An example of this case be seen in the case where rules of a glass manufactures association with a trader who was involved in fixed-pricing was deemed to fall within the scope of Article 101.
Therefore, it is not just obvious restrictions that will be caught by the Act but even those were there would be a possibility of unfair competition taking place.
Whilst the existence of a dominant position is not prohibited, the abuse of such a position is which seeks to ensure that healthy competition can be preserved.
Changes to the law The main legal changes that was made by Article 102 was the application to private undertakings only and whilst the text of Article 102 largely resembles the text contained in the Treaty of Rome 1957 the language used is much more simplistic.
Still, the decision highlights the extent of the court’s powers when it comes to applying the extensive scope of Article 102.
Law Essay Competition Uk 2011 Assignment Marks
This is imperative in ensuring that free competition is not stifled, yet it must also be ensured that unnecessary restrictions are not being placed on traders.Aims of Article 102 TFEU The aim of Article 102 was to ‘protect competition on the market as a means of enhancing consumer welfare and of ensuring an efficient allocation of resources.’ Although the provisions of Article 102 were contained within the original EEC Treaty (Treaty of Rome), these new provisions sought to clarify and modernise the law within this area so that the protection afforded to consumers was being more easily recognised.when it was pointed out that the primary function of Article 102 is to ‘prevent competition from being distorted to the detriment of the public interest, individual undertakings and consumers, thereby ensuring the well-being of the European Union.’ Article 102 was, therefore, introduced so that the perceived threat to competition that was posed by those holding a dominant position within the market was capable of being combatted.If Article 102 was not in place, competition would be capable of being distorted as firms would be free to collude or merge with their competitors and place unnecessary restrictions on the market.Arguably, both Articles 101 and 102 were introduced with the same goals in mind which were to preserve free competition within the internal market and prohibit any unfair practices from being undertaken.It has been said that since Article 102 was implemented, the Commission and Court of Justice have been ‘more willing to presume anti-competitive effects when a competitor is excluded from the market.’ when Commercial Solvents was found to have abused its position in the market when it ceased to supply one of its drugs to Zoja.Hence, it was held by the court that ‘an undertaking which has a dominant position in the market in raw materials refuses to supply a customer, and therefore eliminates all competition on the part of this customer is abusing its dominant position.’ It is arguable whether the provisions of Article 102 have been extended too far in this case since there was no clarification by the court as to why they thought this amounted to an abuse of position.You can view samples of our professional work here.Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Teacher. Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits any agreements or cartels between Member States that could disrupt free competition within the internal market.It is provided under Article 101(2) that such agreements would automatically be void for distorting free competition within the internal market.This was a significant change as competing undertakings are being made to determine their conduct and pricing independently.