Cover des Buchs: Nonlegal Sanctioning in Private Legal Systems
Monographie Open Access Vollzugriff

Nonlegal Sanctioning in Private Legal Systems

Limits in US Antitrust Law and EU Competition Law
Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2021

Zusammenfassung

Einige moderne Handelsverbände im transnationalen Bereich verhängen nicht-rechtliche Sanktionen gegen illoyale Branchenakteure, wenn diese sich nicht an Schiedssprüche halten. Diese Maßnahmen untergraben zwar die Rechtsordnungen der Staaten, dennoch könnten sie als praktikable Alternative zu langwierigen und teuren Gerichtsprozessen angesehen werden.

Das Werk enthält Best-Practice-Leitlinien, die aufzeigen, unter welchen Bedingungen solche Sanktionen, die von einem Wirtschaftsverband verhängt werden, nicht gegen das US-Kartellrecht und das europäische Wettbewerbsrecht verstoßen.

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Copyrightjahr
2021
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8164-5
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2624-5
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Wirtschaftsrecht und Wirtschaftspolitik
Band
306
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
518
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 24 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. Introduction 25 - 34 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
        1. I. Ancient Greece: “Self-regulation within the Oikos in classical Athens”
        2. II. The Roman Empire: “Flexibility & risk allocation with regard to lease contracts in the agriculture sector”
        3. III. Medieval Times: “Lex Mercatoria”
        4. IV. The Industrial Revolution
          1. 1. Self-governance in reputation-based networks vs. governance of members by and through associations
          2. 2. Market of trust
          3. 3. Naming and shaming through an information exchange
          4. 4. Market where a loss of social standing is important
          1. 1. Blacklisting
          2. 2. Withdrawing membership
          3. 3. Denying membership for expelled members on the basis of an additional entry barrier
          4. 4. Refusing to deal with an expelled member
          5. 5. Entering the premises of a recalcitrant industry actor
          6. 6. Limiting adequate access to public courts prior to arbitral proceedings and after an award
        1. I. Inefficiency of the court system
        2. II. Increased contractual security / Safeguarding the sanctity of contract
        3. III. Lower transaction costs
        4. IV. Lower distribution costs
      1. A. Introduction
          1. 1. History
          2. 2. Legal form
          3. 3. Institutional structure
          4. 4. Membership
            1. a. A dichotomy of arbitration forms
              1. i. Quality arbitration
              2. ii. Technical arbitration
              1. i. Quality arbitration
              2. ii. Technical arbitration
              1. i. Quality arbitration
              2. ii. Technical arbitration
              1. i. Quality arbitration
              2. ii. Technical arbitration
          1. 1. Blacklisting
          2. 2. Withdrawing membership
          3. 3. Denying membership for expelled members on the basis of an additional entry condition
          4. 4. Refusing to deal with expelled members
        3. III. Rationale for private enforcement/nonlegal sanctioning
          1. 1. History
          2. 2. Legal form
          3. 3. Institutional structure
          4. 4. Membership
            1. a. The single arbitration model
            2. b. Selection of arbitrators
            3. c. Choice of tribunal and jurisdiction of arbitration tribunals
            4. d. Procedure
            5. e. The finality of arbitration or the possibility of (some) legal redress in public courts according to the association?
          1. 1. Blacklisting
          2. 2. Withdrawing membership
        3. III. Rationale for private enforcement/nonlegal sanctioning
          1. 1. History
          2. 2. Legal form
          3. 3. Institutional structure
          4. 4. Membership
            1. a. Tripartite arbitration
            2. b. Selection of arbitrators
            3. c. Choice of tribunal and jurisdiction of arbitration tribunals
            4. d. Procedure
            5. e. The finality of arbitration or the possibility of (some) legal redress in public courts according to the association?
          1. 1. Blacklisting
        3. III. Rationale for private enforcement/nonlegal sanctioning
          1. 1. History
          2. 2. Legal form
          3. 3. Institutional structure
          4. 4. Membership
            1. a. A dichotomy of arbitration forms
            2. b. Selection of arbitrators
            3. c. Choice of tribunal and jurisdiction of arbitration tribunals
            4. d. Procedure
            5. e. The finality of arbitration or the possibility of (some) legal redress in public courts according to the association?
          1. 1. Blacklisting
          2. 2. Withdrawing membership
        3. III. Rationale for private enforcement/nonlegal sanctioning
          1. 1. History
          2. 2. Legal form
          3. 3. Institutional structure
          4. 4. Membership
            1. a. The single arbitration model
            2. b. Selection of arbitrators
            3. c. Choice of tribunal and jurisdiction of arbitration tribunals
            4. d. Procedure
            5. e. The finality of arbitration or the possibility of (some) legal redress in public courts according to the association?
          1. 1. The power to enter premises
          2. 2. Blacklisting
          3. 3. Withdrawing membership
        3. III. Rationale for private enforcement/nonlegal sanctioning
          1. 1. History
          2. 2. Legal form
          3. 3. Institutional structure
          4. 4. Membership
            1. a. Tripartite arbitration
            2. b. Selection of arbitrators
            3. c. Choice of tribunal and jurisdiction of arbitration tribunals
            4. d. Procedure
            5. e. The finality of arbitration or the possibility of (some) legal redress in public courts according to the association?
