A Comparative Study of Abuse of Market Dominance in EU and French Competition Laws and Legislative Suggestions on Korean Competition Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article has the objective of making a study of the theory and the practice on abuse of market dominance in EU and French Competition Laws, which will play an important role in developing Korean Competition Law. This article also aims at studying new legislative proposal that will be introduced into Korean Competition Law. By and large, this article is composed of three parts and conclusion. First of all, the legal framework of Article 102 TFEU and relevant case law, together with the analysis of relationship between Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, are sufficiently examined. Secondly, the relationship between Article L.420-2 and L.420-1 French Commercial Code, not to mention the legal system of the Article L.420-2 French Commercial Code, is carefully studied. In addition, a comparative study is made as to EU and French Competition Laws in this field. In the course of this studying, we can find that French Competition Law has come nearer to EU Competition Law in the field of abuse of market dominance that German Competition Law which had influence on Korean relevant law. In this part, we also realize that the legal frameworks of EU and French Competition Laws have been established on the basis of the theory that the regulation of abuse of dominance is premised on the regulation of cartel. In my opinion, these legal frameworks are worthy of being introduced into Korean Competition Law. Lastly, we propose legislative suggestions which can have influence on Korean Competition Law. In this part, we emphasize the introduction of the concept of collective dominance which has been established in both EU case law and French case law. For the purpose of attaining such an objective, above-mentioned case laws which are showing some criteria should be researched into by many Korean legal scholars. In conclusion, we put forth some opinions on the future prospect of abuse of market dominance in Korean Competition Law. In this regard, we protest that three important issues are bound to rise.
Abstract
This article has the objective of making a study of the theory and the practice on abuse of market dominance in EU and French Competition Laws, which will play an important role in developing Korean Competition Law. This article also aims at studying new legislative proposal that will be introduced into Korean Competition Law. By and large, this article is composed of three parts and conclusion. First of all, the legal framework of Article 102 TFEU and relevant case law, together with the analysis of relationship between Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, are sufficiently examined. Secondly, the relationship between Article L.420-2 and L.420-1 French Commercial Code, not to mention the legal system of the Article L.420-2 French Commercial Code, is carefully studied. In addition, a comparative study is made as to EU and French Competition Laws in this field. In the course of this studying, we can find that French Competition Law has come nearer to EU Competition Law in the field of abuse of market dominance that German Competition Law which had influence on Korean relevant law. In this part, we also realize that the legal frameworks of EU and French Competition Laws have been established on the basis of the theory that the regulation of abuse of dominance is premised on the regulation of cartel. In my opinion, these legal frameworks are worthy of being introduced into Korean Competition Law. Lastly, we propose legislative suggestions which can have influence on Korean Competition Law. In this part, we emphasize the introduction of the concept of collective dominance which has been established in both EU case law and French case law. For the purpose of attaining such an objective, above-mentioned case laws which are showing some criteria should be researched into by many Korean legal scholars. In conclusion, we put forth some opinions on the future prospect of abuse of market dominance in Korean Competition Law. In this regard, we protest that three important issues are bound to rise.
참고문헌 (34)
- Alison Jones, "EU Competition Law" (2010), Oxford University Press
- André Fiebig, "EU Business Law" (2015), ABA
- Lawrence A. Sullivan, "The Law of Antitrust : An Integrated Handbook" (2000), West Group
- Louis Vogel, "Du droit commercial au droit économique", LGDJ (2016)
- Robert Bradgate, "Commercial Law" (2012), Oxford University Press
- Subiotto, "The Application of Article 102 TFEU by the European Commission and the European Commission and the European Courts", JECLAP (2014)
- Gormsen, "Are Anti-competitive Effects Necessary for an Analysis under Article 102 TFEU?", World Competition, 36 (2013)
- Gonzalez-Diaz, "Abuse of Dominance Under ARticle 102 TFEU" (2013), Claeys & Casteels
- Ortiz Blanco, "Market Power in EU Antitrust Law" (2012), Hart Publishing
- Filippelli, "Collective Dominance and Collusion : Parallelism in EU and US Competition Law" (2013), Edward Elgar
- Gjendemsjo, "Abuse of Collective Dominance : The Need for a New Approach", World Competition, pp.355~ (2013)
- Mezzanotte, "Using Abuse of Collective Dominance in Article 102 TFEU to Fight Tacit Collusion : The Problem of Proof and Inferential Error", World Competition, 77 (2010)
- Louis, "Promoting Private Antitrust Enforcement : Remember Article 102", EUR. Comp. Law Annual, 85 (2011)
- Swan, "Market Abuse Regulation" (2010), Oxford University Press
- Vatiero, "The Ordoliberal Notion of Market Power : An Institutionalist Reassessment", ECJ, 6 (2010)
- Choné, "Essaie en droit des contrats et en droit de la concurrence" (2010), Economica
- Bidaud, "La délimitation du marché pertinent en droit français de la concurrence" (2001), Litec
- Bazex, "Interdiction des abus de position dominante dans le cadre d’une convention de délégation de service public", JCPE (2010)
- Le Coz et Pellefigue, "Principes de délimitation de la frontière d’un marché groupe", Concurrences, (1) (2014)
- Avenel, "Position dominante collective : dépasser les critères Airtours", Concurrence, (4) (2011)
- Perrot, "La position dominante collective", Concurrences, (3) (2011)
- Fontaine, "La dominance collective : mythes et réalité", JCPE (2006)
- Malaurie-Vignal, "L’abus de position dominante" (2002), LGDJ
- Torré-Schaub, "Essai sur la construction juridique de la catégorie de marché" (2002), LGDJ
- Canivet, "La notion de marché dans la jurisprudence de la chambre commerciable, financière et économique de la Cour de cassation", Mélanges Bézard, Montchrestien, ~ (2002)
- Mario Siragusa, "Abuse of dominance in EU Competition Law" (2016), Elgar
- "Rapport du Conseil de la concurrence pour 1992", ~
- "Rapport du Conseil de la concurrence pour 1994", ~
- Kwon, Oh-Seung, "Economic Law", Bobmunsa (2015)
- Kwon, Oh-Seung, "Antitrust Law, Theory and Practice" (2017), Bobmunsa
- Lee, Ho-Young, "Antitrust Law" (2015), Hongmunsa
- Shi, Hyun-Yun, "Competition Law" (2012), Bobmunsa
- Chung, Ho-Yul, "Competition Law" (2016), Parkyoungsa
- 이호용, "공중위생업의 육성을 위한 기금 조성 방안", 한양법학, (26), pp.305~327 (2009), 한양법학회