欧美市场产品调研essay [4]
论文作者:英语论文论文属性:短文 essay登出时间:2014-08-29编辑:yangcheng点击率:10040
论文字数:4878论文编号:org201408272154089870语种:英语 English地区:美国价格:免费论文
关键词:欧美市场产品调研essay留学生文essay美国作业搭售
摘要:本文主要是介绍了美国和欧洲对捆绑销售做出的监管和执法,经济学家们为证明提倡搭售或应该取缔提供了不同的经济理论证明,作者给予解释,是一篇优秀的市场调研essay.
number of Article 82 cases. For example, In Centre Belge d'études de Marché the ECJ stated that ‘an abuse within the meaning of Article 86 is committed where, without any objective necessity, an undertaking holding a dominant position on a particular market reserves to itself or to an undertaking belonging to the same group, an ancillary activity which might be carried out by another undertaking as part of its activities on a neighbouring but separate market, with the possibility of eliminating all competition from such undertaking.' (Emphasis added).
Objective justification analysis under Article 82 is similar to the one applied in the context of free movement of goods and is, therefore, by definition very limited. The behaviour in question needs to satisfy a number of important requirements: a dominant firm's behaviour must be aiming to achieve a legitimate objective by reasonable and proportionate means. The cases discussed below exemplify how difficult it is to satisfy this test, in particular the legitimacy and proportionality prongs of the test.
Craig and de Burca recognise the difficulties stating that “the application of [...objective justification and proportionality] concepts to the facts of specific cases is not self-executing. The decision, for example, whether a refusal to supply is objectively justified and proportionate in a particular case will often depend upon and reflect certain assumptions concerning the relative importance of protecting competitors and consumers, or the relative significance of single-market integration and consumer welfare. In this sense concepts such as objective justification merely serve to press the inquiry into the appropriate reach and direction of Community policy in relation to dominant firms one stage further back. They do not in themselves resolve that inquiry.”
3. EC Law: key decisions and judgments
Although there are only a few cases in which the Commission and the European Courts directly addressed the issue of tying, there are a number of important decisions which greatly influence the EC policy with regard to tying. In particular, the ECJ judgment in Commercial Solvents stands out. In this case, the ECJ held that “an undertaking being in a dominant position as regards the production of raw material and therefore able to control the supply to manufacturers of derivatives, cannot, just because it decides to start manufacturing these derivatives (in competition with its former customers) act in such a way as to eliminate their competition which, in the case in question, would amount to eliminating one of the principal manufacturers of [the relevant product...] in the Common Market.” The ECJ held that such refusals to supply customers which are themselves manufacturing these derivatives are contrary to Article 82. This is an important rule that has been relied upon by the EC institutions in the tying cases.
Below is a review of the key EC case-law and decisions on tying which apply the rules outlined above and clarify the scope of the available exceptions.
3.1 British Sugar
Napier Brown/British Sugar has been the first decision by the Commission dealing with the question of tying. Napier Brown complained that British Sugar, the dominant firm in the UK granulated sugar market, implemented a policy aiming to squeeze out other retailers in the distribution of sugar.
To th
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。