(Why) Did EU Net Neutrality Rules Overshoot the Mark? Internet, Disruptive Innovation and EU Competition Law & Policy

Author(s): Oles Andriychuk / Language(s): English / Issue: 18/2018

This essay raises a number of theses in support for a more liberalised approach to EU Net Neutrality rules. It offers a graded system of levels of regulatory intervention, arguing that soft Net Neutrality rules are capable of meeting all positive objectives of regulation without causing the problems generated by hard Net Neutrality rules, such as those currently in place in the EU. Hard Net Neutrality rules prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from making disruptive innovations. Meanwhile, they enable some Content and Application Providers (CAPs) to monopolise many markets via (disruptive) innovations, resulting in newly established dominant positions which have, in many instances, been abused. The hypothesis of the essay is that loosening the rules on Net Neutrality would create competition between ISPs and CAPs as well as (which is even more important) between different CAPs for limited premium speed traffic. Such newly established competition could remedy some antitrust conundrums faced by EU competition enforcers and sectorial regulators vis-à-vis disruptive innovators in the area of electronic communications

(НЕ)ПАТЕНТИРАЊЕ ПРОИЗВОДА КЛОНИРАЊА

Author(s): Gordana Damjanovic / Language(s): Serbian / Issue: 81/2018

The patent system rests on a delicate relationship between privileges and responsibilities. As a regulatory institution, it also takes into consideration the protection of the public interest through environmental protection, biodiversity, health, technological progress, education and security. Patent protection of inventions is aimed at promoting innovation and competition, while ensuring the protection of socio-economic interests. The financial aspects of biotechnological research and the deficiency of alternative protection for investments impose the need for their patent protection.The issue that draws special attention in recent years is whether patent protection should be granted to products resulting from the therapeutic cloning process. Cloning is one of the greatest challenges for humanity, particularly considering that the modern world is at an important turning point for further development. Regardless of whether it is performed for therapeutic or for reproductive purposes, the consequences of cloning are inconceivable for the time being. All countries are now unanimously pleading for the banning of reproductive cloning. It would be ethically inadmissible for a man to become a product of a human hand, as so many other products. As compared to reproductive cloning, legal regulation of therapeutic cloning goes in the opposite direction. Some countries have recognized the enormous capabilities provided by the nucleus transmission technique and have regulated the conditions for conducting therapeutic cloning in their legislation. Finally, as the development of therapeutic cloning cannot be stopped, it is necessary (regardless of all obstacles) to set standards for legal regulation of this area as soon as possible; notably, it should not be forgotten that similar obstacles existed at the time when the legal termination of pregnancy or medically assisted reproduction was discussed. All of these issues have recently been the subject matter of numerous and large-scale debates on ethical, religious and other aspects, but many countries eventually resolved them by legalizing the terminatation of pregnancy and assisted reproduction.

2007 Antitrust and Regulatory Developments in Legislation in Poland

Author(s): Marek Stefaniuk / Language(s): English / Issue: 1/2008

2007 EC Competition Law and Sector-specific Regulatory Case Law Developments with a Nexus to Poland

Author(s): Krzysztof Kuik / Language(s): English / Issue: 1/2008

2008 and 2009 EU Competition Law and Sector-specific Regulatory Case Law Developments with a Nexus to Poland

Author(s): Dagmara Koska,Krzysztof Kuik / Language(s): English / Issue: 3/2010

The 2008 issue of YARS contained an overview of EU law developments in the period of time from 2004 to 2007. This overview covers the years 2008-2009. It confirms that State aid cases remained numerous (6 in total) and that the Commission’s enforcement activities in the area of State aid control continued at a similar pace as before. With respect to other areas of competition law and policy, the overall picture shows a relatively high level of scrutiny in mergers (5) and antitrust cases or inquiries (2). Moreover, EU Courts adopted several decisions in Polish cases, notably in the regulatory field (electronic communications) and State aid control (partial annulment in Huta Częstochowa (Operator) as well as the rejection of a request for interim measures in Technologie Buczek). The regulatory court cases show the Commission’s consistency in pursuing Member States in their failure to implement or to correctly implement the EU Electronic Communications package. In the state aid related Huta Częstochowa (Operator) judgement, the General Court (GC, formerly the Court of First Instance, CFI) partially annulled the scrutinised Commission decision since the Commission failed to identify the actual benefit related to the receipt of the aid in question. The jury is still out in the case concerning Technologie Buczek because the interim measures judgement says little about the potential outcome of the pending main appeals.

2008 Antitrust Law Developments in Poland

Author(s): Marek Stefaniuk / Language(s): English / Issue: 2/2009

Antitrust law, similarly to other disciplines of administrative law, concerns three interrelated aspects of legal regulation: substantive law, procedural law and legal provisions regulating the status of relevant bodies of public administration. In 2008, the Polish antitrust field was subject to legal amendments relating to the status of public administration bodies responsible for competition and consumer protection governed by the Act of 16 February 2007 on Competition and Consumer Protection 1 and other specific legal acts. The status changes affecting the competition and consumer protection field should be considered in the broader context of the: Resolution and Approach of the Cabinet No 13 of 22 January 2008 on the Completion of the Public Administration Reform and related Workflow Procedures implemented in 2008. The improvement of co-ordination between political and central governmental bodies of public administration was identified by the Cabinet as one of the targets of this reform. In order to achieve it, some public administration bodies were consolidated. That was the case with the Trade Inspection („Inspection”), acting in its capacity as an competent control body for the protection of consumer rights and interests as well as the economic interests of the State, and the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumenta: UOKiK), acting in its capacity as a Polish competition and consumer protection body. As a result, the central body of governmental administration, the Chief Inspector of the Trade Inspection, and its central office, the Chief Inspectorate of the Trade Inspection Office were abolished. A short description on the key legal developments relating to this consolidation process is presented below

