Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

På lika villkor? En kritisk granskning av KOS-reglernas tillämpning

Johansson, Simon LU (2021) LAGF03 20211
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Reglerna om konkurrensbegränsande offentlig säljverksamhet i 3 kap. 27–32 §§ konkurrenslagen (2008:579) (KOS-reglerna) ska motverka den konflikt som kan uppstå när en offentlig aktör bedriver näringsverksamhet i konkurrens med privata aktörer. Den centrala bestämmelsen i 3 kap. 27 § konkurrenslagen (konfliktlösningsregeln) innebär i korthet att en domstol kan förbjuda den offentliga aktören från att uppträda på ett sätt som inverkar negativt på konkurrensen. Sedan regelverket trädde i kraft år 2010 har Konkurrensverket mottagit över 400 tips och klagomål om konkurrensbegränsande offentlig säljverksamhet. Trots detta har endast sju ärenden prövats i domstol varav förbud har meddelats i tre fall.

I uppsatsen studeras de mål där reglerna... (More)
Reglerna om konkurrensbegränsande offentlig säljverksamhet i 3 kap. 27–32 §§ konkurrenslagen (2008:579) (KOS-reglerna) ska motverka den konflikt som kan uppstå när en offentlig aktör bedriver näringsverksamhet i konkurrens med privata aktörer. Den centrala bestämmelsen i 3 kap. 27 § konkurrenslagen (konfliktlösningsregeln) innebär i korthet att en domstol kan förbjuda den offentliga aktören från att uppträda på ett sätt som inverkar negativt på konkurrensen. Sedan regelverket trädde i kraft år 2010 har Konkurrensverket mottagit över 400 tips och klagomål om konkurrensbegränsande offentlig säljverksamhet. Trots detta har endast sju ärenden prövats i domstol varav förbud har meddelats i tre fall.

I uppsatsen studeras de mål där reglerna har tillämpats. Uppsatsen syftar till att ställa rättstillämpningen mot regelverkets bakomliggande syfte, så som det kommer till uttryck i förarbetena, för att undersöka om tillämpningen medför att regeln ger det skydd som lagstiftaren avsåg. Med fokus på konfliktlösningsregelns konkurrensbegränsningsrekvisit och på avgränsning av den relevanta marknaden genomförs en kritisk granskning av hur rättstillämpningen påverkar det skydd som regeln ger i praktiken. Utifrån ett internrättsligt perspektiv undersöks även huruvida rättstillämpningen medför att reglerna ger det skydd som lagstiftaren avsåg. Slutsatsen dras att den faktiska tillämpningen inte alltid överensstämmer med den tänkta tillämpningen, men det är oklart om detta får effekt bortom de enskilda fall där konfliktlösningsregeln har prövats. Genom att väga in hur Konkurrensverket anpassar sig efter domstolarna i sin tillsynsverksamhet kan det ändå konstateras att tillämpningen har medfört att reglernas utfall i praktiken, i vissa avseenden, inte motsvarar vad lagstiftaren ville uppnå. I stället ger reglerna ett snävare skydd. Detta kan i sin tur vara till nackdel för både samhällsekonomin och konsumenterna. Stötestenen i sammanhanget är omfattningen av den utredning som Konkurrensverket måste presentera för att uppnå beviskravet vid domstolsprövning. (Less)
Abstract
The rules on anti-competitive public sales activity in chapter 3 sections 27–32 of the Competition Act (2008:576) were adopted to prevent the conflict which arises when a public entity conducts in business operations in competition with private companies. In brief, the key rule in chapter 3 section 27 of the Competition Act makes it possible for a court to prohibit the public entity from acting in a way that has a negative impact on competition. Since the rules were adopted in 2010 over 400 complaints have been made to the Swedish Competition Authority regarding anti-competitive public sales activity. Despite this only seven cases have reached trial by court. Three of these cases has resulted in the court issuing a prohibition.

The... (More)
The rules on anti-competitive public sales activity in chapter 3 sections 27–32 of the Competition Act (2008:576) were adopted to prevent the conflict which arises when a public entity conducts in business operations in competition with private companies. In brief, the key rule in chapter 3 section 27 of the Competition Act makes it possible for a court to prohibit the public entity from acting in a way that has a negative impact on competition. Since the rules were adopted in 2010 over 400 complaints have been made to the Swedish Competition Authority regarding anti-competitive public sales activity. Despite this only seven cases have reached trial by court. Three of these cases has resulted in the court issuing a prohibition.

The cases constitute the basis of the essay. The task is to compare the legislator’s intentions, as stated in the preparatory works, with how the rule is applied in court. The aim is to examine whether the application results in the rules having their desired effect, from the legislator’s point of view. The essay focuses on the anti-competitive criteria of the rule and on determination of the relevant market. A critical analysis of how the courts’ application of the law affects the protection provided by the rule is presented in the essay. Whether the protection given is in line with the legislator’s intentions is also examined. The conclusion is drawn that the application in court does not always correspond with what the legislator has stated in the preparatory works, but it is unclear if this has effect beyond the individual case. However, by taking into account how the Competition Authority conforms to how the rule is applied in court, a conclusion can be drawn that the actual protection given is weaker than intended, and this can affect both the economy and the consumers negatively. Thus, not a fully desirable effect from the legislator’s point of view. The obstacle in this case seems to be the amount of evidence that the Competition Authority must provide in order for the court to be able to issue a prohibition. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johansson, Simon LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20211
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
konkurrensrätt, konkurrensbegränsande offentlig säljverksamhet, konfliktlösningsregeln
language
Swedish
id
9045848
date added to LUP
2021-06-29 16:43:36
date last changed
2021-06-29 16:43:36
@misc{9045848,
  abstract     = {{The rules on anti-competitive public sales activity in chapter 3 sections 27–32 of the Competition Act (2008:576) were adopted to prevent the conflict which arises when a public entity conducts in business operations in competition with private companies. In brief, the key rule in chapter 3 section 27 of the Competition Act makes it possible for a court to prohibit the public entity from acting in a way that has a negative impact on competition. Since the rules were adopted in 2010 over 400 complaints have been made to the Swedish Competition Authority regarding anti-competitive public sales activity. Despite this only seven cases have reached trial by court. Three of these cases has resulted in the court issuing a prohibition.

The cases constitute the basis of the essay. The task is to compare the legislator’s intentions, as stated in the preparatory works, with how the rule is applied in court. The aim is to examine whether the application results in the rules having their desired effect, from the legislator’s point of view. The essay focuses on the anti-competitive criteria of the rule and on determination of the relevant market. A critical analysis of how the courts’ application of the law affects the protection provided by the rule is presented in the essay. Whether the protection given is in line with the legislator’s intentions is also examined. The conclusion is drawn that the application in court does not always correspond with what the legislator has stated in the preparatory works, but it is unclear if this has effect beyond the individual case. However, by taking into account how the Competition Authority conforms to how the rule is applied in court, a conclusion can be drawn that the actual protection given is weaker than intended, and this can affect both the economy and the consumers negatively. Thus, not a fully desirable effect from the legislator’s point of view. The obstacle in this case seems to be the amount of evidence that the Competition Authority must provide in order for the court to be able to issue a prohibition.}},
  author       = {{Johansson, Simon}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{På lika villkor? En kritisk granskning av KOS-reglernas tillämpning}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}