Koncept soutěžitele v českém a unijním právu

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15220%2F21%3A73617673" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15220/21:73617673 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

čeština

Název v původním jazyce

Koncept soutěžitele v českém a unijním právu

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Pojem soutěžitel je klíčovým pojmem českého &quot;veřejného&quot; soutěžního práva, tedy regulace protisoutěžních dohod, zneužívání dominantního postavení a kontroly koncentrací. Jeho významovým předobrazem je pojem podnik, užívaný v unijním právu. Hranice pojmu podnik je vymezena dvěma definičními znaky: aktivitou, kterou vykonává (hospodářská činnost) a jednotným vystupováním určitých osob na trhu (ekonomická jednotka).Toto chápání podniku pak umožňuje odpovědět zejména na následující otázky: co je hospodářská činnost, tedy na jaké aktivity vůbec soutěžní právo dopadá; kdo je původcem této aktivity, tedy koho lze pokládat za jednotku, která vykonává hospodářskou činnost a ovlivňuje hospodářskou soutěž; pokud je tato jednotka tvořena více osobami, jaký dopad má na jejich vztah skutečnost, že se jedná o součásti téhož ekonomického celku; a konečně pokud je tato jednotka tvořena více osobami, která konkrétní osoba odpovídá za protisoutěžní jednání, kterého se dopustil podnik jako ekonomická jednotka?Tyto čtyři body, charakterizující adresáty soutěžního práva, které umožňují posuzovat jednotlivé ekonomické celky, bez ohledu na jejich právní kvalifikaci a právní osobnost a bez ohledu na jejcih formální označení, jsou základem této publikace; tyto čtyři otázky se autoři snažili zodpovědět.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The concept of au undertaking in Czech and EU law

