Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
8 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Enforcement powers (Art 101 and 102 of the TFEU) |
7: requirements to bring infringement to an wend 9:commitments 12: exchange of (confidential) information 14: advisory committee 17: ability to carry out investigations/inspections and gather information 18: requests for information 19: power to take statements 20: powers of inspections 21: inspection of other premises 23: fines: 23(1) not exceeding 1% of total turnover in preceding business year for intentionally or negligently supplying incorrect or misleading info, refusal to submit to inspection of where a seal has been broken. 23(2) not exceeding 10% of total turnover in proceeding business year for intentionally or negligently infringing Article 101 and 102 TFEU 23(3) gravity and duration 23(5) decision taken pursuant to para 1 and 2 shall not be of a criminal nature. 24: periodic penalty payments, usually when the undertaking does not comply with a legally binding decision |
|
|
Microsoft penalties |
abuse by leveraging in near market monopoly for PC operating systems onto the market for work group server operating systems and media players March 2004: supply windows XPN (this was the version without the media player installed). Supply interface infromation: microsoft required to supply in protocol for the operating system of windows media player to other media player producers. Fine of 497,196, 304 euros as EU Commission said microsoft were not providing enough info to competitors. July 2004: 208.5m fined for non-compliance February 2008: 899m euros fined for continuing non-compliance Total of £1.36bn Infringement decision and periodic penalty payments upheld. |
|
|
Microsoft business model: tying |
Earlier concerns about WMP replaced with internet explorer concerns. 2009 Commitment decision: microsoft to offer European Users of Windows chlice among different web browsers. Microsoft to allow computer manufacturers and used the possibility to turn IE off. Commitments are legally binding. Breach of commitment in 2013 as Microsoft failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its windows 7 service pack from 2011-2012. They acknowledged their failure. They were given a 561mil euro fine. total fines from EU reached: 2,237,696,304 euros. |
|
|
Slater, Thomas and Waelbroek |
Administrative system so the commission is both investigator and arbitrator. This may dampen internal critique within the institution and raise concerns about the absence of checks and balances. Also combination of all powers within one institution raises the question of the compatibility of competition law proceedings led by the commission and the fundamental right to fair trial |
|
|
Forrester |
'Regrettably, however, the talented and prestigious institution is weakened by unique, and uniquely unsatisfactory, processes and procedures.' |
|
|
Jussila v Finland |
see notes on criminality and EUMR. 'Criminal' has a unique meaning under the ECHR. This case established the 'engel' test for what is criminal 1) necessary to know whether the provision defining the offence charged belongs, according to the legal system of the respondents to criminal law, disciplinary or both 2) but, the very nature of the offence is a fator of greater importance 3) however, supervision by the court does not stop there. such supervision would generally prove to be illusory if it did not also take into consideration the degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risks incurring. 2nd and 3rd criteria are alternative and not necessarily cumulative. It is enough that the offence in question is by its nature to be regarded as criminal or that the offence renders the person liable to a penalty which by its nature and degree of severity belongs in the general criminal sphere. 'The engel criteria have underpinned a gradual broadening of the criminal head to cases not strictly belonging to the criminal law for example administrative penalties.' therefore there are two categories of criminal law: hard and non-hard (more flexibility regarding complying with an entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.' |
|
|
Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L v Italy |
Applicant fined by AGCM which has investigative and first-instance decision-making powers. Investigations with first-instance decision-making powers compatible with Art 6(1) ECHR provided appeal is possible before a judicial body with full jurisdiction. |
|
|
Fundamental Rights vulnerability |
Are sanctions for non-compliance compatible with right to fair trial (right to silence)? Right to respect for private and family life (art 8 ECHR) and inspection powers Protection of professional legal privilege-can commission authority get hold of advice provided by solicitors? Yes if they are in house Access by undertakings to files held by commission to be used against them? Double jeopardy: so many CAs across the EU that the undertakings may be charged with the same thing twice. |
