Omejevanje konkurence z usklajenim ravnanjem podjetij

Vrhovšek, Sabina

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Omejevanje konkurence z usklajenim ravnanjem podjetij
Authors:	ID Vrhovšek, Sabina (Author) ID Tratnik, Matjaž (Mentor) More about this mentor... ID Ferčič, Aleš (Comentor)
Files:	UNI_Vrhovsek_Sabina_2009.pdf (415,71 KB) MD5: B5029116639C40FD34DE5451432B2586
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Undergraduate thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Konkurenčno pravo in konkurenčna politika nedvomno igrata veliko vlogo v Evropski Uniji. Že sama Pogodba Evropske skupnosti zagotavlja pogoje za svobodni trg in neovirano konkurenco. Eden izmed najpomembnejših členov na tem področju je 81. člen, ki prepoveduje sporazume med podjetji, sklepe podjetniških združenj in usklajena ravnanja, ki bi lahko negativno vplivali na trgovino med državami članicami in katerih namen ali učinek je preprečevanje, omejevanje ali izkrivljanje konkurence znotraj skupnega trga. Koncept usklajenega ravnanja predstavlja nekakšno varnostno mrežo, ki naj zajame vsa dejanja, ki omejujejo konkurenco, torej tudi neformalno sodelovanje med podjetji, ki jih ni mogoče označiti kot sporazume ali sklepe. Sam pojem ni nikjer v Pogodbi definiran, zato je ta naloga pripadla Sodišču Evropske Skupnosti. Najpomembnejši sta dve odločbi, in sicer Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Commission (Dyestuffs) in Suiker Unie v Commission. V teh dveh primerih je Sodišče podalo definicijo usklajenega ravnanja, in sicer je v Dyestuffs odločilo, da je usklajeno ravnanje oblika sodelovanja med podjetji, ki še ni dosegla stopnje sporazuma, ki zavestno nadomesti tveganje konkurence za medsebojno sodelovanje. V Suiker Unie pa je določilo, da se "kriterij za sodelovanje in mora razumeti v luči pravila, vsebovanega v PES v zvezi s konkurenco, in sicer, da mora vsak gospodarski subjekt samostojno določiti politiko, ki jo namerava izvesti na skupnem trgu." Vsako podjetje mora torej na trgu nastopati samostojno in neodvisno. Prepovedan je neposredni in posredni stik med tržnimi udeleženci, ki ima cilj ali učinek vplivati na ravnanje dejanske ali potencialne konkurence ali razkriti konkurentom svoje ravnanje na trgu. Potrebno je dokazati oba elementa usklajenega ravnanja, in sicer stik med udeleženci, ki je lahko neposreden ali posreden, ter posledico tega stika, med njima pa mora obstajati tudi vzročna zveza. Dokazno breme za obstoj usklajenega ravnanja je na konkurenčnem organu. Ko je obstoj usklajenega ravnanja enkrat dokazan, se dokazno breme prevali na podjetje, ki zatrjuje, da se usklajevanja ni udeležilo.
Keywords:	konkurenčno pravo, konkurenčna politika, omejevanje konkurence, usklajeno ravnanje, dokazovanje
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Year of publishing:	2009
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-11648
COBISS.SI-ID:	3964971
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:TZIWHAC6
Publication date in DKUM:	21.05.2025
Views:	144
Downloads:	11
Metadata:
Categories:	PF
:	Copy citation

Average score:	(0 votes)
Your score:	Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	Restriction of competition by concerted practice
Abstract:	Competition law and competition policy undoubtedly play an important role in European Union. The EC Treaty itself establishes conditions for free market and unrestrained competition. Article 81 prohibits all agreement between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices, which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market. The concept of concerted practice represents a safety net, which covers nonbinding forms of coordination, i.e. those which are neither agreements nor decisions. The Treaty does not define the term of concerted practice. The definition is given by the EC Court of Justice in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Commission (Dyestuffs) and Suiker Unie v Commission. In former Court has consistently held that the notion concerted practice covers „a form of coordination between undertakings which, without having been taken to a stage where an agreement properly so called has been concluded, knowingly substitutes for the risks of competition practical cooperation between them.“ In Suiker Unie the Court of Justice held that the criteria of cooradination and cooperation must be understood in the light of the concept inherent in the provisions relating to the protection of competition, according to which each economic operator must determine independently thepolicy which he intends to adopt on the market. Therefore every economic operator must be independent on market. This requirement strictly preclude any direct or indirect contact between such operators which has as its object or effect either to influence the market conduct of an actual or potential competitor. Both of elements, required for establishing concerted practice must be proven. Firstly, there must exist a concentration between undertakings in question, direct or indirect contact between competitors is suficient. Secondly, the concentration must be reflected in concrete conduct and between both, a relationship of cause and effect must exist. Burden of proof lies on Competition Authority. Once this is established, the burden overturns on the undertaking, which is claiming, that it was not a participant in concentration.
Keywords:	competition law, competition policy, restriction of competition, concerted practice, standards of proof

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back