Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Vasconcelos, Rita Leandro
Data de Publicação: 2017
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2017.354
Resumo: In its judgment of 15 September 2016, the General Court ruled on whether the commitments offered by Thompson Reuters to the European Commission during an investigation of a possible abuse of dominant position were sufficient to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission. This is only the second time the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Commission decisions rendering binding the commitments offered by an undertaking Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. With regard to standing, the General Court ruled the appeal lodged by a competitor admissible. As for substance, the General Court generally confirmed the previous case law. It ruled on the commitments meet the competition concerns identified by the institution, the different proportionality standard in Article 9 decisions as compared to Article 7 Regulation 1/2003 decisions (formal decision finding an infringement), and the limited scope of judicial review of the Court of Justice of the European Union in these appeals.
id RCAP_cd8215b9d4a29dfb499cf64ddab2cf26
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/354
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European CommissionIn its judgment of 15 September 2016, the General Court ruled on whether the commitments offered by Thompson Reuters to the European Commission during an investigation of a possible abuse of dominant position were sufficient to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission. This is only the second time the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Commission decisions rendering binding the commitments offered by an undertaking Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. With regard to standing, the General Court ruled the appeal lodged by a competitor admissible. As for substance, the General Court generally confirmed the previous case law. It ruled on the commitments meet the competition concerns identified by the institution, the different proportionality standard in Article 9 decisions as compared to Article 7 Regulation 1/2003 decisions (formal decision finding an infringement), and the limited scope of judicial review of the Court of Justice of the European Union in these appeals.Universidade Católica Editora2017-10-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2017.354oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/354Market and Competition Law Review; Vol 1 No 2 (2017); 195-212Market and Competition Law Review; v. 1 n. 2 (2017); 195-2122184-000810.7559/mclawreview.2017.1.2reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/354https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2017.354https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/354/322Copyright (c) 2017 Rita Leandro Vasconceloshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessVasconcelos, Rita Leandro2022-09-23T15:10:26Zoai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/354Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:03:41.327617Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission
title Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission
spellingShingle Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission
Vasconcelos, Rita Leandro
title_short Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission
title_full Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission
title_fullStr Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission
title_full_unstemmed Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission
title_sort Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission
author Vasconcelos, Rita Leandro
author_facet Vasconcelos, Rita Leandro
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Vasconcelos, Rita Leandro
description In its judgment of 15 September 2016, the General Court ruled on whether the commitments offered by Thompson Reuters to the European Commission during an investigation of a possible abuse of dominant position were sufficient to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission. This is only the second time the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Commission decisions rendering binding the commitments offered by an undertaking Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. With regard to standing, the General Court ruled the appeal lodged by a competitor admissible. As for substance, the General Court generally confirmed the previous case law. It ruled on the commitments meet the competition concerns identified by the institution, the different proportionality standard in Article 9 decisions as compared to Article 7 Regulation 1/2003 decisions (formal decision finding an infringement), and the limited scope of judicial review of the Court of Justice of the European Union in these appeals.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-10-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/other
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2017.354
oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/354
url https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2017.354
identifier_str_mv oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/354
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/354
https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2017.354
https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/354/322
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2017 Rita Leandro Vasconcelos
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2017 Rita Leandro Vasconcelos
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Católica Editora
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Católica Editora
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Market and Competition Law Review; Vol 1 No 2 (2017); 195-212
Market and Competition Law Review; v. 1 n. 2 (2017); 195-212
2184-0008
10.7559/mclawreview.2017.1.2
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130500082696192