1
Furse, Mark. Competition law of the EC and UK. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
2
Jones, Alison, Jones, Alison, Sufrin, B. E. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
3
Middleton, K. Blackstone’s UK and EC Competition Documents. 6th edn. 2009.
4
Bishop, Simon, Walker, Mike. The economics of EC competition law: concepts, application and measurement. 3rd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2010.
5
Maher M. Dabbah. EC and UK Competition Law: Commentary, Cases and Materials. illustrated edition. Cambridge University Press 2004.
6
Gerber, David J. Law and competition in twentieth century Europe: protecting Prometheus. [Updated pbk. ed.]. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001.
7
Goyder, D. G., Goyder, Joanna, Albors-Llorens, Albertina. Goyder’s EC competition law. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009.
8
Korah, Valentine. An introductory guide to EC competition law and practice. 9th ed. Oxford: Hart Pub 2007.
9
Korah, Valentine. Cases and materials on EC competition law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Hart Pub 2006.
10
Monti, Giorgio. EC competition law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
11
Slot, Piet Jan, Johnston, Angus. An introduction to competition law. 1st English ed. Oxford: Hart Publishing 2006.
12
Bergh, Roger van den, Camesasca, Peter D. European competition law and economics: a comparative perspective. 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2006.
13
Whish, Richard. Competition law. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009.
14
Arnull, Anthony, Wyatt, Derrick. Wyatt & Dashwood’s European Union law. 5th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2006.
15
Chalmers, Damian. European Union law: text and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006.
16
Craig, P. P., De Búrca, G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007.
17
Steiner, Josephine, Woods, Lorna, Steiner, Josephine. EU law. 10th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009.
18
Europa - European Commission - Competition.
20
Welcome to the European Parliament.
21
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en.
23
European Court Reports.
24
Common Market Law Reports.
25
European competition law review.
26
Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Law Corporate Institute, International Antitrust.
29
Competition Law Review.
30
European competition law review.
32
Common market law review.
33
Yearbook of European law.
34
Legal issues of European integration.
36
British Institute of International and Comparative Law. International and comparative law quarterly.
37
European Union. European voice: a weekly view of the Union.
40
EurActiv | European Union Information Website (EU and Europe).
41
International news | euronews, latest international news.
44
Furse, Mark. Competition law of the EC and UK. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
45
Jones, Alison, Jones, Alison, Sufrin, B. E. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
47
Oceans apart. Economist. 2008;387.
48
The trustbuster’s tools. Economist. 1998;346.
49
Fox, E. We protect competition; you protect competitors. World competition. 2003;26.
50
Fox, E. The new American competition policy - from anti-trust to pro-efficiency. European competition law review. Published Online First: 1981.
51
Liesner, J and Glynn, D. Does anti-trust make economic sense? European competition law review. Published Online First: 1987.
52
Monti, Giorgio. EC competition law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
53
Bergh, Roger van den, Camesasca, Peter D. European competition law and economics: a comparative perspective. 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2006.
54
Willimsky, S. The concept(s) of competition. European competition law review. 1997;1.
55
Furse, Mark. Competition law of the EC and UK. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
56
Jones, Alison, Jones, Alison, Sufrin, B. E. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
58
Commission guidelines contained in articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ 2004 C101/81).
59
Alese, F. The economic theory of non-collusive oligopoly and the concept of concerted practice under art.81. European competition law review. 1999;20.
60
Black, O. What is an agreement. European law review. 2003;24.
61
Brown, C. Bayer v commission: the ECJ agrees. European competition law review. 2004;25.
62
Casey, S and Hinchcliffe, S. When is an agreement not an agreement? Implications of the Bayer judgement for parallel trade and contractual dealings with wholesalers and distributors. Business law review (London). 2004;25.
63
Capobianco, A. Information exchange under EC competition law. Common market law review. 2004;41.
64
Jones, A. Woodpulp: concerted practice and/or conscious parallelism. European competition law review. 1993;14.
65
Monti, Giorgio. EC competition law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
66
Odudu, O. Interpreting art.81 (1): object as subjective intention. European law review. 2001.
67
Odudu, O. Interpreting art.81 (1): the object requirement revisited. European law review. 2001.
68
Bergh, Roger van den, Camesasca, Peter D. European competition law and economics: a comparative perspective. 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2006.
