This article analyses where purely financial damage in the securities market occurs in light of the European Court of Justice’s (“ECJ”) case law on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The case law on what constitutes the necessary connecting factor to the competent courts is diverse. According to the ECJ’s judgment of 12 May 2021 in VEB, the place where the damage occurs in the secondary market of exchange listed shares is the place where the issuer has statutory reporting obligations. The ECJ held that such interpretation ensures the foreseeability required to establish international jurisdiction. The judgment brings welcome clarity to the location of damage in the secondary market and consolidates the role of statutory reporting obligations as a connecting factor to establish international jurisdiction. Damage, pure economic loss, secondary market, place where damage occurs, disclosure obligation, jurisdiction, regulated market
{"title":"Locating Damage in the Securities Market in the EU – The Road to VEB","authors":"Heidi M. K. Yli-Kankahila","doi":"10.54648/eulr2023028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2023028","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses where purely financial damage in the securities market occurs in light of the European Court of Justice’s (“ECJ”) case law on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The case law on what constitutes the necessary connecting factor to the competent courts is diverse. According to the ECJ’s judgment of 12 May 2021 in VEB, the place where the damage occurs in the secondary market of exchange listed shares is the place where the issuer has statutory reporting obligations. The ECJ held that such interpretation ensures the foreseeability required to establish international jurisdiction. The judgment brings welcome clarity to the location of damage in the secondary market and consolidates the role of statutory reporting obligations as a connecting factor to establish international jurisdiction.\u0000Damage, pure economic loss, secondary market, place where damage occurs, disclosure obligation, jurisdiction, regulated market","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47536006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyses the evolution of substantive investment protection in EU IIAs, i.e., CETA, EUSIPA, EVIPA, the TCA and the proposed CAI. It argues that the overall ‘balancing’ of ‘new-generation’ IIAs has changed. First, these agreements have reduced the scope of investment protection and prioritised market access, investment liberalisation, and investment facilitation by simplifying the transfer of funds and personnel and increasing transparency. Secondly, EU IIAs embrace a limited, yet predictable, approach to investment protection. Non-discrimination standards, NT and MFN, are comprehensively defined, compared to traditional European BITs. Absolute standards of protection, FET and expropriation, entail a balancing exercise in CETA but are missing in the TCA and the Proposed CAI. Investment liberalisation and pre-establishment market access have therefore outstripped post-establishment protection in importance. This approach suggests a re-evaluation by EU policymakers of the relative importance of openness over investor protection. Accordingly, investors should expect limited protection from these agreements. Investment standards, FET, MFN, European Union, CETA, CAI, TCA, Brexit
{"title":"The Evolution of Substantive Protection in EU International Investment Agreements: Taking Stock of the EU’s Early Treaty-Making Practice","authors":"Noah A. Barr","doi":"10.54648/eulr2023025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2023025","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the evolution of substantive investment protection in EU IIAs, i.e., CETA, EUSIPA, EVIPA, the TCA and the proposed CAI. It argues that the overall ‘balancing’ of ‘new-generation’ IIAs has changed. First, these agreements have reduced the scope of investment protection and prioritised market access, investment liberalisation, and investment facilitation by simplifying the transfer of funds and personnel and increasing transparency. Secondly, EU IIAs embrace a limited, yet predictable, approach to investment protection. Non-discrimination standards, NT and MFN, are comprehensively defined, compared to traditional European BITs. Absolute standards of protection, FET and expropriation, entail a balancing exercise in CETA but are missing in the TCA and the Proposed CAI. Investment liberalisation and pre-establishment market access have therefore outstripped post-establishment protection in importance. This approach suggests a re-evaluation by EU policymakers of the relative importance of openness over investor protection. Accordingly, investors should expect limited protection from these agreements.