AG Tizzano,

in respect to the right to silence, Case 374/87, Orkem v. Commission,

Innovation Markets and competition analysis:

Jalloh v Germany, supra note 32,

Joint statement of the Council and the Commission made at the time when regulation No

Lithgow v United Kingdom, supra note 77, para. 205; more recently, B v the Netherlands, App.

mutandis, Jalloh v Germany, supra note 32, para. 114-115; see also Ravon v France,

mutatis mutandis, Case C-150/05, Van Straaten v Staat der nederlanden und Republiek Italie,

mutatis mutandis, Cass, supra note 71, at 8.

O’ Halloran and Francis v United Kingdom, supra note 31,

Preamble to Council Regulation No 1/2003.

Property Rights Systems and the Rule of Law, at 2, 4,

Recital 13, Preamble to Council Regulation No 1/2003; see also Case T-170/06, Alrosa v

Reconceptualising Intellectual Property Interests in a Human Rights Framework,

Regulation 1/2003, recital 6,

Regulation 1/2003, supra note 3, at art. 22; see also Commission Notice

Rein Wesseling, The Draft Regulation Modernising the Competition Rules: The Commission is Married to One Idea,

Schirmer v

Schirmer v Poland, supra note 75, para. 34-5, 42-5; see also Balan v

See Groppera Radio v Switzerland, supra, note 19,

Self-Incrimination in EC Antitrust Enforcement: A Legal and

Ser. A No. 328-C, para. 53; see also Oliveira v Switzerland,

Stenuit v

supra note 15,

supra note 15, at 190-91; see also Lord Bingham, House of Lords, The Rule of Law, at 2, 5-6, 6 th Sir David Williams Lecture,

supra note 17,

supra note 17, at 37-39; see also, mutatis mutandis, Scott Trainor, A Comparative Analysis of a Corporation’s Right Against Self-Incrimination,

supra note 29, para. 57; see also id. at para. 68; Jalloh v Germany, supra note 32,

supra note 50, at para. 14; see, e.g. Gauer, supra note 56, at 6.

supra note 56, at 9.

supra note 81, at part III.

supra note 98, at 241-42; see also Commission Notice on Remedies,

T-201/04, Microsoft, supra note 96, para. 331, 434-53; see also Commission Decision of

The author wishes to thank D. Daniel Sokol, of the University of Florida

The Dark Side of the Relationship Between the Rule of Law and

The Principle of ne bis in idem

The Road to Serfdom 75-6

The Rule of Law as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse,

Competition Law and Human Rights:Striking a Balance Between Business Freedom and Regulatory Intervention

Competition Law and Human Rights:Striking a Balance Between Business Freedom and Regulatory Intervention

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edinburgh Research Explorer