2009 Amendments to the Polish Energy Law

Author(s): Filip Elzanowski / Language(s): English / Issue: 3/2010

2010 and 2011 EU Competition Law and Sector-specific Regulatory Jurisprudence and Case Law Developments with a Nexus to Poland

Author(s): Krzysztof Kuik,Anna Moscibroda / Language(s): English / Issue: 7/2012

This third overview of EU competition and sector-specific regulatory jurisprudential and case law developments with a nexus to Poland covers the years 2010 and 2011. This period of time is worth noting for several reasons. First, EU courts delivered a significant number of judgments in ‘Polish’ cases including an increased number of preliminary rulings. Second, 2010-2011 developments were dominated by judgments and decisions concerning telecoms. Finally, the Commission adopted only a handful of Polish State aid decisions following a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The main developments in telecoms relate to the Court of Justice’s preliminary reference judgment in Tele 2 Polska focusing on the interpretation of Regulation 1/2003 and the PTC v UKE ruling that dealt with number portability charges. Relevant is also the antitrust prohibition decision issued by the Commission against Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. for its refusal to grant access to its wholesale broadband services. In other fields, the Court of Justice delivered three State aid judgments (including two appeals against pre-2010 judgments of the General Court) and two judgments in infringement proceedings (regarding pre EU Accession marketing authorisations for medicines and the reutilisation of data from the public sector). The General Court ruled on appeal in the butadiene rubber cartel case (e.g. in Trade-Stomil v Commission). Finally, the Commission dealt with a merger case with a truly Polish specificity (Kraft Foods/ Cadbury), approved subject to divestiture of the E. Wedel brand.

2010 Legislative Developments in Telecommunications

Author(s): Kamil Kosmala / Language(s): English / Issue: 5/2011

2014 Amendment of the Polish Competition and Consumers Protection Act 2007

Author(s): Tadeusz Skoczny / Language(s): English / Issue: 11/2015

The article presents a critical analysis of changes introduced into the Polish Competition Act of 2007 by the Amendment Act of 2014. The declared purpose of the Amendment was mainly to increase the effectiveness of the enforcement of the antitrust prohibitions, including the introduction of conduct remedies in antitrust cases, the settlement procedure and fines for individuals, changes in the Polish Leniency Programme and inspection powers, as well as simplifying and shortening merger control proceedings. Considered in the paper is the thesis that some of these changes were not introduced properly; in particular, that the new provisions fail to sufficiently safeguard the rights of undertakings, and that the amendment is an inadequate step towards the convergence of the Polish competition law system with the enforcement rules of the EU and its other Member States. Further changes to the Polish Competition Act of 2007 are therefore needed. The paper does not cover changes introduced by the Amendment Act of 2014 to Poland’s consumer protection provisions.

2015 Amendments to the Aviation Law Act

Author(s): Anna Konert,Piotr Kasprzyk / Language(s): English / Issue: 13/2016

2016 Amendment of the Czech Significant Market Power Act Of 2009

Author(s): Petr Frischmann,Václav Šmejkal / Language(s): English / Issue: 14/2016

The Significant Market Power Act (SMPA) adopted in 2009 regulates the assessment of, and the prevention of, the abuse of market power in the sale of agricultural and food products. The Act generated many controversies from the outset, survived legislative proposals for its abolition, to be finally amended in 2016. However, this kind of legislation failed to solve most of the problems and even managed to create additional controversies. The new amendment formally simplified the actual wording of the SMPA by transposing its numerous earlier appendixes, which contained an exemplary list of prohibited forms of SMP abuse, to the actual text of the Act. It also improved transparency and clarity with respect to its earlier vague and ambiguous terminology. At the same time, the amendment seriously modified the scope and principal philosophy of the SMPA by removing the previously required “substantial detriment to economic competition” as the pre-condition of the applicability of the Act. However, since the enforcement of the SMPA falls into the scope of the activities of the Czech Office for Protection of Economic Competition (in Czech Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže, UOHS), the concerns and doubts of the business community continue to grow whether this form of regulation is appropriate after the modification of the concept.

2nd International Competition Law Forum. Report Warsaw, 27 September 2012

Author(s): Elzbieta Krajewska / Language(s): English / Issue: 8/2013

2nd International Conference on the Harmonisation of Private Antitrust Enforcement: A Central and Eastern European Perspective. Supraśl, 29–30 June 2017

Author(s): Magdalena Knapp,Paulina Korycinska-Rzadca / Language(s): English / Issue: 15/2017

2nd International PhD Students Seminar. Competition Law in Portugal and Poland. Białystok, 1 July 2015

Author(s): Teresa Kaczynska-Kochaniec / Language(s): English / Issue: 12/2015

4th Polish-Portuguese PhD Students’ Conference on Competition Law. Białystok, 10 June 2016

Author(s): Magdalena Knapp,Radoslaw Niwinski / Language(s): English / Issue: 14/2016

6th International PhD Students’ Conference on Competition Law. Białystok, 27 April 2017

Author(s): Magdalena Knapp,Paulina Korycinska-Rzadca / Language(s): English / Issue: 15/2017

7th International PhD Students’ Conference on Competition Law Białystok, 10 October 2017

Author(s): Paulina Korycinska-Rzadca / Language(s): English / Issue: 17/2018

8th International PhD Students’ Conference on Competition Law Białystok, 10 October 2018

Author(s): Radoslaw Niwinski / Language(s): English / Issue: 18/2018

9th Amendment to the Czech Competition Act

Author(s): Robert Neruda,Lenka Gachová,Roman Svetnický / Language(s): English / Issue: 8/2013