          1. 1. Blacklisting
          2. 2. Withdrawing membership
        3. III. Rationale for private enforcement/nonlegal sanctioning
      1. A. Introduction
      2. B. Legal form
      3. C. Access to membership
        1. I. First-tier arbitration
        2. II. Second-tier arbitration/internal appeal
        3. III. Qualification criteria for candidate arbitrators
      5. E. The place of arbitration and applicable law
              1. i. “Null and void” defence
              2. ii. “Inoperative” defence
              3. iii. “Incapable of being performed” defence
            2. b. Application to the court for preliminary ruling on jurisdiction
              1. i. “Sufficient reference” to arbitration agreements within the standardized agreements provided by the UK-based trade associations
              2. ii. Examples of arbitration clauses within standardized contracts provided by the UK-based trade associations that refer to a broader arbitration agreement
              3. iii. The trade association and its members joint reprisal against members who/that seek redress at a public court to invalidate an arbitration agreement for the reason that the arbitration clause with...
            2. b. Lack of substantive jurisdiction of an arbitrator or arbitrators
            3. c. Unfair proceedings
            4. d. Review on the merits
            1. a. Stay of proceedings pursuant to Article 75, Section 7503 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules
            2. b. Application to the court for preliminary ruling on jurisdiction
            1. a. Lack of substantive jurisdiction of an arbitrator or arbitrators
            2. b. Unfair proceedings
        3. III. Statement about the conformity of the trade associations and their members’ joint limitation to seek legal redress at a public court with the English Arbitration Act 1996, Article 75 of the CPLR ...
        1. I. Blacklisting
        2. II. Withdrawing membership
        3. III. Denying membership for expelled members on the basis of an additional entry barrier
        4. IV. Refusing to deal with an expelled member
        5. V. Entering the premises of a recalcitrant industry actor
        6. VI. Limiting adequate access to public courts prior to arbitral proceedings and after an award.
        1. I. Markets in which futures play a crucial role
        2. II. A market in which trust plays a crucial role
        1. I. US Antitrust Law: Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act
        2. II. EU Competition Law: Articles 101 and 102 TFEU
      2. B. Prisoner’s dilemma type of function analogy
          1. 1. Trade associations
          2. 2. Members of a trade association
          3. 3. Non-members of a trade association
        2. II. Recipients of nonlegal sanctioning
      4. D. Research Question
        1. I. Unnecessary redundancy exploratory research methodology
        2. II. Methodological adequacy
        1. I. US Antitrust Law
        2. II. EU Competition Law
        3. III. Type of reasoning
      3. C. Reflection on the research question
        1. I. Guidance for compliance with competition law
        2. II. Promoting transparency for trade associations, their members and non-members
        3. III. Promulgating best practice guidelines for actors that infringe US Antitrust Law and EU Competition Law
  4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Introduction
        1. I. Individual members, member undertakings and non-members
        2. II. Trade associations
        1. I. Contract
        2. II. Combination in the form of trust or otherwise
        3. III. Conspiracy
          1. 1. Blacklists by trade associations
          2. 2. Execution of blacklists by members of trade associations
          3. 3. Execution of blacklists by non-members
            1. a. Withdrawal by a trade association
            2. b. Execution of the withdrawal of membership by members of a trade association
            3. c. Execution of the withdrawal of membership by non-members
            1. a. Access restrictions by a trade association
            2. b. Access restrictions by members of a trade association
            3. c. Access restrictions by non-members
          1. 1. Refusal to deal with an expelled member by a trade association
          2. 2. Execution of the refusal to deal with an expelled member by members of a trade association
          3. 3. Execution of the refusal to deal with an expelled member by non-members
        4. IV. Entering the premises of a recalcitrant industry actor without a warrant
        5. V. Limiting adequate access to public courts prior to arbitral proceedings and after an award
        1. I. First step of the rule-of-reason defence: The existence of visibly plausible procompetitive benefits
          1. 1. Efficiency defence: Consumer or total welfare justification
            1. a. Blacklisting
              1. i. Withdrawal of membership
              2. ii. Denial of membership for expelled members on the basis of an additional entry condition
            3. c. Refusal to deal with an expelled member
        1. I. Qualification as member or undertaking
        2. II. Collusion: “a concurrence of wills”
        3. III. The anti-competitiveness of nonlegal sanctions
        4. IV. Rule-of-reason defence
      1. A. Introduction
          1. 1. Market definition: Monopoly leveraging
            1. a. The International Cotton Association
            2. b. The Diamond Dealers Club
            3. c. The Grain and Feed Trade Association
            4. d. Federation of Cocoa Commerce
            5. e. London Metal Exchange
            6. f. Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Association
          3. 3. Monopolization in the market for regulation and private ordering
          1. 1. Monopoly leveraging doctrine: Attributing liability for a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act to the trade associations researched for utilizing a monopoly position in one market to punish wr...
