Analysing Self-Preferencing in EU Competition Law - Understanding the Similarities and Differences Between Article 102 TFEU and the Digital Markets Act
(2024) HARN63 20241Department of Business Law
- Abstract
- Article 102 TFEU has long been the legal framework for addressing dominant undertakings abusing their position. In the new digital era, these undertakings have been found to favour themselves through self-preferencing. Therefore, the European Commission proposed the Digital Markets Act to address the structural problems that Article 102 TFEU could not. The DMA targets gatekeepers, who often hold dominant positions. This results in two legal frameworks potentially applying to and being enforced for the same offence, as it may be regulated in both of these frameworks. One such offence is the practice of self-preferencing, which has increased in recent years due to advanced technical instruments, such as ranking. The relation between Article... (More)
- Article 102 TFEU has long been the legal framework for addressing dominant undertakings abusing their position. In the new digital era, these undertakings have been found to favour themselves through self-preferencing. Therefore, the European Commission proposed the Digital Markets Act to address the structural problems that Article 102 TFEU could not. The DMA targets gatekeepers, who often hold dominant positions. This results in two legal frameworks potentially applying to and being enforced for the same offence, as it may be regulated in both of these frameworks. One such offence is the practice of self-preferencing, which has increased in recent years due to advanced technical instruments, such as ranking. The relation between Article 102 TFEU and the DMA has raised concerns about the applicability of the principle of ne bis in idem.
The purpose of this thesis is to describe, analyse and compare how self-preferencing is regulated in Article 102 TFEU and Article 6 DMA. Additionally, the thesis aims to describe and analyse whether the principle of ne bis in idem applies to this relation and, if not, why it is inapplicable. To answer these research questions, two methods will be employed: a legal dogmatic method and an EU legal method.
After examining and analysing how self-preferencing is regulated in Article 102 TFEU and Article 6 DMA, the thesis finds that the main similarities lie in the objectives, while the differences lie in the regulatory legal frameworks. Furthermore, the terms “more favourably” and “fairness” are unclear and unprecise in Article 6(5) DMA. The thesis concludes that the principle of ne bis in idem is unlikely to apply to proceedings under both Article 102 TFEU and DMA in general, and specifically in a case of self-preferencing. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9157714
- author
- Adolfsson, Mathias LU
- supervisor
-
- Johan Axhamn LU
- organization
- course
- HARN63 20241
- year
- 2024
- type
- H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
- subject
- keywords
- Article 102 TFEU, DMA, Self-Preferencing, ne bis in idem, Applicability, ex ante, ex post, Google Shopping
- language
- English
- id
- 9157714
- date added to LUP
- 2024-06-04 09:33:07
- date last changed
- 2024-06-04 09:33:07
@misc{9157714,
abstract = {{Article 102 TFEU has long been the legal framework for addressing dominant undertakings abusing their position. In the new digital era, these undertakings have been found to favour themselves through self-preferencing. Therefore, the European Commission proposed the Digital Markets Act to address the structural problems that Article 102 TFEU could not. The DMA targets gatekeepers, who often hold dominant positions. This results in two legal frameworks potentially applying to and being enforced for the same offence, as it may be regulated in both of these frameworks. One such offence is the practice of self-preferencing, which has increased in recent years due to advanced technical instruments, such as ranking. The relation between Article 102 TFEU and the DMA has raised concerns about the applicability of the principle of ne bis in idem.
The purpose of this thesis is to describe, analyse and compare how self-preferencing is regulated in Article 102 TFEU and Article 6 DMA. Additionally, the thesis aims to describe and analyse whether the principle of ne bis in idem applies to this relation and, if not, why it is inapplicable. To answer these research questions, two methods will be employed: a legal dogmatic method and an EU legal method.
After examining and analysing how self-preferencing is regulated in Article 102 TFEU and Article 6 DMA, the thesis finds that the main similarities lie in the objectives, while the differences lie in the regulatory legal frameworks. Furthermore, the terms “more favourably” and “fairness” are unclear and unprecise in Article 6(5) DMA. The thesis concludes that the principle of ne bis in idem is unlikely to apply to proceedings under both Article 102 TFEU and DMA in general, and specifically in a case of self-preferencing.}},
author = {{Adolfsson, Mathias}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Analysing Self-Preferencing in EU Competition Law - Understanding the Similarities and Differences Between Article 102 TFEU and the Digital Markets Act}},
year = {{2024}},
}