69
Furse, Mark. Competition law of the EC and UK. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
70
Jones, Alison, Jones, Alison, Sufrin, B. E. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
72
Article 1 of Regulation 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules of competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L1/1).
73
Commission Notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81 (1) of the Treaty (de minimis) OJ 2001 C368/13.
74
Commission Regulation (EC) 2790/1999 on the application of Article 81 (3) of the Treaty to category of vertical agreements and concerted practices OJ 1999 L336/21.
75
Commission Notice Guidelines on vertical restraints OJ 2000 C291/1.
76
Commission Guidelines on the application of art.81 (3) (OJ 2004 C101/97).
77
Kjolbye, L. The new Commission guidelines on the application of art.81 (3): an economic approach to art.81. European competition law review. 2004;25.
78
Lianos, I. Collusion in vertical relations under art.81 EC. Common market law review. 2008;45.
79
Lugard, P. Honey, I shrunk the article! A critical assessment of the Commission’s Notice on art.81 (3). European competition law review. 2004;25.
80
Monti, Giorgio. EC competition law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
81
Nazzini, R. Art.81 EC between time present and time past: a normative critique of ‘restriction of competition’ in EU law. Common market law review. 2006;43.
82
Odudu, O. Interpreting art.81 (1): demonstrating restrictive effect. European law review. 2001.
83
Odudu, O. A new economic approach to art.81 (1): case comment on Metropole TV (M6). European law review. 2002;27.
84
Bergh, Roger van den, Camesasca, Peter D. European competition law and economics: a comparative perspective. 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2006.
85
Whish, R and Sufrin, B. Article 85 and the rule of reason. Yearbook of European law. 1987;7.
86
Furse, Mark. Competition law of the EC and UK. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
87
Jones, Alison, Jones, Alison, Sufrin, B. E. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
89
A billion-euro question. Economist. 2009;391.
90
Monti, G. The scope of collective dominance under art.82. Common market law review. 2001;38.
91
Monti, Giorgio. EC competition law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
92
Bergh, Roger van den, Camesasca, Peter D. European competition law and economics: a comparative perspective. 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2006.
93
Furse, Mark. Competition law of the EC and UK. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
94
Jones, Alison, Jones, Alison, Sufrin, B. E. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
96
COM(2009) 864 Commission Communication: Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying art.82 EC to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings, 9.2.2009.
97
Commission (DG Competition) discussion paper on the application of article 82 of the treaty to exclusionary abuses, December 2005.
98
Dolmans, M and Graf, T. Analysis of tying under art.82 EC: the European Commission’s Microsoft decision in perspective. World competition. 2004;27.
99
Kallaugher, J. Rebates revisited: anti-competitive effects and exclusionary abuse under art.82. European competition law review. 2004;25.
100
Monti, Giorgio. EC competition law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
101
Oliver, P. The concept of ‘abuse’ of a dominant position under art.82: recent developments in relation to pricing. European competition journal. Published Online First: 2005.
102
Sheehan, E. Unilateral refusals to deal and the role of the essential facility doctrine: a US/EC comparative perspective. World competition. 1999;22.
103
Bergh, Roger van den, Camesasca, Peter D. European competition law and economics: a comparative perspective. 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2006.
104
Loewenthal, P-J. The defence of ‘objective justification’ in the application of art.82 EC. World competition. 2005;28.
105
Capobianco, A. The essential facility doctrine: similarities and differences between the American and European approach. European law review. 2001;26.
106
Doherty, B. Just what are essential facilities? Common market law review. 2001;38.
107
Competition Law Forum’s art.82 review group. The reform of art.82: comments on the DG Competition Discussion paper of art.82 to exclusionary abuses. European competition journal. Published Online First: 2006.
108
Eilmansberger, T. How to distinguish good from bad competition under art.82: in search of clearer and more coherent standards for anti-competitive abuses. Common market law review. 2005;42.
109
Vecchi, T. Unilateral conduct in an oligopoly according to the discussion paper on art.82: conscious parallelism or abuse of collective dominance? World competition. 2008;31.
110
Furse, Mark. Competition law of the EC and UK. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
111
Jones, Alison, Jones, Alison, Sufrin, B. E. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
112
Regulation 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules of competition laid down in articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L1/1).
