GCP Magazine, release no. 2, Jan. 2008

See here for more.

Should Intent Be a Separate Element of an Abuse of Market Dominance? By: Hyungbae Kim January 28th, 2008 In its ruling in POSCO, the Korean Supreme Court held that evidence of specific intent must be proven for there to be a violation of abuse of market dominance. Despite its historical significance in the treatment of market dominance cases in Korea, the judgment leaves something to be desired.

The Role of Competition Policy in the APEC: Comparative and Japanese Case Studies By: Koki Arai January 28th, 2008 This article provides an analytical review of the competition policy regimes of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member countries and offers solutions based on the Japanese experience.

The CFI Decision in Microsoft: Why the European Commission’s guidelines on abuse of dominance are necessary and possible By: Frederic Jenny January 28th, 2008 This note focuses on the “refusal to deal” part of the CFI’s Microsoft decision to derive some conclusions on the advisability and the possibility for the European Commission to adopt guidelines on the enforcement of Article 82.

Analysis of the Korean Supreme Court decision concerning “unreasonableness” in the abuse of a market dominant position case involving Posco By: Joseph Hur January 25th, 2008 On Nov. 22, 2007, Korea’s Supreme Court rendered its decision in the market dominant position case against Posco. The significance of the Court’s decision will be made clearer as the KFTC turns to other market dominance investigations such as those of the major foreign companies Intel and Qualcomm.

The Microsoft Judgment: Article 82 Revisited? By: Denis Waelbroeck January 25th, 2008 The CFI’s Microsoft judgment takes a rather broad approach in applying the case law established in the Magill, IMS Health, and Hoffmann-La-Roche judgments before it.

Revision

I have to revise my comment in my entry in Competition policy in the media. In January I think every GVH press release was amplified by economic newspapers, on-line portals.

Upcoming antirust cases before the European courts – February

Not too much gong on this month.

CFI - 27 February:

Hearing T-68/04 SGL Carbon v Commission

Hearing T-69/04 Schunk and Schunk Kohlenstoff-Technik v Commission

Hearing T-73/04 Carbone Lorraine v Commission

UCP directive – unfair commercial practices – unfair court practices?

The Metropolitan Appellate Court made some remarks on the directive on unfair commercial practices (29/2005/EC). The judges basically said that Hungarian law is currently fully harmonised with the law of the European Union. What I do not understand is than why is the Hungarian Parliament trying to transpose the directive for more than a year now unsuccessfully? One could say that the practice is currently securing the same level of protection (but many lawyers doubt this), but one thing is sure: Hungarian law is not yet harmonised with the UCP directive.

Specialised LL.M. in competition law

Daniel Sokol on Antitrust Law Prof Blog posed the question what specialised LL.M. programs exist on competition law.

I know one (Competition Law and Economics) that is a very well managed program at King’s College London. I have done it (or the predecessor) last year and my experience is very good with it. Not to speak about one of the most amazing lecturers, professors in competition law, Professor Richard Whish.

LLM – Seven courses can be taken as part of either the tailored or specialist Competition LawLLM programme (applications for admission to the LLM for 2008-09 opened on 1 October 2007):

• EC Competition Law
• EC State Aid and State Regulation Law
• Regulation
• UK Competition Law
• US Antitrust Law
• Competition Law and Regulated Network Industries (half option, second term)
• Economics of Competition Law (half option, second term)

The lecturers are also worth noting.

• Professor Richard Whish (assisted by Dimitris Mourkas)
• Professor Karen Yeung
• Professor Alison Jones
• Professor Andrea Biondi
• Dr Christopher Townley
• Mr David Bailey
• Mr Josh Holmes
• Mr Robin Griffith
• Mr Peter Alexiadis
• Mr David Elliott

Public consultation on cartels settlements – comments received (January 2008)

The European Commission published the received comments on the consultation about settlement proceedings.

See here for the received comments.

And see here for the comment sent by the Competition Law Research Centre, Hungary.

Lunchtime lecture at the Competition Law Research Centre

 The Competition Law Research Centre is proud to announce the next lunchtime lecture. The lecture is on private enforcement, by Professor Richard Whish. The title is: ‘The future of damages actions for infringements of Competition Law in the EU’

Download the detailed poster here: Professor Richard Whish – Lunchtime lecture (.pdf)

Download the registration form here: Richard Whish – Registration form (.pdf)

International Graduate Legal Research Conference

“We are delighted to announce the Second International Graduate Legal Research Conference (IGLRC). The Conference will take place in heart of London’s legal quarter on June 9th & 10th 2008. It will host papers from those excelling in graduate legal research across Europe and the world. The Conference will provide a forum for debate, the exchange of ideas, and the furtherance of knowledge.” See more

See here for the poster: International Graduate Legal Research Conference

The free advertisement for Microsoft

I can not recall that any other company was successful to get its own place on the Commission’s website. Microsoft did it! I suppose at Microsoft they are not that happy about it, but last time I have heard him, the head of Microsoft Hungary told the public that they did not appeal the CFI judgement, partly because they want to change business model anyway. If this is (would be ) a top list, Microsoft even outscored the energy sector inquiry Anyway, see below:

Self-Reguated Professions

On December 11, 2007, the Canadian Competition Bureau released its study on self-regulated professions in which it states that: “Canada’s self-regulated professions should re-examine their rules. The Competition Bureau found that rules that limit advertising, set prices for services and restrict who can offer professional services may go further than necessaryt. The Bureau’s report focuses on five professions: accountants, lawyers, optometrists, pharmacists and real estate agents. ” See more…

There is also a Hungarian case going on on advertising befor the Hungarian Metropolitan Court. Might be interesting…