Cenovno predatorstvo v Sloveniji: pravno razlogovanje v perspektivi naziranj Komisije in Sodišča EU
Abstract
Predatory Pricing in Slovenia: A Legal Reasoning with regard to the EU Commission's and Court's Notions. The paper analyzes chronologically the last and most important decision of the Slovenian Competition Protection Office, that deals with predatory pricing, especially in the perspective of the regulatory frameworks of both the EU and the Republic of Slovenia and in the practice of the EU Commission and the Court. It is found that the analyzed decision is consistent with the latest concepts and reasoning about predatory pricing in the EU, although still emphasizes predatory intent instead of anti-competitive effects. As a conclusion it is argued that there are substantial differences and discrepancy in the terminology within the Slovene jurisprudence, translated relevant documents and case law.
Cenovno predatorstvo v Sloveniji: pravno razlogovanje v perspektivi naziranjKomisije in Sodišča EU. Prispevek analizira kronološko zadnjo in doslej najpomembnejšo odločbo Urada RS za varstvo konkurence, ki obravnava cenovno predatostvo, in sicer v perspektivi normativnega okvira v Republiki Sloveniji in Evropski uniji ter praksi Komisije in Sodišča EU. Avtor ugotavlja, da odločba sledi novejšim konceptom in naziranjem o cenovnem predatorstvu v EU, vendar še vedno poudarja ugotavljanje izključitvenega namena namesto protikonkurenčnih učinkov. Avtor ugotavlja tudi precejšna terminološka razhajanja v teoriji inneskladja s slovenskimi prevodi relevantnih dokumentov in sodne prakse.
Downloads
References
Areeda, P., Turner, D. F. (1975) Predatory Pricing and Related Practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Harward Law Review, Vol. 88, No. 4, str. 697–733.
Bolton, P., Brodley, J. F., Riordan M. H. (2000) Predatory pricing: strategic theory and legal policy, Boston University School of Law, Working Paper Series, Law & Economics, Working Paper No. 99-5, str. 1–141.
Fox, E. M. (1997) US and EU Competition Law: A Comparison, Global Competition Policy, str. 351–352.
Gole, N., Ropret, M. (2012) Telekom zlorabil prevladujoči položaj, časnik Delo z dne 15.2.2012 [http://www.delo.si/gospodarstvo/podjetja/telekom-zlorabil-prevladujoci- polozaj.html] (obiskano: 16.10.2012).
Grilc, P. (2009) Cenovne zlorabe in razvoj doktrine pri predatorstvu, Zbornih znanstvenih razprav, Letnik LXIX, str. 83–109.
Hall, R. E. (2008) Potential Competition, Limit Pricing, and Price Elevation from Exclusionary Conduct: 1 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 433 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law), str. 434 [http://www.stanford.edu/~rehall/PotentialCompetition.pdf] (obiskano: 16.10.2012).
Intven, H., Oliver J., Sepulveda E. (2000) Telecommunications Regulation Handbook [http://www.infodev.org/enPublication.22.html] (obiskano: 16.10.2012).
Jošt, S. (2009) Stroškovno oblikovanje cen telekomunikacijskih storitev, magistrsko delo, Ljubljana, UL Ekonomska fakulteta.
Modic, T. (2012) Telekom bo do zadnjega izpodbijal odločbo UVK o paketu Itak Džabest, časnik Dnevnik z dne 17.2.2012 [http://www.dnevnik.si/novice/aktualne_zgodbe/1042510320] (obiskano: 16.10.2012).
Repas, M. (2012) Povprečni izogibni stroški kot izhodišče za analizo roparskih cen v konkurenčnem pravu EU, LeXonomica, Let. IV, št. 1, str. 1–24.
Rousseva, E. (2010) Rethinking Exclusionary Abuses in EU Competition Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing).
Salinger, M. A. (2007) The Legacy of Matsushita: The Role of Economics in Antitrust Litigation, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal (USPS 303-950), Vol. 38, 2007, No. 3, str. 475–490.
Shelanski, H. (1992) Robinson-Patman Act Regulation of Intraenterprise Pricing, 80 Cal. L. Rev. 247, str. 247–287.