113
Commission’s Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006 C298/17).
114
COM(2005) 672 final, Commission Green Paper on damages actions for breach of EC antitrust rules.
115
Ameye, E. The interplay between human rights and competition law in the EU. European competition law review. 2004;25.
116
Levy, N and O’Donoghue, R. The EU leniency programme comes of age. World competition. 2004;27.
117
Monti, Giorgio. EC competition law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
118
Pirie, M. The complainant in EC competition law. World competition. 2000;23.
119
Bergh, Roger van den, Camesasca, Peter D. European competition law and economics: a comparative perspective. 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2006.
120
Venit, J. Brave new world: the modernisation and decentralisation of enforcement under arts 81 and 82 EC. Common market law review. 2003;40.
121
Willis, P. You have the right to remain silent...or do you? The privilege against self-incrimination following Manesmannroehrenwerke and other recent decisions. European competition law review. Published Online First: 2002.
122
Wils, W. The combination of the investigative and prosecutorial function and the adjudicative function in EC antitrust enforcement: a legal and economic analysis. World competition. 2004;27.
123
Wils, W. Self-incrimination in EC antitrust enforcement: a legal and economic analysis. World competition. 2003;26.
124
Editorial Comment. A little more action please! The White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules. Common market law review. 2008.
125
Eilmansberger, T. The Green Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules and beyond: reflections on the utility and feasability of stimulating private enforcement through legislative action. Common market law review. 2007;44.
126
Furse, Mark. Competition law of the EC and UK. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
127
Jones, Alison, Jones, Alison, Sufrin, B. E. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
128
Regulation 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L24/22) (‘EC Merger Regulation’.
129
Commission Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 C31/5).
130
Commission Guidelines on the assessment of non-horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings (November 2007).
131
Burnley, R. Who’s afraid of conglomerate mergers? A comparison of the US and EC approaches. World competition. 2005;28.
132
Drauz, G. Unbundling GE/Honeywell: the Assessment of Conglomerate Mergers Under EC Competition Law. http://www.thesedonaconference.org/conferences/20011108/handouts/pdf/Portfolio%20Power%20in%20Fordham.pdf.
133
Levy, N. EU merger control: from birth to adolescence. World competition. 2003;26.
134
Monti, Giorgio. EC competition law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
135
Schmidt, J. The new EMCR: ‘significant impediment’ or ‘significant improvement’. Common market law review. 2004;41.
136
Bergh, Roger van den, Camesasca, Peter D. European competition law and economics: a comparative perspective. 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2006.
137
Furse, Mark. Competition law of the EC and UK. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
138
Jones, Alison, Jones, Alison, Sufrin, B. E. EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
139
1991 EC-US Agreement regarding the applications of their competition laws (OJ 1995 L132).
140
1998 EC-US Agreement of the positive comity principles in the enforcement of their competition laws (OJ 1998 L173).
141
1999 EC-Canadian Agreement regarding the application of their competition laws (OJ 1999 L175).
142
European Commission and EU Member States communication of 2002 to the Working Group on the interaction between trade and competition policy WT/WGTCP/W/22 (19.11.02). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2004/march/tradoc_113332.pdf.
143
Banks, J. The development of the concept of extraterritoriality under European merger law and its effectiveness under the Merger Regulation following the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas decision. European competition law review. Published Online First: 1998.
144
Fox, E. The Merger Regulation and its territorial reach: Gencor v Commission. European competition law review. Published Online First: 1999.
145
Lange, D and Sandage, J. The Wood Pulp decision and its implications for the scope of EC Competition Law. Common market law review. 1989.
146
Conrad, C. Strategies to reform the regulations on international competition. World competition. 2003;26.
147
Drexl, J. International competition policy after Cancun: placing a Singapore Issue on the WTO Development Agenda. World competition. 2004;27.
148
Grewlich, A. Globalisation and conflict in competition law. World competition. 2001;24.
149
Jenny, F. Competition, trade and development before and after Cancun. Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Law Corporate Institute, International Antitrust. 2004;30.
150
Kaczorowska, A. International competition law in the context of global capitalism. European competition law review. Published Online First: 2000.
151
Meibom, W and Geiger, A. A world competition law as an ultima ratio. European competition law review. Published Online First: 2002.