\u0000Investment standards, FET, MFN, European Union, CETA, CAI, TCA, Brexit","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43740325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It has long been disputed by scholars, courts, and arbitral tribunals whether or not hardship is covered by Article 79 of the CISG. In 2020, the CISG Advisory Council published an opinion and expressed the view that CISG governs cases of hardship but under Article 79, the parties have no duty to renegotiate the contract; and a court or arbitral tribunal may not adapt the contract or bring the contract to an end. Council’s opinion is primarily based on the aim to prevent recourse to domestic law. In fact, if one accepts that CISG contains a gap concerning hardship, domestic law will apply to fill such gap, and this would undermine the unification of the law. However, this can hardly be a reason to accept that cases of hardship are covered by Article 79 CISG. Historical, textual, and teleological interpretation of Article 79 as well as an economic analysis of the concerned remedies show that Article 79 does not cover and/or is not suited to apply to cases of hardship. Therefore, there is an internal gap within the CISG concerning hardship and except for some exceptional cases, where one could find an international trade usage between the parties, the last resort to fill such gap is resorting to the domestic law applicable through private international law. Hardship, adaptation, renegotiation, CISG, external gap, internal gap, pacta sunt servanda, clausula rebus sic stantibus, observance of good-faith in international trade, international trade usage
{"title":"Elephant in the Room: CISG, Hardship, and Uniform Application","authors":"H. Aksoy","doi":"10.54648/eulr2023027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2023027","url":null,"abstract":"It has long been disputed by scholars, courts, and arbitral tribunals whether or not hardship is covered by Article 79 of the CISG. In 2020, the CISG Advisory Council published an opinion and expressed the view that CISG governs cases of hardship but under Article 79, the parties have no duty to renegotiate the contract; and a court or arbitral tribunal may not adapt the contract or bring the contract to an end. Council’s opinion is primarily based on the aim to prevent recourse to domestic law. In fact, if one accepts that CISG contains a gap concerning hardship, domestic law will apply to fill such gap, and this would undermine the unification of the law. However, this can hardly be a reason to accept that cases of hardship are covered by Article 79 CISG. Historical, textual, and teleological interpretation of Article 79 as well as an economic analysis of the concerned remedies show that Article 79 does not cover and/or is not suited to apply to cases of hardship. Therefore, there is an internal gap within the CISG concerning hardship and except for some exceptional cases, where one could find an international trade usage between the parties, the last resort to fill such gap is resorting to the domestic law applicable through private international law.\u0000Hardship, adaptation, renegotiation, CISG, external gap, internal gap, pacta sunt servanda, clausula rebus sic stantibus, observance of good-faith in international trade, international trade usage","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45813829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In a case that could be the reference judgment for “actes hors nomenclature”, such as guidelines, the Court has adopted a rather ambiguous reasoning. On the one hand, it states that the acts in question do not produce binding effects, which normally leads to the conclusion that there is no judicial review. On the other hand, the Court considers that even if it cannot exercise its control of legality in the context of a direct action, it can do so via the preliminary ruling on validity. The Court places recommendations and guidelines, which as such do not appear in Article 288, on the same level, and rereads its old Grimaldi case law. The judgment, despite its inconsistencies, is nevertheless of major interest. It highlights that the financial sector has been evolving since the sovereign debt crisis and that the case law still does not provide solutions to the specific problems raised. The evolution of financial law clearly calls for a reshaping of the case law instead of a permanent reference to the rules stemming from the case law process. EBA Guidelines, Article 288 TFEU, unclassified acts, AETR doctrine, Court review, Grimaldi case law, Article 74 of CRD/IV, technical criteria
{"title":"Review of Non-Binding Legal Acts (EBA Guidelines): Paradoxes in Legal Reasoning – Comments on Case C-911/19 Fédération Bancaire Française – (FBF), Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 15 July 2021","authors":"Christos A. Vasilopoulos","doi":"10.54648/eulr2023024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2023024","url":null,"abstract":"In a case that could be the reference judgment for “actes hors nomenclature”, such as guidelines, the Court has adopted a rather ambiguous reasoning. On the one hand, it states that the acts in question do not produce binding effects, which normally leads to the conclusion that there is no judicial review. On the other hand, the Court considers that even if it cannot exercise its control of legality in the context of a direct action, it can do so via the preliminary ruling on validity. The Court places recommendations and guidelines, which as such do not appear in Article 288, on the same level, and rereads its old Grimaldi case law. The judgment, despite its inconsistencies, is nevertheless of major interest. It highlights that the financial sector has been evolving since the sovereign debt crisis and that the case law still does not provide solutions to the specific problems raised. The evolution of financial law clearly calls for a reshaping of the case law instead of a permanent reference to the rules stemming from the case law process.