Recently there is increased focus in competition law on the travel market. Especially the markets which have been taken over by online travel agencies. The article looks at market definition and argues that the current approach is flawed and does not take into account the dynamics of the market.
State and private competition restrictions can be closely connected. Hybrid cases[1], involving agreements and decisions of undertakings that would be caught by antitrust rules and a corresponding state action give rise to various challenging legal issues. States, as part of their toolkit to shape economic policy, encourage, support or approve market conduct that would normally be condemned as a price or market sharing cartel. The State may also decide to authorise a chamber or other association to regulate market entry, quality of services or prices. In this paper I focus on how state involvement may impact on corporate or individual antitrust liability. The aim is to give an overview of those defenses which companies invoke to defend their cartel-like activities or abusive behaviour whenever they acted under state influence, often manifesting in the form of a legislative or regulatory act.
The working paper is available for download here.
[1] By `hybrid cases` I refer to cases where there are two connected actions, one on the side of a state entity, another by an undertaking. In theory, both the state and the companies could be held liable.
Kevés olyan szabály van a hatályos jogban, amely több mint negyed századot élt meg. Még kevesebb ezen belül az adószabály. De olyan adószabály, amely huszonöt év után is aktuális, alig akad. Ilyen (volt) a helyi adó törvény adókivetés szempontjait meghatározó rendelkezése. Az ebben meghatározott hármas feltétel, azaz hogy az adó mértékét a helyi sajátosságokhoz, az önkormányzat gazdálkodási követelményeihez és az adóalanyok teherviselő képességéhez igazodóan kell megállapítani a törvényben meghatározott adómaximumra figyelemmel a 2017. január 1-jével kezdődő adóévtől már nem alkalmazható. Pedig akár megélhetett volna további évtizedeket is. A tanulmány az e rendelkezéshez kapcsolódó jogalkalmazási gyakorlatot mutatja be vázlatosan. Egyben fel kívánja hívni a figyelmet a helyébe lépő új szabályozás alkotmányossági problémájára is.
The constitutional complaint is one of the most important power of constitutional courts. This power originates from the protection of human rights. Most of the countries in Europe created the power of constitutional complaint. This power is called amparo in the Spanish-speaking countries. Although there are some differences between the constitutional complaint and the amparo procedure, the basis of them are same: the effective protection of constitutional basic rights. In this essay, I analyse the rules of constitutional complaint in Austria, in Germany, and in Slovenia, as well as the power of amparo in Spain and in Mexico.