Article (Scientific journals)
Advocate General Bobek provides an analytical framework to assess the appropriateness of ‘by object’ qualifications while clarifying and consolidating the case-law on the dichotomy between ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ restrictions (Budapest Bank)
Troch, Simon; Van Der Eycken, Daphné
2019In e-Competitions
 

Files


Full Text
2019 - S. Troch and D. Van der Eycken - Budapest bank.pdf
Publisher postprint (117.15 kB)
Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to



Details



Keywords :
Competition law; By object; By effect
Abstract :
[en] On 5 September 2019, Advocate General Bobek delivered his Opinion in the Budapest Bank case following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Hungarian Supreme Court. AG Bobek advised on several matters such as the existence of an obligation for National Competition Authorities to expressly indicate which type of collusion they condemn and whether the facilitating, accepting and implementing of an agreement amounts to a concerted practice. However, this Opinion is particularly interesting because of the clarification it brings to the analytical framework to assess whether a practice could be considered a ‘by object’ restriction.
Disciplines :
European & international law
Author, co-author :
Troch, Simon ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de droit > Institut d'études juridiques européennes F. Dehousse
Van Der Eycken, Daphné
Language :
English
Title :
Advocate General Bobek provides an analytical framework to assess the appropriateness of ‘by object’ qualifications while clarifying and consolidating the case-law on the dichotomy between ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ restrictions (Budapest Bank)
Publication date :
December 2019
Journal title :
e-Competitions
eISSN :
2116-0201
Publisher :
Concurrences, Paris, France
Available on ORBi :
since 29 February 2020

Statistics


Number of views
106 (6 by ULiège)
Number of downloads
65 (1 by ULiège)

Bibliography


Similar publications



Contact ORBi