\u0000EBA Guidelines, Article 288 TFEU, unclassified acts, AETR doctrine, Court review, Grimaldi case law, Article 74 of CRD/IV, technical criteria","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46848777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The tragic collapse of the Genoa bridge – an event that hit the world headlines few years ago, also for the huge number of casualties caused – has engendered in Italy, more recently, multifarious legal controversies. In addition to whether the Italian Government was legally entitled to terminate the long-term service concession arrangements with the private entity in charge of the maintenance of the bridge, further subtle legal issues, of a public law nature, have followed up too. As to the latter, the contribution discusses the one relating to the legal characterisation of the piece of legislation (the obscure and opaque “administrative-law”) which the Italian Government has adopted in order to rule out, apparently within any legal-contractual justification, from the public contest of the Genoa bridge re-construction, an Italian company. This entity was the one in charge of the maintenance of the Italian motorway network, including the infamous bridge. The same Italian Constitutional Law has been recently required to enter the heated debate, with an ensuing decision which, as dissected in the article, has ascertained whether the different acts of the Italian Government, promoted and implemented in the aftermath of the Genoa Bridge, were legitimate. In this very complex scenario, the contribution is also aimed, from a more theoretical perspective, at shedding a light on the myriad of laws (administrative, executive, proper laws) that in the Italian legal system have blossomed in the last decades. Genoa bridge collapse, Italian motorways and service concession arrangements, right of termination, administrative-laws, constitutional legitimacy, rule of law, due process of law, concessionaire’s rights, European Union Law, competition law
{"title":"The Oxymoron of the Italian Legal System: The Administrative-Law: From the Collapse of the Genoa Bridge to a Ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court","authors":"Piere de Gioia Carabelese, Camila Dela Giustina","doi":"10.54648/eulr2023029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2023029","url":null,"abstract":"The tragic collapse of the Genoa bridge – an event that hit the world headlines few years ago, also for the huge number of casualties caused – has engendered in Italy, more recently, multifarious legal controversies. In addition to whether the Italian Government was legally entitled to terminate the long-term service concession arrangements with the private entity in charge of the maintenance of the bridge, further subtle legal issues, of a public law nature, have followed up too. As to the latter, the contribution discusses the one relating to the legal characterisation of the piece of legislation (the obscure and opaque “administrative-law”) which the Italian Government has adopted in order to rule out, apparently within any legal-contractual justification, from the public contest of the Genoa bridge re-construction, an Italian company. This entity was the one in charge of the maintenance of the Italian motorway network, including the infamous bridge. The same Italian Constitutional Law has been recently required to enter the heated debate, with an ensuing decision which, as dissected in the article, has ascertained whether the different acts of the Italian Government, promoted and implemented in the aftermath of the Genoa Bridge, were legitimate. In this very complex scenario, the contribution is also aimed, from a more theoretical perspective, at shedding a light on the myriad of laws (administrative, executive, proper laws) that in the Italian legal system have blossomed in the last decades.\u0000Genoa bridge collapse, Italian motorways and service concession arrangements, right of termination, administrative-laws, constitutional legitimacy, rule of law, due process of law, concessionaire’s rights, European Union Law, competition law","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48652429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In many continental legal systems it was often problematic to grant a security right to an entity separate from the holder(s) of the secured receivables. Such arrangement was especially desired by the parties in complex lending structures with many creditors. To solve this problem various legal solutions have been created in different countries. In Poland and in France the special institution of a security agent has been introduced. Aim of this article is to compare those two regulations. The conclusion is that the French provisions better deals with the challenges posed by the entity separation problem. Security agent, collective security arrangements, entity separation, unity principle, security rights, security interest, syndicated loan, bond issue, accessoriness of security rights.
