{"title":"论欧盟委员会救济实践的一致性","authors":"Benjamin Lörtscher, F. Maier-Rigaud","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3450614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Commission’s remedial practice displays important differences in the type of remedies accepted in merger versus antitrust cases. This paper provides a review of the Commission’s remedies practice over the last 14 years highlighting the differences and discussing inconsistencies. In particular, it raises the question why predominantly behavioural remedies are chosen in antitrust cases and how this practice is in line with the approach in merger control where the risks to effective competition are viewed as deriving from changes in the structure of the market and where therefore structural remedies are typically considered necessary.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Consistency of the European Commission’s Remedies Practice\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Lörtscher, F. Maier-Rigaud\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3450614\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The European Commission’s remedial practice displays important differences in the type of remedies accepted in merger versus antitrust cases. This paper provides a review of the Commission’s remedies practice over the last 14 years highlighting the differences and discussing inconsistencies. In particular, it raises the question why predominantly behavioural remedies are chosen in antitrust cases and how this practice is in line with the approach in merger control where the risks to effective competition are viewed as deriving from changes in the structure of the market and where therefore structural remedies are typically considered necessary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":401648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Public Law: EU eJournal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Public Law: EU eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3450614\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3450614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
On the Consistency of the European Commission’s Remedies Practice
The European Commission’s remedial practice displays important differences in the type of remedies accepted in merger versus antitrust cases. This paper provides a review of the Commission’s remedies practice over the last 14 years highlighting the differences and discussing inconsistencies. In particular, it raises the question why predominantly behavioural remedies are chosen in antitrust cases and how this practice is in line with the approach in merger control where the risks to effective competition are viewed as deriving from changes in the structure of the market and where therefore structural remedies are typically considered necessary.