            1. a. Blacklisting
              1. i. Withdrawal of membership
              2. ii. Denial of membership for expelled members on the basis of an additional entry condition
            3. c. Refusal to deal with an expelled member
            4. d. Entering the premises of a recalcitrant industry actor without a warrant
        3. III. Interim conclusion
        1. I. Specific intent to monopolize
        2. II. Dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power
        3. III. Anticompetitive conduct (and rule-of-reason)
        4. IV. Interim conclusion
        1. I. The existence of an agreement between two or more parties
        2. II. Specific intent to monopolize
        3. III. Overt act in furtherance of the agreement
        4. IV. Interim conclusion
      5. E. Key findings
  5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. The nucleus of European Competition Law: a brief overview
      2. B. Introduction
        1. I. Members of the trade associations researched and non-members
        2. II. Trade associations
        1. I. Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union
          1. 1. Commission Recommendation on SMEs and the positive and negative rebuttable presumption of non-appreciability
          2. 2. The De Minimis Notice
          1. 1. The concept of trade
          2. 2. The presence of “may affect”
            1. a. Nonlegal sanctions as effect restrictions
      5. E. Key findings
      1. A. Introduction
        1. I. Agreement between undertakings
        2. II. Decisions by associations of undertakings
        3. III. Concerted practices
        1. I. Restrictions by object or effect
            1. a. Asnef-Equifax/Ausbanc
            2. b. Compagnie Maritime Belge
            3. c. Statement
          2. 2. Execution of blacklists by members of trade associations
          3. 3. Execution of blacklists by non-members
            1. a. Withdrawal by a trade association
            2. b. Execution of the withdrawal of membership by members of a trade association
            3. c. Execution of the withdrawal of membership by non-members
            1. a. Access restrictions by a trade association
            2. b. Access restrictions by members of a trade association
            3. c. Access restrictions by non-members
          1. 1. Refusal to deal by a trade association
          2. 2. Execution of the refusal to deal by members of a trade association
          3. 3. Execution of the refusal to deal by non-members
        5. V. Entering the premises of a recalcitrant industry actor without a warrant
          1. 1. Voluntary nature of specialized commercial arbitration
          2. 2. Recourse to national courts
        1. I. Court of Justice of the European Union
        2. II. Commission
        3. III. Summary evaluation
      5. E. Key findings
      1. A. Introduction
      2. B. BER: Research and Development and Specialization Agreements
          1. 1. The nature of the efficiencies claimed
          2. 2. Sufficient link and likelihood and magnitude of the efficiency
          1. 1. The scope of the term “consumers”
          2. 2. Pass-on benefits (the concept of “fair share”)
          3. 3. An efficient allocation of resources to countervail the negative effects of nonlegal sanctions imposed by the trade associations researched and executed by their members
            1. a. The juxtaposition with online evaluation forums
            1. a. Withdrawal of membership
            2. b. Denial of readmission to membership
          3. 3. Limiting adequate access to public courts prior to arbitral proceedings and after an award
        4. IV. Fourth condition: no elimination of competition
        5. V. Conclusion
      4. D. Key findings
      1. A. Introduction
        1. I. Guidance by the CJEU and the decisional practice of the Commission
        2. II. The Discussion Paper
        3. III. The unequivocal dominance of the trade associations researched in the EU markets for regulation and private ordering
          1. 1. The proof required for finding an exclusionary abuse
          1. 1. Nature and characteristics of the facility
          2. 2. The essentiality, indispensability or objective necessity of the facility
            1. a. Blacklisting
              1. i. Withdrawal of membership
              2. ii. Denial of readmission to membership of expelled members on the basis of an additional entry condition
            3. c. Refusal to deal with an expelled member
        3. III. Existence of a causal connection between market power of the trade associations researched and an exclusionary abuse on adjacent second-tier commodities markets
          1. 1. Efficiency defence: lower transaction and distribution costs?
          2. 2. The protection of a legitimate commercial interest
          3. 3. The objective necessity of an abuse
      4. D. Key findings
  6. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. A case study based review of present-day PLSs
      2. B. Similarities and differences between the trade associations researched
      3. C. The antitrust limits of nonlegal sanctioning
      4. D. Restraint of trade or commerce under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
      5. E. Monopolization of any part of trade or commerce under Section 2 of the Sherman Act
      6. F. The applicability of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU
      7. G. Anticompetitive agreement under Article 101(1) TFEU
      8. H. Exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU
      9. I. Abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU
      1. A. An answer to the central research question
        1. I. Differences between US Antitrust Law and EU Competition Law
        2. II. Outline of the best practice guidelines
        1. I. The dissemination of the names of wrongdoers in a blacklist
        2. II. Withdrawal of membership
        3. III. Denial of readmission of expelled members to membership on the basis of an additional entry requirement
