Search Results

language to regard such infrastructures as ‘facilities’, and ‘essential’ carries the same meaning as ‘indispensable’. However the case law has demonstrated that there can also be an obligation

Seeking an injunction to enforce standard-essential patents Seeking an injunction to enforce standard-essential patents ’, pp 822–823. 335 Case T-201/04 EU:T:2007:289. 336 Ibid, para

ture that was an essential facility: ARA had itself offered this divestiture, and its fine was reduced by 30% to reflect its cooperative approach. In several cases, particularly in

the Court of Justice for infringement of essential procedural requirements: Cases C-137/92 P etc Commission v BASF EU:C:1994:247. 239 Cases T-305/94 etc NV Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij

laws at the time of the Magill case. 286 Case C-418/01 EU:C:2004:257; for comment see Sufrin ‘The IMS Case’ [2004] Comp Law 18; Brinker ‘Essential Facility Doctrine and Intellectual

and (d) the Commission had defined lignite as an essential facility but had failed to show that it was in this case. Case C-553/12 P, Commission v Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou

the phrase ‘essential facilities’ to IPRs but the leading case on IPRs, Magill , 751 featured significantly in Bronner , 752 which in turn was relied upon in the IPR case of IMS

contrary to Article 106(1). In these cases the airport or port was a natural monopoly 192; and it may be necessary, under the so-called ‘essential facilities doctrine’ 193 , for the

produce widget dioxide, a raw material essential for the production of widgets, and that they will supply this raw material to Newco. In this case A and B will retain a presence in the

standard-essential patents (SEP) disputes by using Article 9 466 before finally making an Article 7 decision. 467 Yet, Article 9 is not an inevitable instrument of case disposition

in relation to essential services such as voice telephony, broadband services or the supply of electricity, price control may be necessary; where this is the case, various techniques

number of competition cases, such as Case C-407/08 P, Knauf Gips v Commission EU:C:2010:389; Case C-272/09 P, KME Germany AG v Commission EU:C:2011:810; and Case C-17/10, Toshiba v

company controlling them (Case 48/69, ICI v E.C. Commission  . . . ; Case 15/74, Centrafarm v Sterling Drug  . . . ; Case 16/74, Centrafarm v Winthrop  . . . ; Case 30/87, Bodson v Pompes

19 See similarly Cases 43/82 and 63/82 VBVB and VBBB v Commission EU:C:1984:9, para 61. 20 Case C-68/12 Slovenská sporitel’ňa EU:C:2013:71, para 32 and case law cited; see generally

community fell significantly 73. The complexity of determining access prices in the case of essential facilities is vividly illustrated by Albion Water v Water Services Regulation Authority

earlier. 634 Case 1012/2/3/03 [2003] CAT 17. 635 Case 1058/2/4/06 [2007] CAT 6. 636 Case 1068/2/1/06 [2006] CAT 35. 637 Case 1071/2/1/06 [2007] CAT 18. 638 Case 1087/2/3/07 [2007]

408 See the case law on refusal to supply and the essential facilities doctrine, discussed in Chap. 7. Article 102 TFEU: Conduct Which Can Be an Abuse 7. 409 Case 27/76, United

short period depends on the particular facts of any case 31; in Visa Europe v Commission 32 the General Court said that the essential factor is the need for entry to take place with

further appeal Case C-628/10 P EU:C:2012:479; Case T-29/05 Deltafina v Commission EU:T:2010:355, upheld on further appeal Cases C-537/10 P etc EU:C:2011:475; Case T-37/05 World Wide

but merely drew attention to the essential function of evidence, which is to establish convincingly the merits of an argument or, as in the present case, of a decision on a merger.