{"title":"The Institution of Security Agent: A Comparative Study of Polish and French Laws","authors":"Tomasz Tomczak","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022049","url":null,"abstract":"In many continental legal systems it was often problematic to grant a security right to an entity separate from the holder(s) of the secured receivables. Such arrangement was especially desired by the parties in complex lending structures with many creditors. To solve this problem various legal solutions have been created in different countries. In Poland and in France the special institution of a security agent has been introduced. Aim of this article is to compare those two regulations. The conclusion is that the French provisions better deals with the challenges posed by the entity separation problem.\u0000Security agent, collective security arrangements, entity separation, unity principle, security rights, security interest, syndicated loan, bond issue, accessoriness of security rights.","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47567931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With more and more consumers relying on online platforms to buy groceries and meals, traditional food labelling has been trumped by information arising from new features of today’s digital commerce. Instead of being affected by objective data on products’ origin, nutrition characteristics and allergens, individuals are increasingly drawn to feelings and perceptions conveyed by influencers’ experiences, online ratings, and rankings. In this sense, food information has become a different and larger notion than that on which EU Food Law is based on. This article examines the dynamics affecting the behaviour of food consumers online and how – and better yet, whether – EU law is responding to the challenges they raise. Food information, delivery platforms, behavioural consumer protection, influencers, online review, online rankings, Food Information to Consumers Regulation, Digital Services Act, Better Enforcement and Modernisation Directive, Platform-to-Business Regulation
{"title":"‘Average’ Consumers Navigating the New Digital Food Chain: Influencers, Online Reviews and Rankings","authors":"Amina Lattanzi","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022045","url":null,"abstract":"With more and more consumers relying on online platforms to buy groceries and meals, traditional food labelling has been trumped by information arising from new features of today’s digital commerce. Instead of being affected by objective data on products’ origin, nutrition characteristics and allergens, individuals are increasingly drawn to feelings and perceptions conveyed by influencers’ experiences, online ratings, and rankings. In this sense, food information has become a different and larger notion than that on which EU Food Law is based on. This article examines the dynamics affecting the behaviour of food consumers online and how – and better yet, whether – EU law is responding to the challenges they raise.\u0000Food information, delivery platforms, behavioural consumer protection, influencers, online review, online rankings, Food Information to Consumers Regulation, Digital Services Act, Better Enforcement and Modernisation Directive, Platform-to-Business Regulation","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47912489","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With the growth of international trade activities, the business volume of factoring in the Chinese market has shown a significant upward trend. Before the promulgation of the Chinese Civil Code in 2020, the factoring contract did not receive due attention, while its legal nature has sparked heated debate due to the complex legal relationships contained in its internal structure. However, the factoring contract is stipulated in the Contract Book as a new nominate contract in the Chinese Civil Code, which is a distinctly important milestone. The relevant provisions of the factoring contract are contained in Articles 761 to 769 of the Code, which have outlined a preliminary regulatory framework for factoring activities. However, controversies still exist in the legal interpretation and judicial practices related to factoring. This paper introduces the legislation and the related judicial practices of factoring with a detailed interpretation of the relevant articles in the Chinese Civil Code, which one could consider a remarkable example of the fusion of the Civil law and Common law systems Factoring contract, Chinese Civil Code, nominate contract, assignment of creditor’s claims, secured transaction, fabricated receivables, notification requirements, recourse factoring, non-recourse factoring, priorities of factoring
