Abuse of Dominance and the DMA - Differing Objectives or Prevailing Continuity?

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11220%2F23%3A10464934" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11220/23:10464934 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=Q6LVTPRgRG" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=Q6LVTPRgRG</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2023.13" target="_blank" >10.14712/23366478.2023.13</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Abuse of Dominance and the DMA - Differing Objectives or Prevailing Continuity?

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

A new EU regulation called the Digital Markets Act aims to keep digital markets open andfair in the face of the power of the so-called internet gatekeepers. Although the DMA has, atthe first sight, much in common with Article 102 TFEU, which prohibits abuse of dominantpositions, 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 inthe values and objectives pursued between Article 102 TFEU and the DMA. Both are toolsin the toolbox of the European Commission&apos;s DG Competition and their complementarityis desirable in theory and practice if competition-incompatible regulation of selected onlineplatforms is not to occur, possibly leading to their unwanted double punishment for the samething. The analysis carried out leads to the conclusion that, despite the insistence on theirseparate nature and on differences in their objectives, a value consensus prevails between thetwo instruments.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Abuse of Dominance and the DMA - Differing Objectives or Prevailing Continuity?

Popis výsledku anglicky

A new EU regulation called the Digital Markets Act aims to keep digital markets open andfair in the face of the power of the so-called internet gatekeepers. Although the DMA has, atthe first sight, much in common with Article 102 TFEU, which prohibits abuse of dominantpositions, 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 inthe values and objectives pursued between Article 102 TFEU and the DMA. Both are toolsin the toolbox of the European Commission&apos;s DG Competition and their complementarityis desirable in theory and practice if competition-incompatible regulation of selected onlineplatforms is not to occur, possibly leading to their unwanted double punishment for the samething. The analysis carried out leads to the conclusion that, despite the insistence on theirseparate nature and on differences in their objectives, a value consensus prevails between thetwo instruments.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Iuridica

ISSN

0323-0619

e-ISSN

2336-6478

Svazek periodika

69

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

19

Strana od-do

33-51

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85165248964