Putting Limits on Judicial Creativity: AG Kokott's Opinion in Commission v CK Telecoms
(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(1), 1-8 | European Forum Highlight of 28 March 2023 | (Abstract) When exactly can an impediment to effective competition be considered "significant" enough, if caused by a horizontal merger that gives rise to u...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
European Papers (www.europeanpapers.eu)
2023-03-01
|
| Series: | European Papers |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/putting-limits-on-judicial-creativity-kokott-opinion-in-commission-ck-telecoms |
| _version_ | 1797858598968098816 |
|---|---|
| author | Eun Hye Kim |
| author_facet | Eun Hye Kim |
| author_sort | Eun Hye Kim |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | (Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(1), 1-8 | European Forum Highlight of 28 March 2023 | (Abstract) When exactly can an impediment to effective competition be considered "significant" enough, if caused by a horizontal merger that gives rise to unilateral effects absent dominance, and what standard of proof does the Commission have to satisfy? Commission v CK Telecoms represents the first occasion for the European Court of Justice to elaborate on these questions. As the case is still pending, this Article discusses the significance of the latest legal guidance provided by the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott. This Article suggests that the Opinion is a return to well-established principles after the Court's judgment in Impala II, and provides a soundly reasoned critique of the decision of the General Court, directing special attention to the heightened standard of proof and the substantive criteria proposed for distinguishing significant from "insignificant" effects. Moreover, the Opinion contains a restatement of the doctrine of marginal review and thus constitutes an active effort to maintain the legal status quo. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T21:15:56Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1b331aa2b77643f3853e47e30c631296 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2499-8249 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T21:15:56Z |
| publishDate | 2023-03-01 |
| publisher | European Papers (www.europeanpapers.eu) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | European Papers |
| spelling | doaj.art-1b331aa2b77643f3853e47e30c6312962023-03-28T08:51:38ZengEuropean Papers (www.europeanpapers.eu)European Papers2499-82492023-03-012023 811810.15166/2499-8249/629Putting Limits on Judicial Creativity: AG Kokott's Opinion in Commission v CK TelecomsEun Hye Kim0University of Copenhagen(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(1), 1-8 | European Forum Highlight of 28 March 2023 | (Abstract) When exactly can an impediment to effective competition be considered "significant" enough, if caused by a horizontal merger that gives rise to unilateral effects absent dominance, and what standard of proof does the Commission have to satisfy? Commission v CK Telecoms represents the first occasion for the European Court of Justice to elaborate on these questions. As the case is still pending, this Article discusses the significance of the latest legal guidance provided by the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott. This Article suggests that the Opinion is a return to well-established principles after the Court's judgment in Impala II, and provides a soundly reasoned critique of the decision of the General Court, directing special attention to the heightened standard of proof and the substantive criteria proposed for distinguishing significant from "insignificant" effects. Moreover, the Opinion contains a restatement of the doctrine of marginal review and thus constitutes an active effort to maintain the legal status quo.https://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/putting-limits-on-judicial-creativity-kokott-opinion-in-commission-ck-telecomssiecnon-collusive oligopoly gapstandard of proofadvocate generalupp testhorizontal mergers |
| spellingShingle | Eun Hye Kim Putting Limits on Judicial Creativity: AG Kokott's Opinion in Commission v CK Telecoms European Papers siec non-collusive oligopoly gap standard of proof advocate general upp test horizontal mergers |
| title | Putting Limits on Judicial Creativity: AG Kokott's Opinion in Commission v CK Telecoms |
| title_full | Putting Limits on Judicial Creativity: AG Kokott's Opinion in Commission v CK Telecoms |
| title_fullStr | Putting Limits on Judicial Creativity: AG Kokott's Opinion in Commission v CK Telecoms |
| title_full_unstemmed | Putting Limits on Judicial Creativity: AG Kokott's Opinion in Commission v CK Telecoms |
| title_short | Putting Limits on Judicial Creativity: AG Kokott's Opinion in Commission v CK Telecoms |
| title_sort | putting limits on judicial creativity ag kokott s opinion in commission v ck telecoms |
| topic | siec non-collusive oligopoly gap standard of proof advocate general upp test horizontal mergers |
| url | https://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/putting-limits-on-judicial-creativity-kokott-opinion-in-commission-ck-telecoms |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT eunhyekim puttinglimitsonjudicialcreativityagkokottsopinionincommissionvcktelecoms |