        4. IV. Refusal to deal with an expelled member
        5. V. Entering the premises of a recalcitrant industry actor without a warrant
        6. VI. Limiting adequate access to public courts prior to arbitral proceedings and after an award
        1. I. The dissemination of the names of wrongdoers in a blacklist
        2. II. Withdrawals of membership
        3. III. Additional entry barriers to being readmitted to membership after an expulsion
        4. IV. Refusal to deal with an expelled member
        5. V. Entering the premises of a recalcitrant industry actor without a warrant
        6. VI. Limiting adequate access to public courts prior to arbitral proceedings and after an award
  7. Bibliography 475 - 518 Download Kapitel (PDF)

Literaturverzeichnis (848)

  1. Adanacioglu, H, “The Futures Market in Agricultural Products and an Evaluation of the Attitude of Farmers: A Case Study of Cotton Producers in Aydin Province in Turkey”, New Medit, No. 2 2011, 58. Google Scholar öffnen
  2. Adkinson, Jr., WF, Grimm, KL, and Bryan, CN, “Enforcement of Section 2 of the Sherman Act: Theory and Practice”, FTC Working Paper 2008, p. 3-4. Google Scholar öffnen
  3. Akman, P, ““Consumer” versus “Customer”: the Devil in the Detail”, ESRC Centre for Competition Policy Working Paper No. 08-34 2008, p. 8. Google Scholar öffnen
  4. Areeda, P, “Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles”, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 58, No. 3 1989, p. 853. Google Scholar öffnen
  5. Armstrong, Jr., NA, Carroll, JD, and Yook, CC, “Sherman Act Section 1 Fundamentals”, LexisNexis 2019, p. 3. Google Scholar öffnen
  6. Association of Legal Administrators, “Antitrust Guide: For Members of the Association of Legal Administrators”, Association of Legal Administrators 2019, p. 1. Google Scholar öffnen
  7. Attorney General's National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws, “Report of the Attorney General's National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws”, Attorney General's National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws 1955, p. 1, 3. Google Scholar öffnen
  8. Aviram, A, “The Paradox of Spontaneous Formation of Private Legal Systems”, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 192 2003, p. 1-72. Google Scholar öffnen
  9. Barber, CF, “Refusals to Deal under the Federal Antitrust Laws”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 103, No. 7 1955, p. 847. Google Scholar öffnen
  10. Behrens, P, “The ordoliberal concept of "abuse" of a dominant position and its impact on Article 102 TFEU”, Econstor 2015, p. 5, 20. Google Scholar öffnen
  11. Bernstein, L, “Opting out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the Diamond Industry”, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 1992, p. 115, 124, 126. Google Scholar öffnen
  12. Bernstein, L, “Private Commercial Law in the Cotton Industry: Creating Cooperation Through Rules, Norms, and Institutions”, Michigan Law Review 2001, p. 7. Google Scholar öffnen
  13. Bird, CC, “Sherman Act Limitations on Noncommercial Concerted Refusals to Deal”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1970, No. 2 1970, p. 253-254. Google Scholar öffnen
  14. Blair, RD, and Sokol, DD, “The Rule of Reason and the Goals of Antitrust: An Economic Approach”, UF Law Scholarship Repository 2012, p. 476, 480. Google Scholar öffnen
  15. Bork, RH, “Legislative Intent and the Policy of the Sherman Act”, The Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 9 1966. Google Scholar öffnen
  16. Bossone, B, “The Role of Trust in Financial Sector Development”, Policy Research Working Paper 2200 1999, p. 18. Google Scholar öffnen
  17. Brodley, JF, “Antitrust Analysis of Joint Ventures: An Overview”, American Bar Association, Vol. 66, No. 3, 1998, p. 1526. Google Scholar öffnen
  18. Bruce, AB, “Bailliére's Encyclopædia of Scientific Agriculture”, Bailliér, Tindall and Cox 1931, p. 520. Google Scholar öffnen
  19. Calliess, G, and Zumbransen, P, “Rough Consensus and Running Code: A Theory of Transnational Private Law”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2010, p. 2110. Google Scholar öffnen
  20. Calliess, G, “Lex Mercatoria”, Zentra Working Papers in Transnational Studies No. 52 / 201 2015, p. 1-15. Google Scholar öffnen
  21. Calliess, G, “Lex mercatoria”, Encyclopedia of Private International Law 2017, p. 1119-1129. Google Scholar öffnen
  22. Chaplan, B, “The Economics of Non-State Legal Systems”, Libertarian Alliance 1997, p. 2, 13. Google Scholar öffnen
  23. Charny, D, “Nonlegal Sanctions in Commercial Relationships”, Harvard Law Review 1993, p. 392-393. Google Scholar öffnen
  24. Cheung, CMK, and Lee, MKO, “Online Consumer Reviews: Does Negative Electronic Word-of-Mouth Hurt More?”, Association for Information Systems 2008, p. 2. Google Scholar öffnen
  25. Colomo, PI, “The Law on Abuses of Dominance and the System of Judicial Remedies”, Yearbook of European Law, Vol. 32, No. 1 2013, p. 389. Google Scholar öffnen
  26. Cucu, C, “Agreements, Decisions and Concerted Practices: Key Concepts in the Analysis of Anti-competitive Agreements”, Lex ET Scientia International Journal, Vol. 20, Issue 1 2013 p. 222. Google Scholar öffnen
  27. Dammann, J, and Hansmann, H, “Globalizing Commercial Litigation”, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 1 2008, p. 1. Google Scholar öffnen
  28. Drahozal, CR, “Private Ordering and International Commercial Arbitration”, Penn State Law Review, Vol. 113:4 2009, p. 1032. Google Scholar öffnen
  29. European Commission, “DG Competition discussion paper on the application of Article 82 of the Treaty [now Article 102 TFEU] to exclusionary abuses”, European Commission 2005, para. 29, 31, 80, 84. Google Scholar öffnen
  30. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization in collaboration with the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Netherlands), “Development of Criteria for Acceptable Previous Cargoes for Fats and Oils”, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization in collaboration with the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Netherlands) 2007, p. 20. Google Scholar öffnen
  31. Geradin, D, and Petit, N, “Price Discrimination under EC Law: The Need for a Case-by-Case Approach”, Coleurope 2005, p. 15. Google Scholar öffnen
  32. Gerard, D, “Effects-based enforcement of Article 101 TFEU: the “object paradox””, Kluwer Competition Law Blog 2012, p. 1. Google Scholar öffnen
  33. Goldman, B, “Frontières du Droit et Lex Mercatoria”, Arch. De Philosophie Du Droit 1964, p. 177-192. Google Scholar öffnen
  34. Gomtsian, S, Balvert, A, Hock, B, and Kirman, O, “Between the Green Pitch and the Red Tape: The Private Legal Order of FIFA”, TILEC Discussion Paper 2017, p. 8, 12. Google Scholar öffnen
  35. Haddock, GB, “The Right of Trade Associations to Deny Membership and to Expel Members”, Antitrust Bulletin Vol. 13 1968, p. 555-556. Google Scholar öffnen
  36. Harwell, JL, “The Relevant Market Concept in Conspiracy to Monopolize Cases under Section 2 of the Sherman Act”, The University of Chicago Law Review 1977, p. 808-812. Google Scholar öffnen
  37. Hatzopoulos, V, “The EU essential facilities doctrine”, College of Europe 2006, p. 19-20. Google Scholar öffnen
  38. Hennig-Thurau, T, Gwinner, KP, Walsh, G, and Gremler, DD, “Electronic Word-of-mouth via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet”, Wiley Periodicals 2004, p. 39. Google Scholar öffnen
  39. Heyer, K, “Consumer Welfare and the Legacy of Robert Bork”, The University of Chicago Press 2014, p. 20. Google Scholar öffnen
  40. Hibner, Jr., DT, “Litigation as an Overt Act in Furtherance of an Attempt to Monopolize”, Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 38, Nr. 2 1977, p. 246. Google Scholar öffnen
  41. Hovenkamp, HJ, “The Rule of Reason”, Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository 2018, p. 96. Google Scholar öffnen
  42. ICN Advocacy Working Group, “Explaining the Benefits of Competition to the General Public”, International Competition Network 2017, p. 3. Google Scholar öffnen
  43. Jones, TT, and Pickering, JF, “The Consumer’s Interest in Competition Policy”, Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 1979, p. 98. Google Scholar öffnen
  44. Jones, A, “The Boundaries of an Undertaking in EU Competition Law”, European Competition Journal 2015, p. 302. Google Scholar öffnen
  45. Kahn, AE, “Market Power and Economic Growth: Guides to Public Policy”, Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 8 1963. Google Scholar öffnen
  46. Katz, ED, “Private Order and Public Institutions”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 8 2000, p. 2482. Google Scholar öffnen
  47. Kauper, TE, “The Report of the Attorney General's National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws: A Retrospective”, Michigan Law Review Vol. 100, No. 7 2002, p. 1867. Google Scholar öffnen
  48. Kirchner, C, and Picot, A, “Transaction Cost Analysis of Structural Changes in the Distribution System: Reflections on Institutional Developments in the Federal Republic of Germany”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 143 1987, p. 64. Google Scholar öffnen
  49. Kube, S, and Traxler, C, “The interaction of legal and social norm enforcement”, Journal of Public Economic Theory 2010, p. 1. Google Scholar öffnen
  50. Lao, M, “Search, Essential Facilities, and the Antitrust Duty to Deal”, Northwest Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Vol. 11, Is. 5 2013, p. 298-304. Google Scholar öffnen
  51. Lévesque, G-H, “The Concrete Characteristics of Laissez-Faire Capitalism”, Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, Vol. 5, No. 5, 1950, p. 41-42. Google Scholar öffnen
  52. Lörcher, T, Pendell, G, and Lowery, W, “CMS Guide to Arbitration, Vol. 1”, CMS Legal Services EEIG 2012, p. 521. Google Scholar öffnen
  53. Lowe, P, “The design of competition policy institutions for the 21st century — the experience of the European Commission and DG Competition”, Competition Policy Newsletter No. 3 2008, p. 6. Google Scholar öffnen
  54. Mark, W, and Weidemaier, C, “Toward a Theory of Precedent in Arbitration”, William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 51, Is. 5 2010, p. 1901. Google Scholar öffnen
  55. Mazzacano, P, “The Lex Mercatoria as Autonomous Law”, Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy Research Paper No. 29 2008, p. 1. Google Scholar öffnen
  56. McMillan, J, and Woodruf, C, “Private Order under Dysfunctional Public Order”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 8 2000, p. 2421. Google Scholar öffnen
  57. Michaels, R, “The True Lex Mercatoria: Law Beyond the State”, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 14 2007, p. 448. Google Scholar öffnen
  58. Möschel, W, “Competition Policy from an Ordo Point of View”, German Neo-Liberals and the Social Market Economy 1989, p. 146. Google Scholar öffnen
  59. Newman, JM, “Procompetitive Justifications in Antitrust Law”, Social Science Research Network 2017, p. 7. Google Scholar öffnen
  60. Nicolaides, P, “The balancing myth: The Economics of Article 81(1) & (3)”, Legal Issues of Economic Integration 2005, p. 134-143. Google Scholar öffnen
  61. Nunnenkamp, P, “Short Note: Biased Arbitrators and Tribunal Decisions Against Developing Countries: Stylized Facts on Investor-state Dispute Settlement”, Journal of International Development 2017, p. 851. Google Scholar öffnen
  62. Oliar, D, “There’s No Free Laugh (anymore): The Emergence of Intellectual Property Norms and the Transformation of Stand-up Comedy”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 8 2008, p. 1789, 1791. Google Scholar öffnen
  63. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “The Essential Facilities Concept”, OCDE/GD(96)113 1996, p. 97. Google Scholar öffnen
  64. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Latin American Competition Forum”, DAF/COMP/LACF 2011, p. 21. Google Scholar öffnen
  65. Ottervanger, T, “Socially Responsible Competition: Competition law in a changing society”, Markt & Mededinging 2010, p. 9. Google Scholar öffnen
  66. Peyt, H, and Nørager, N, “Current Developments in Member States”, European Competition Journal 4 2008, p. 332. Google Scholar öffnen
  67. Polovets, I, Smith, M, and Terry, B, “GAFTA Arbitration as the Most Appropriate Forum for Disputes Resolution in Grain Trade”, Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Vol. 30, No. 3 2013, p. 571-572, 580. Google Scholar öffnen
  68. Ponsoldt, JF, “The Application of the Sherman Act Antiboycott law to Industry Self-Regulation: An Analysis Integrating Nonboycott Sherman Act Principles”, Bepress 1981, p. 13. Google Scholar öffnen
  69. Post, RC, “The Social Foundations of Defamation Law: Reputation and the Constitution”, California Law Review, Vol. 74, No. 691 1986, p. 692. Google Scholar öffnen
  70. Pritchard, JR, “Oilseed quality requirements for processing”, Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 1983, p. 322. Google Scholar öffnen
  71. Prüfer, J, “Business Associations and Private Ordering”, TILEC Discussion Paper 2012, p. 4. Google Scholar öffnen
  72. Richman, BD, “Community Enforcement of Informal Contracts: Jewish Diamond Merchants in New York”, The Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper, No. 384 2002, p. 0 (abstract), 17, 102. Google Scholar öffnen
  73. Richman, BD, “How Community Institutions Create Economic Advantage: Jewish Diamond Merchants in New York”, Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 31, Is. 2 2006, p. 18, 395, 398. Google Scholar öffnen
  74. Richman, BD, “The Antitrust of Reputation Mechanisms: Institutional Economics and Concerted Refusals to Deal”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 95:325 2009, p. 332-334, 340, 349. Google Scholar öffnen
  75. Richman, BD, “An Autopsy of Cooperation: Diamond Dealers and the Limits of Trust-based Exchange”, Journal of Legal Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 2 2017, p. 279. Google Scholar öffnen
  76. Routledge, “Code-Sharing Agreements in Scheduled Passenger Air Transport–The European Competition Authorities' Perspective”, European Competition Journal 2006, p. 279. Google Scholar öffnen
  77. Salop, SC, “Exclusionary Conduct, Effect on Consumers, and the Flawed Profit-Sacrifice Standard”, 73 Antitrust L. J. 2006, p. 330. Google Scholar öffnen
  78. Saputelli, G, “The European Union, the Member States, and the Lex Mercatoria”, Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law: Vol. 8, Is. 2, Article 3 2018, p. 3. Google Scholar öffnen
  79. SBD, “De Belgische Diamentnijverheid”, Algemene vergadering van SBD 2014, p. 7. Google Scholar öffnen
  80. Sherwin, P, Roesser, JD, Miller, PL, and Loughery, V, “Proskauer on International Litigation and Arbitration: Managing, Resolving, and Avoiding Cross-Border Business or Regulatory Disputes”, Proskauer Rose LLP 2007, chapter 21. Google Scholar öffnen
  81. Slaughter and May, “An overview of the EU competition rules – A general overview of the European Competition rules applicable to cartels, abuse of dominance, forms of commercial cooperation, merger control and State aid”, Slaughter and May 2016, p. 8, 14. Google Scholar öffnen
  82. Stucke, ME, “Does the Rule of Reason Violate the Rule of Law?”, U.C. Davis Law Review, Vol. 42 2009, p. 1422. Google Scholar öffnen
  83. Sussman, E, and Wilkinson, J, “Benefits Of Arbitration for Commercial Disputes”, Dispute Resolution Magazine 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  84. The Yale Law Journal Company, “Intra-Enterprise Conspiracy under the Sherman Act”, The Yale Law Journal Company, Vol. 63, No. 3 1954, p. 372. Google Scholar öffnen
  85. TradeAssociationForum, “The Benefits of Trade Associations”, TradeAssociationForum 2009, p. 2, 4. Google Scholar öffnen
  86. Trenz, M, and Berger, B, “Analyzing Online Customer Reviews – An Interdisciplinary Literature Review and Research Agenda”, ECIS 2013, p. 2. Google Scholar öffnen
  87. U.S. Department of Justice, “Competition and Monopoly: Single-firm Conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act”, U.S. Department of Justice 2008, p. 5, 34, 39. Google Scholar öffnen
  88. van Cleynenbreugel, P, “Single Entity Tests in US Antitrust and EU Competition Law”, Orbi 2011, p. 6. Google Scholar öffnen
  89. van Erp, J, “Reputational Sanctions in Private and Public Regulation”, Erasmus Law Review, Vol. 1, Is. 5 2009, p. 146. Google Scholar öffnen
  90. Velkar, A, ”‘Deep’ integration of 19th century grain markets: coordination and standardisation in a global value chain”, London School of Economics 2010, p. 24. Google Scholar öffnen
  91. Waller, SP, “Areeda, Epithets, and Essential Facilities”, Wisconsin Law Review 2008, p. 368. Google Scholar öffnen
  92. Warlouzet, L, “The Centralization of EU Competition Policy: Historical Institutionalist Dynamics from Cartel Monitoring to Merger Control (1956–91)”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 54, No. 3 2016, p. 731. Google Scholar öffnen
  93. Weitbrecht, A, “From Freiburg to Chicago and Beyond—the First 50 Years of European Competition Law”, European Competition Law Review 2008, p. 85. Google Scholar öffnen
  94. Williams, KD, “Ostracism”, Annual Review of Psychology 2007, p. 428. Google Scholar öffnen
  95. Willis Towers Wadson, “Preserving Your Reputation”, Willis Alert, Issue 17 2011, p. 3. Google Scholar öffnen
  96. Woods, D, “Hybrid Single Entities and the Market Power Requirement for Conspiracies to Monopolize Following Fraser: Are Courts Putting Form over Substance?”, University of Illinois Law Review 2004, p. 1262. Google Scholar öffnen
  97. Zirhlioglu, E, “The Diamond Industry and the Industry’s Dispute Resolution Mechanisms”, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 2013, p. 4. Google Scholar öffnen
  98. Zito Jr., AS, “Refusals to Deal: The Sherman Antitrust Act and the Right to Customer Selection”, The John Marshall Law Review, Vol. 14, Is. 2 1981, p. 357. Google Scholar öffnen
  99. Ackermann, T, “Art. 85 Abs. 1 EGV und die rule of reason - Zur Konzeption der Verhinderung, Einschränkung oder Verfälschung des Wettbewerbs”, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich: Heymanns 1997, p. 21 ff, 211 ff. Google Scholar öffnen
  100. Akman, P, “The Concept of Abuse in EU Competition Law: Law and Economic Approaches”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2012, [abstract], p. 59, 63, 127. Google Scholar öffnen
  101. Al-Ameen, A, “Antitrust: The Person-centred Approach”, Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer International Publishing, Switzerland 2014, p. 73. Google Scholar öffnen
  102. Albors-Llorens, A, “EC Competition Law and Policy”, Abingdon: Routledge 2002, p. 152. Google Scholar öffnen
  103. Alford, S, Barrow, J, and Nigel Hall, SJD, “Northern History”, in: N Hall (ed), “The governance of the Liverpool raw cotton market, c. 1840-1914”, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, Vol. 153, Is. 1, 2016, p. 98. Google Scholar öffnen
  104. Allensworth, RH, “The Commensurability Myth in Antitrust”, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 1 2016, p. 5 (citation 7). Google Scholar öffnen
  105. American Bar Association, “Jury Instructions in Criminal Antitrust Cases, 1976-1980: A Compilation of Instructions Given by United States District Courts”, Chicago: American Bar Association 1982, p. 311. Google Scholar öffnen
  106. American Bar Association, “Antitrust & Trade Associations: How Trade Regulation Laws Apply to Trade and Professional Associations”, Chicago: American Bar Association 1996, p. 62. Google Scholar öffnen
  107. American Bar Association, “Model Jury Instructions in Civil Antitrust Cases”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2005, p. C-35. Google Scholar öffnen
  108. American Bar Association, “Joint Ventures: Antitrust Analysis of Collaborations Among Competitors”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2006, p. 102. Google Scholar öffnen
  109. American Bar Association, “Antitrust and Associations Handbook”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2009, p. 64, 68-69. Google Scholar öffnen
  110. American Bar Association, “Model Jury Instructions in Criminal Antitrust Cases”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2009, p. 71-75. Google Scholar öffnen
  111. American Bar Association, “Antitrust Health Care Handbook, Fourth Edition”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2010, p. 50-51. Google Scholar öffnen
  112. American Bar Association, “Federal Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2010, p. 71. Google Scholar öffnen
  113. American Bar Association, “Proof of Conspiracy under Federal Antitrust Laws”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2010, p. 24. Google Scholar öffnen
  114. Andenas, M, Marsden, P, and Hutchings, M, “Current Competition Law Volume II”, London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2004, p. 359. Google Scholar öffnen
  115. Anderman, SD, “The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 40. Google Scholar öffnen
  116. Ando, C, and Rüpke, J, “Public and Private in Ancient Mediterranean Law and Religion”, Berlin/Munich/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH 2015, p. 37-41. Google Scholar öffnen
  117. Andrews, N, “Arbitration and Contract Law”, Basel: Springer International Publishing 2016, p. 130, 140. Google Scholar öffnen
  118. Ankersmit, L, “Green Trade and Fair Trade in and with the EU: Process-based Measures within the EU Legal Order”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2017, p. 208. Google Scholar öffnen
  119. Anonymous, “How to Deal with Negative Electronic Word-Of-Mouth?”, Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag 2011, p. 4. Google Scholar öffnen
  120. Antwerp World Diamond Centre, “Antwerp Diamond Masterplan – Diamonds love Antwerp 2020”, Antwerp World Diamond Centre 2012, p. 5, 69, 148, 154. Google Scholar öffnen
  121. Applewhite, TH, “Proceedings of the World Conference on Lauric Oils: Sources, Processing, and Application”, Champaign: AOCS Press 1994, p. 29. Google Scholar öffnen
  122. Areeda, PE, and Hovenkamp, H, “Antitrust Law –Vol. 3”, New York: Aspen Publishers 2008, p. 446. Google Scholar öffnen
  123. Aspen Publishers, “Antitrust: Keyed to Pitofsky, Goldschmid, and Wood's Trade Regulation: Cases and Materials Fifth Edition”, New York: Aspen Publishers 2004, p. 71. Google Scholar öffnen
  124. Aspen Publishers, “Antitrust”, New York: Aspen Publishers 2004, p. 38. Google Scholar öffnen
  125. Atkin, M, “The International Grain Trade”, Abington: Woodhead Publishing 1995, p. 111, 113. Google Scholar öffnen
  126. Atkinson, B, and John, S, “Studying Economics”, Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2001, p. 9. Google Scholar öffnen
  127. Baffes, J, Larson, DF, and Varangis, P, “Commodity Market Reforms: Lessons of Two Decades”, Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction 2001, p. 38. Google Scholar öffnen
  128. Baker, HD, and Jursa, M, “Documentary Sources in Ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman Economic History”, Oxford/Philadelphia: Oxbow Books 2014, p. 147. Google Scholar öffnen
  129. Baldwin, AR, “World Conference on Emerging Technologies in the Fats and Oils Industry”, in: E.C. Campbell (ed.), “Trade Association Rules - Impact on International Trade”, Urbana: American Oil Chemists’ Society 1986, p. 24. Google Scholar öffnen
  130. Banks, E, “Exchange-Traded Derivatives”, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons 2003, p. 105-106. Google Scholar öffnen
  131. Barak, A, “The Judge in a Democracy”, Princeton/Woodstock: Princeton University Press 2006, p. 113. Google Scholar öffnen
  132. Barnard, C, and Peers, S, “European Union Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017, p. 521. Google Scholar öffnen
  133. Barton, J, and Smith, RH, “The Handbook for the New Legal Writer”, New York: Wolters Kluwer 2019, p. 345. Google Scholar öffnen
  134. Basedow, J, and Wurmnest, W, “Structure and Effects in EU Competition Law: Studies on Exclusionary Conduct and State Aid”, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2011, p. 15, 71. Google Scholar öffnen
