Object and effect

What role for structured evidence rules?

Stephen Dnes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

149 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Recent decisions of the EU courts on the object/effect distinction have left a wake of widespread discussion about the proper role for economic evidence in Article 101(1) TFEU. The fast pace of development in the industries involved in a number of recent cases such as Allianz and Cartes Bancaires pose issues for the structured analysis implied by the object/effect distinction. Complex issues such as two-sided market dynamics, large economies of scale, and unclear entry dynamics stretch the interface between law and economics further than before. As the dust settles over Article 101(1) following the recent cases, pressing questions include how doctrine surrounding the object/effect distinction is accommodating developments in economic thinking, whether the distinction has changed, and how this fits into a wider picture of changing approaches to economic evidence in competition law cases. This article will consider the developing approach to the treatment of evidence under Article 101 TFEU, to suggest an important and discrete role for the object label.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)239-254
Number of pages16
JournalCompetition Law Review
Volume11
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 31 Aug 2016

Fingerprint

evidence
economics
case law
doctrine
EU
economy
Law
industry
market

Keywords

  • competition law
  • antitrust
  • evidence
  • object and effect
  • cartes bancaires

Cite this

Dnes, Stephen. / Object and effect : What role for structured evidence rules?. In: Competition Law Review. 2016 ; Vol. 11, No. 2. pp. 239-254.
@article{ba9c9b20c04345c0980197523599e6b7,
title = "Object and effect: What role for structured evidence rules?",
abstract = "Recent decisions of the EU courts on the object/effect distinction have left a wake of widespread discussion about the proper role for economic evidence in Article 101(1) TFEU. The fast pace of development in the industries involved in a number of recent cases such as Allianz and Cartes Bancaires pose issues for the structured analysis implied by the object/effect distinction. Complex issues such as two-sided market dynamics, large economies of scale, and unclear entry dynamics stretch the interface between law and economics further than before. As the dust settles over Article 101(1) following the recent cases, pressing questions include how doctrine surrounding the object/effect distinction is accommodating developments in economic thinking, whether the distinction has changed, and how this fits into a wider picture of changing approaches to economic evidence in competition law cases. This article will consider the developing approach to the treatment of evidence under Article 101 TFEU, to suggest an important and discrete role for the object label.",
keywords = "competition law, antitrust, evidence, object and effect, cartes bancaires",
author = "Stephen Dnes",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "31",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "239--254",
journal = "Competition Law Review",
issn = "1745-638X",
number = "2",

}

Object and effect : What role for structured evidence rules? / Dnes, Stephen.

In: Competition Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, 31.08.2016, p. 239-254.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Object and effect

T2 - What role for structured evidence rules?

AU - Dnes, Stephen

PY - 2016/8/31

Y1 - 2016/8/31

N2 - Recent decisions of the EU courts on the object/effect distinction have left a wake of widespread discussion about the proper role for economic evidence in Article 101(1) TFEU. The fast pace of development in the industries involved in a number of recent cases such as Allianz and Cartes Bancaires pose issues for the structured analysis implied by the object/effect distinction. Complex issues such as two-sided market dynamics, large economies of scale, and unclear entry dynamics stretch the interface between law and economics further than before. As the dust settles over Article 101(1) following the recent cases, pressing questions include how doctrine surrounding the object/effect distinction is accommodating developments in economic thinking, whether the distinction has changed, and how this fits into a wider picture of changing approaches to economic evidence in competition law cases. This article will consider the developing approach to the treatment of evidence under Article 101 TFEU, to suggest an important and discrete role for the object label.

AB - Recent decisions of the EU courts on the object/effect distinction have left a wake of widespread discussion about the proper role for economic evidence in Article 101(1) TFEU. The fast pace of development in the industries involved in a number of recent cases such as Allianz and Cartes Bancaires pose issues for the structured analysis implied by the object/effect distinction. Complex issues such as two-sided market dynamics, large economies of scale, and unclear entry dynamics stretch the interface between law and economics further than before. As the dust settles over Article 101(1) following the recent cases, pressing questions include how doctrine surrounding the object/effect distinction is accommodating developments in economic thinking, whether the distinction has changed, and how this fits into a wider picture of changing approaches to economic evidence in competition law cases. This article will consider the developing approach to the treatment of evidence under Article 101 TFEU, to suggest an important and discrete role for the object label.

KW - competition law

KW - antitrust

KW - evidence

KW - object and effect

KW - cartes bancaires

UR - http://clasf.org/browse-the-complrev/

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 239

EP - 254

JO - Competition Law Review

JF - Competition Law Review

SN - 1745-638X

IS - 2

ER -