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
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |