滥用支配地位和移动均线——不同的目标还是普遍的连续性?

Q4 Social Sciences
V. Šmejkal
{"title":"滥用支配地位和移动均线——不同的目标还是普遍的连续性?","authors":"V. Šmejkal","doi":"10.14712/23366478.2023.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A new EU regulation called the Digital Markets Act aims to keep digital markets open and fair in the face of the power of the so-called internet gatekeepers. Although the DMA has, at the first sight, much in common with Article 102 TFEU, which prohibits abuse of dominant positions, it declares itself to be a different instrument pursuing different objectives and protecting different legal interests. This text seeks to identify the similarities and differences in the values and objectives pursued between Article 102 TFEU and the DMA. Both are tools in the toolbox of the European Commission’s DG Competition and their complementarity is desirable in theory and practice if competition-incompatible regulation of selected online platforms is not to occur, possibly leading to their unwanted double punishment for the same thing. The analysis carried out leads to the conclusion that, despite the insistence on their separate nature and on differences in their objectives, a value consensus prevails between the two instruments.","PeriodicalId":52921,"journal":{"name":"Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abuse of Dominance and the DMA – Differing Objectives or Prevailing Continuity?\",\"authors\":\"V. Šmejkal\",\"doi\":\"10.14712/23366478.2023.13\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A new EU regulation called the Digital Markets Act aims to keep digital markets open and fair in the face of the power of the so-called internet gatekeepers. Although the DMA has, at the first sight, much in common with Article 102 TFEU, which prohibits abuse of dominant positions, it declares itself to be a different instrument pursuing different objectives and protecting different legal interests. This text seeks to identify the similarities and differences in the values and objectives pursued between Article 102 TFEU and the DMA. Both are tools in the toolbox of the European Commission’s DG Competition and their complementarity is desirable in theory and practice if competition-incompatible regulation of selected online platforms is not to occur, possibly leading to their unwanted double punishment for the same thing. The analysis carried out leads to the conclusion that, despite the insistence on their separate nature and on differences in their objectives, a value consensus prevails between the two instruments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2023.13\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2023.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

一项名为《数字市场法》的欧盟新法规旨在面对所谓的互联网看门人的权力,保持数字市场的开放和公平。尽管DMA乍一看与禁止滥用主导地位的TFEU第102条有很多共同之处,但它宣称自己是一个追求不同目标和保护不同法律利益的不同工具。本文本旨在确定TFEU第102条与DMA在价值观和目标方面的异同。两者都是欧盟委员会竞争总监工具箱中的工具,如果不想对选定的在线平台进行与竞争不兼容的监管,可能会导致他们对同一事情受到不必要的双重惩罚,那么它们在理论和实践中的互补性是可取的。所进行的分析得出的结论是,尽管坚持其各自的性质和目标存在差异,但这两项文书之间普遍存在价值共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Abuse of Dominance and the DMA – Differing Objectives or Prevailing Continuity?
A new EU regulation called the Digital Markets Act aims to keep digital markets open and fair in the face of the power of the so-called internet gatekeepers. Although the DMA has, at the first sight, much in common with Article 102 TFEU, which prohibits abuse of dominant positions, it declares itself to be a different instrument pursuing different objectives and protecting different legal interests. This text seeks to identify the similarities and differences in the values and objectives pursued between Article 102 TFEU and the DMA. Both are tools in the toolbox of the European Commission’s DG Competition and their complementarity is desirable in theory and practice if competition-incompatible regulation of selected online platforms is not to occur, possibly leading to their unwanted double punishment for the same thing. The analysis carried out leads to the conclusion that, despite the insistence on their separate nature and on differences in their objectives, a value consensus prevails between the two instruments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信