applicability of competition law principles on public sector ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FFSA v. Commission [1997] ECR II-229, para 99. Freeman v. San Diego Association <strong>of</strong> Realtors, 322 F.3d, 1147 Giorgio Domingo Banchero v. Commission, [1995] ECR I-4663 (para. 50) Giuseppe Sacchi v. Commission, [1974] ECR 409 H<strong>of</strong>ner and Elser v. Macrotron, [1991] ECR I-1979 (para. 21) ICI and CSC v. Commission, [1974] ECR 223 (para 37). Ijsselcentrale, OJ 1991 L28/32. International Express Courier services in Spain, OJ 1990 L233/19 Jean Claude Becu v. Commission [1999] ECR I-5665 Knauf Gips v. Commission, [2008] ECR II-115 (para 349-350). Lafarge v. Commission [2008] ECR II 120 (para 539) M/s Mineral Enterprises Limited v. Ministry <strong>of</strong> Railways, Case No. 47/2012 Mausegatt v Haute autorité, Case C-13/60, p. 135-136. N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State <strong>of</strong> A.P, AIR1994SC2663 National Society <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Engineers v. United States (1978), 98 S. Ct. 136 Nugesser and Kurt Eisele v. Commission, [1982] ECR 2015. Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). PDA Trade Fairs v. India Trade Promotion Organization , Case No. 48/2012. Poucet v. Assurances generals de France, [1993] ECR I-637. Re Kodak, JO [1970] L 147/24. SELEX Sistemi Intergirati v. Commission, [2006] ECR II-4797. State <strong>of</strong> Bombay and Ors. v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. (1960)ILLJ251SC Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB v European Communities. Case C-286/98 P, paragraph 29 vi
Travel Agents Association <strong>of</strong> India v. Balmer & Lawrie Co, COMPAT , Appeal No. 21/2010. U.S. Supreme Court, National Society <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Engineers v. United States (1978), 98 S. Ct. 1366 Union <strong>of</strong> India v. Competition Commission <strong>of</strong> India, W. P. (C) No. 5770 <strong>of</strong> 2011 United States Postal Service v. Flamingo Industries (USA), Ltd., 540 U.S. 736 (2004). United States v. Yellow Cab Co. (1947),67 S. Ct. 1565. Viho Europe v. Commission, [1996] ECR I-5457 (para 16). vii
Page 1 and 2: APPLICABILITY OF COMPETITION LAW PR
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGMENT On completion <stron
Page 5: TABLE OF CASES Akzo Nobel v. Commis
Page 9 and 10: Furthermore, the paper discusses th
Page 11 and 12: esources to flow to efficient produ
Page 13 and 14: was applied to Poucet 20 which was
Page 15 and 16: doctrine immunizes acts of<
Page 17 and 18: The term ‘inalienable functions
Page 19 and 20: opposite party was in a dominant po
Page 21 and 22: OECD TOOLKIT (A) Limits the number
Page 23 and 24: Thus, from the above analysis we se
Page 25 and 26: control the subsidiary. 52 In consi
Page 27 and 28: agreements between undertakings ope
Page 29 and 30: subsidiary is controlled by the par
Page 31 and 32: The Development of
Page 33 and 34: investment, or in the business <str
Page 35 and 36: competition’ bet
Page 37 and 38: group, rather than an agreement bet
Page 39: John O. Gunderson, “The Intra-Ent

applicability of competition law principles on public sector ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?