Talk:European Union competition law
|A summary of this article appears in Competition law and European Union law.|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject European Union||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|Text from this version of European Community regulation was copied or moved into European Union competition law with this edit on 18:52, 20 February 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:European Community regulation.|
It's incorrect to call this page EU Competition law. I know this is picky, but the correct term is EC Competition law, because Art 81 and 82 fall under the first pillar, the Treaty of the European Communities (i.e. Treaty of Rome) not the TEU (i.e. Maastricht). Unless anyone objects, I am happy to change this. Wikidea 12:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Wikidea. Competition Law enforcement - though noting the recent changes - is still a competency of the EC, not the EU. Lafayette 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly right. Either the "EU Competition Law" should redirect to "EC Competition Law" and the necessary explanation be given or the original internal links should be corrected. Univer 03.02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the text here is the same as on competition law, Article 81 and Article 82. See Talk:competition law#Advice sought on interaction with more specific pages. Proz 08:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Duplicated content - proposed solution
Article 81 and Article 82 are essentially orphaned. Subject to any protest I propose to start tidying them with a view to merging them both back here and deleting overly EC-specific text from Competition law.
- Some of the content on Article 81 and Article 82 is not even specific to these articles: e.g. the short discussion of "undertakings" in Article 81 is just as relevant to abuse or State aid.
- Some of this content is too detailed and un-encyclopedic e.g. specific cases that are not particularly notable, over-focus on UK issues: it could add up to a possible false impression that Wikipedia is a reliable law book (which it is not) rather than a useful introduction to the topic (which it could be).
Corrected and cut back to a reasonable scope, the Article 81 and Article 82 articles could fit nicely here (alongside some text to be written on state aids) without making this article overlong.
Views? Proz 08:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Might as well just delete the Article 81 & 82 pages and make the content in European Community Competition Law comprehensive by merging the necessary pages. As for the Competition Law article, I'm having difficulties with justifying its existence at the moment, mainly because as you mentioned it is a re-hash of other pages. It should either become a "jump" page for more detailed articles (split into regions perhaps, or competition law systems) as I cannot see it being a useful article if other nation's systems are treated in as comprehensive manner as the EC & US have so far. I understand that we need to cover many countries, but the page will become far too long and unwieldly.
- However, I don't agree with cutting content that is "too detailed". Unless of course, the cases aren't notable, which would to me, be a valid reason for deletion. Otherwise there will be complaints that facts have not been properly verified. I also don't think we need to worry about Wiki being seen as a law book, as it is well-known that both articles on law and medicine are not to be taken as gospel. Just my two cents. Sephui 09:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good points. My worry was that someone would, wrongly, think that they have "understood" the law generally after reading a commentary on a highly selective set of cases. But I now think that you are right that this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Making sure that we do not misrepresent the implications of the cases discussed is probably enough; we need not (or cannot afford to) worry about an "even" level of coverage of different issues or areas of competition law. Proz 14:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Summary styles and duplication
To respond to the above postings, the reason that the material is duplicated is because I duplicated it. And the reason for that is to have something with which these articles can go off in one direction or another. There is a vast wealth of information which could be put into the Article 81 page (and within that, you could have more subcategories like vertical restraints, hard core cartels, unilateral behaviour, etc). So those are the ones that need to be EXPANDED not deleted. If I see you trying to do this again, I will be even less impressed than the SmackBOT! Wikidea 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"The Chicago School holds predatory pricing to be impossible, because if it were then banks would lend money to finance it." True so far "However in France Telecom SA v. Commission" Wrong - France Telecom is a state company, therefore can hold legal monopoly and no economic law according to free market apply to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ordoliberal influence and correct Article numbers
I am new on wikipedia so I thought I would post an idea first here before editing the article. In my opinion the article should refer to the Ordoliberal school of thought. Not a single textbook on EC Competition law fails to mention the influence of the ordoliberals, in particular on Article 82. See also: D. Gerber (1994) Constitutionalizing the Economy: German Neo-liberalism, Competition Law and the New Europe. 42 American Journal of Comparative Law.
The main influence of the ordoliberal school is that competition law serves the purpose of protecting competitors rather than consumer welfare. Ordoliberals argued that the collusion of private power was crucial in bringing down the Weimar Republic and thought that competition law served to protect individuals against this type of private power. Not being based on microeconomics but political and economic philosophy, it also gave rise the the form-based (per se) application of EC Competition law. This has been revoked under Article 81, but not Article 82.
Secondly, would it not be time to change the Article numbers after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon?
- Go ahead and make the changes! Especially the article updates. Is it 89 and 90 now? These pages need to be moved: Article 81 and Article 82. I would ask, though, is the way you talk about the ordoliberals the way that the (currently imploding) Chicago school might characterise the ordoliberals rather than how they'd talk about themselves? The best way, I find, to describe a school of thought, though, is to refer specifically to the authors and articles you have in mind. Wikidea 15:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll write a section soon and see if you like it. In the meanwhile, something more important. With the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Community ceased to exist. Shouldn't the article be renamed into European Union Competition Law? Matthiesverstegen (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
mergers and acquisitions
at the beginning of this heading the article reads:
"In the European Union, under the Merger Regulation 139/2004. This is known as the "ECMR", and the authority for the Commission to pass this regulation is found under Art. 83 TEC."
my comments are as follows:
- i don't know what the first sentence is trying to say.
- isn't the authority of the commission to pass the regulation now found in Article 103 of the TFEU which replaced article 83 TEC?
There are several judgments which can't be identified (at least not by me). A possible solution may be if someone, who is more familiar with competition law, searches them on EUR-Lex as I try (but sometimes fail).--Dzsi (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The text of European Community regulation has been copied to My Sandbox for now. I will review and see if there is anything that is still relevant and will copy it here for inclusion in this article if editors feel it is necessary. Connolly15 (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)