{"title":"An Introduction to Factoring Law in China","authors":"Meiling Huang, Yongkang Yuan","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022050","url":null,"abstract":"With the growth of international trade activities, the business volume of factoring in the Chinese market has shown a significant upward trend. Before the promulgation of the Chinese Civil Code in 2020, the factoring contract did not receive due attention, while its legal nature has sparked heated debate due to the complex legal relationships contained in its internal structure. However, the factoring contract is stipulated in the Contract Book as a new nominate contract in the Chinese Civil Code, which is a distinctly important milestone. The relevant provisions of the factoring contract are contained in Articles 761 to 769 of the Code, which have outlined a preliminary regulatory framework for factoring activities. However, controversies still exist in the legal interpretation and judicial practices related to factoring. This paper introduces the legislation and the related judicial practices of factoring with a detailed interpretation of the relevant articles in the Chinese Civil Code, which one could consider a remarkable example of the fusion of the Civil law and Common law systems\u0000Factoring contract, Chinese Civil Code, nominate contract, assignment of creditor’s claims, secured transaction, fabricated receivables, notification requirements, recourse factoring, non-recourse factoring, priorities of factoring","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48036412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
From the perspective of labour law, the analysis of the topic of digital platforms focuses on the reconstruction of the protections applicable to platform work, which requires a distinction between individual and collective rights, i.e. between the question of the enforceability of individual rights provided by law in the employment relationship and the question of the recognition of collective rights that may allow for the introduction of rules throughout a negotiation process and the conclusion of collective agreements. The aim of this essay is to address the issue of the protection of platform work on both sides of individual and collective rights, from the perspective of European Union law and in the light of some useful insights from Italian case law and legislative interventions. This will help to understand the importance of the regulatory initiatives proposed and launched on this issue by the European Commission in 2021. European Union, Labour law, competition law, digital platform, platform work, worker, self-employed persons, collective agreements, data processing, private international law.
{"title":"The Protection of Platform Work in the Perspective of EU Law, between Individual and Collective Rights","authors":"M. Peruzzi","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022048","url":null,"abstract":"From the perspective of labour law, the analysis of the topic of digital platforms focuses on the reconstruction of the protections applicable to platform work, which requires a distinction between individual and collective rights, i.e. between the question of the enforceability of individual rights provided by law in the employment relationship and the question of the recognition of collective rights that may allow for the introduction of rules throughout a negotiation process and the conclusion of collective agreements. The aim of this essay is to address the issue of the protection of platform work on both sides of individual and collective rights, from the perspective of European Union law and in the light of some useful insights from Italian case law and legislative interventions. This will help to understand the importance of the regulatory initiatives proposed and launched on this issue by the European Commission in 2021.\u0000European Union, Labour law, competition law, digital platform, platform work, worker, self-employed persons, collective agreements, data processing, private international law.","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45248685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present paper is intended to analyse if alleged exclusionary abuses perpetrated by big digital platforms, with particular reference to the access to non-public data dealt with in the Amazon Marketplace case, can be assessed applying the legal standards that the Court of Justice developed around the refusal to deal and the margin squeeze practices. It also shows how the new Digital Markets Act, despite representing a step forward in the regulation of the activity of these economic operators, still leaves a few questions open, especially regarding its non-sectoral approach. Finally, the interplay between access to data and privacy rules is investigated. Digital single market, digital platforms, competition law, abuse of dominance, selfpreferencing, access to non-public data, essential facilities doctrine, margin squeeze, digital markets act, GDPR
{"title":"Competition Law and Digital Markets: Adaptation of Traditional Categories or New Rules? Some Reflections Arising from the Amazon Cases Regarding the Access to Non-Public Data","authors":"Caterina Fratea","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022044","url":null,"abstract":"The present paper is intended to analyse if alleged exclusionary abuses perpetrated by big digital platforms, with particular reference to the access to non-public data dealt with in the Amazon Marketplace case, can be assessed applying the legal standards that the Court of Justice developed around the refusal to deal and the margin squeeze practices. It also shows how the new Digital Markets Act, despite representing a step forward in the regulation of the activity of these economic operators, still leaves a few questions open, especially regarding its non-sectoral approach. Finally, the interplay between access to data and privacy rules is investigated.\u0000Digital single market, digital platforms, competition law, abuse of dominance, selfpreferencing, access to non-public data, essential facilities doctrine, margin squeeze, digital markets act, GDPR","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46059687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：