Popis výsledku anglicky

The aim of this study was to analyse the term “undertaking” as an addressee of Czech and EU law in several selected areas of law, namely the competition law, state aid law, public procurement law and regulation of network industries and the significant market power.We started from the fact that the EU competition law employs this term in order to address entities defined by there effects on the market rather than by their legal personality, engaged in economic activities. Thus, our research questions were concerned with the two main elements of the term undertaking under the EU competition law, namely the “economic unit” which is active in the market and the “economic activity” this entity pursues.Concerning the economic activity, we conclude that the term is in general well defined in the EU law, not causing any particular problems for legal theory, the case-law is nonetheless very casuistic and thus very difficult to generalise. It is however possible to define the activities falling outside of the “economic activity” category (in particular activities directly linked to the exercise of public powers) and to identify situations in which a public authority pursues an economic activity and is thus perceived as an undertaking.As for the economic unit (i.e. a single undertaking as an economic unit may be composed of several persons as legal units), we conclude that even though the doctrine is on a general level well settled, the case-law is rather inconsistent, because it evolved in different strands in connection with different implications of the single economic unit doctrine; the Court of Justice has only recently begun to unify them. Based on recent case-law, we introduced a five-step procedure to identify the persons constituting a single undertaking. Conversely, we conclude that there can be no general recommendation concerning imputation of liability and that this question is better left with competition authorities.We also note that there are inconsistencies concerning the term undertaking in competition law. In merger control, the economic unit is constructed in a significantly broader way, while at the same time, the term undertaking refers to individual persons rather than whole economic units; the same applies to legislation on exemptions from anticompetitive agreements. To remedy these inconsistencies, we recommend legislative changes for the future.We also analysed the notion of an undertaking for the purposes of private enforcement of competition law, specifically the question to what extent are the national courts obliged to interpret “their” civil law in line with the concept of an undertaking, even though they do not employ this term. We conclude that the recent case-law of the Court of Justice makes it clear that the national courts are indeed obliged to do so and that the term undertaking is to be understood in the same way for the purposes of both public and private enforcement.We then posed the same questions for Czech competition law, concluding that both the terms economic activity and economic unit are in principle understood in the same way in Czech and EU competition law. However, the definition of an undertaking in the Czech Competition Act (CCA) is arguably difficult to understand and not easy to be interpreted in the same way as in the EU law; in particular, the relevant activity of an undertaking (corresponding with the “economic activity” under EU law) is defined much broader in Czech law. We therefore recommend legislative changes in the future.In addition to that, we also put forward that the Czech Competition Authority applies the economic unit doctrine in a significantly broader way, including in a single economic unit more legal units than the EU authorities would. A change in practice is strongly recommended.As the same term the term “undertaking” is also used in the Czech Civil Code, we analysed its interpretation as well, concluding that it is in this regard not compatible with the CCA, but also not compatible with the EU unfair competition regulation (where the term “competitor” is employed instead); an amendment would be welcomed. We nonetheless conclude that the interpretation of CCA is fully independent on the Civil Code and thus, the term undertaking may be used for the purposes of private enforcement as well.We then moved to the area of state aid. We concluded that the term economic activity is employed in the same way as in competition law; conversely, the state aid law does not fully employ the economic unit doctrine and understands aid beneficiaries as individual persons. It is even more evident in several pieces of secondary legislation, on particular on transparency. We therefore recommend some legislative changes of secondary law in the future. The same applies to Czech law implementing the state aid regulation.Further on, we analysed the Significant Market Power Act (SMPA), as it originally also used the term “undertaking” but abandoned it later; we conclude that this caused problems in practice and the notion of an undertaking should be reintroduced to it. We also covered the recently adopted Directive on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, which has the same subject-matter as the SMPA and which is to be transposed into this act. It is noteworthy that in Czech language version, this directive calls its addressees “undertakings”, after analysing its content we however conclude it is addressed to individual persons, not to economic units as understood by competition law.Conversely, both Czech and EU law on public procurement do not employ the concept of an undertaking; it is not relevant on side of the tendering authorities, it might nonetheless cause problems on side of tenderers. We conclude nonetheless that even though tenderers are defined as individual persons, the public procurement law contains specific provisions enabling to take into account a broader economic unit, in particular the rules on qualification and in-house procurement. The Czech law is in this regard fully in line with the EU one.We then explored a specific problem – distortion of competition by coordinated conduct of two or more persons being part of the same economic unit, e.g. sister companies. As these two entities would be considered part of the same undertaking, competition law would not apply on their concertation. The EU case-law however suggests that such coordinated behaviour should be prohibited under the provisions on transparency and non-discrimination of pubic procurement, and that such colluding entities ought to be excluded from participation in procurement procedure. Still, the law lacks a specific ground for such exclusion; we recommend legislative changes in the future. The situation is even more problematic in the Czech Republic, where a specific ground for expulsion is also missing; there has been no discussion on this topic and the Czech Competition Authority has not indicated its approach. A guidance from the Authority would be most welcomed.In addition to that, we analysed another specific case of relationship between competition and public procurement law, the exclusion on grounds of anticompetitive conduct. A tenderer may be excluded from participation in procurement procedure if it was involved in anticompetitive conduct, in particular a cartel. It might happen that a tenderer (as a legal unit) was part of the same undertaking (economic unit) breaching competition law, but not directly involved in the anticompetitive conduct (e.g. a mother company); may it still be excluded? There is no case-law in this regard and scholar literature is ambiguous or missing; there has been no discussion on this topic in the Czech Republic. We conclude that under some circumstances, such an exclusion would be justified, we however recommend legislative changes in the future.We finally dealt with three instances of sector regulation, namely electronic communications, energy and railway transportation. We concluded that on EU level, sector regulation employs the term undertaking, as in the competition law. Conversely, the Czech law regulating these industries abstains from it and perceives its addressees as individual legal units; the same applies for application practice. We argue that this discrepancy may in some (though specific) cases cause problems and inconsistencies between sector and antitrust regulation, and strongly recommend legislative changes in the future. In addition to this, we also considered the Czech Act on Prices, which is by some authors considered a part of competition law and which is intertwined with sector regulation, in particular the energy one. Regrettably, it also does not employ the concept of an undertaking, causing in some specific cases discrepancies with antitrust enforcement.

Druh

B - Odborná kniha

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA18-21829S" target="_blank" >GA18-21829S: Koncept soutěžitele v českém a unijním právu</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

ISBN

978-80-7400-865-8

Počet stran knihy

208

Název nakladatele

C.H. Beck

Místo vydání

Praha

Kód UT WoS knihy

—