  135. Bavasso, A, “Communications in EU Law: Antitrust Market Power and Public Interest”, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2003, p. 164. Google Scholar öffnen
  136. Beckert, S, “Empire of Cotton: A Global History”, New York: Vintage Books 2014, p. 40. Google Scholar öffnen
  137. Beckett, ST, “Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use – Fourth Edition”, Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing 2009, p. 25. Google Scholar öffnen
  138. Beckett, ST, Fowler, MS, and Ziegler, GR, “Beckett's Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use – Fifth Edition”, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell 2017, p. 28. Google Scholar öffnen
  139. Beggs-Humphreys, M, Gregor, H, and Humphreys, D, “The Industrial Revolution”, Abingdon: Routledge 1959, p. 27. Google Scholar öffnen
  140. Berman, HJ, “Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition”, Cambridge/London: Cambridge University Press 1983, p. 519. Google Scholar öffnen
  141. Berman, PS, “Global Legal Pluralism: A Jurisprudence Of Law Beyond Borders”, New York: Cambridge University Press 2012, p. 13. Google Scholar öffnen
  142. Bernholz, P, and Vaubel, R, “Explaining Monetary and Financial Innovation: A Historical Analysis”, Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer International Publishing 2014, p. 267. Google Scholar öffnen
  143. Berry, E, Homewood, M, J, Bogusz, B, “Complete EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017, p. 596, 610. Google Scholar öffnen
  144. Bhatia, V, K, Garzone, G, and Degano, C, “Arbitration Awards: Generic Features and Textual Realisations”, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2012, p. 177. Google Scholar öffnen
  145. Binmore, K, “Game Theory and the Social Contract: Playing Fair”, Cambridge/London: The MIT Press 1994, p. 112. Google Scholar öffnen
  146. Bittman, JB, “Trading and Hedging with Agricultural Futures and Options”, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons 2013, p. 2. Google Scholar öffnen
  147. Blair, RD, and Sokol, DD, “The Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics – Vol. 2”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015, p. 156. Google Scholar öffnen
  148. Blanco, LO, “Shipping Conferences under EC Antitrust Law: Criticism of a Legal Paradox”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2007, p. 375. Google Scholar öffnen
  149. Blanco, LO, “Market Power in EU Antitrust Law”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2011, p. 22, 56, 104, 106-107 Google Scholar öffnen
  150. Block, MJ, “The Benefits of Alternate Dispute Resolution for International Commercial and Intellectual Property Disputes”, The Digital Journal of Rutgers School of Law, Vol. 44 2016, p. 7-8. Google Scholar öffnen
  151. Bogart, JH, “Circuit Conflicts in Antitrust Litigation”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2009, p. 34. Google Scholar öffnen
  152. Boisson de Chazournes, L, Kohen, M, and Viñuales, JE, “Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement”, Leiden/Boston: Koninklijke Brill NV 2013, p. 273. Google Scholar öffnen
  153. Bouckaert, B, and de Geest, G, “Encyclopedia of Law and Economics”, in: S. G. Medema (ed), RO Zerbe, “The Coase Theorem”, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2000, p. 837-838, in: S. Panther (ed), “Non-Legal Sanctions”, Aldershot: Edward Elgar 2000, p. 1000. Google Scholar öffnen
  154. Bourgeois, J, and Waelbroeck, D, “Ten years of effects-based approach in EU competition law - State of play and perspectives”, in: A Meij, and T Baum, “Balancing Object and Effect Analysis in Identifying Abuses of a Dominant Position under Article 102 TFEU”, Brussels: Groupe de Boeck 2013, p. 162, 164, in: H Zenger, and M Walker (ed) “Theories of Harm in European Competition Law: A Progress Report”, Brussels: Groupe de Boeck 2013, p. 195. Google Scholar öffnen
  155. Branch, AE, “International Purchasing and Management”, London: Thomson 2000, p. 63. Google Scholar öffnen
  156. Brunet, E, Brunet, E,J, Speidel, RE, Sternlight, JE, Ware, SH, and Ware, SJ, “Arbitration Law in America: A Critical Assessment”, New York: Cambridge University Press 2006, p. 124. Google Scholar öffnen
  157. Bussani, M, and Sebok, AJ, “Comparative Tort Law: Global Perspectives”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2015, p. 18. Google Scholar öffnen
  158. Cafaggi, F, “Enforcement of Transnational Regulation: Ensuring Compliance in a Global World”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2012, p. 218. Google Scholar öffnen
  159. Cahill, D, Power, V, and Connery, N, “European Law”, New York: Oxford University Press 2011, p. 164. Google Scholar öffnen
  160. Camerer, CF, “Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction”, Princeton/Woodstock: Princeton University Press 2003, p. 445. Google Scholar öffnen
  161. Cartledge, P, Millett, P, and von Reden, S, “Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens”, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press 1998, p. 1. Google Scholar öffnen
  162. Carter, JH, and Fellas, J, “International Commercial Arbitration in New York”, New York: Oxford University Press 2010, p. 16. Google Scholar öffnen
  163. Candlin, CN, “Discourse and Practice in International Commercial Arbitration: Issues, Challenges, and Prospects”, London/New York: Routledge 2016, p. 265. Google Scholar öffnen
  164. Castleman, M, “The New Healing Herbs: The Classic Guide to Nature's Best Medicines”, Emmaus: Rodale 2001, p. 140. Google Scholar öffnen
  165. Chander, K, “Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Commerce: Volume 3”, New Delhi: Sarup & Sons 1999, p. 780. Google Scholar öffnen
  166. Chatnani, NN, “Commodity Markets: Operations, Instruments, and Applications”, New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill 2010, p. 4. Google Scholar öffnen
  167. Chen, K, and Fadlalla, A, “Online Consumer Protection: Theories of Human Relativism: Theories of Human Relativism”, New York: IGI Global 2009, p. 278. Google Scholar öffnen
  168. Chew, DH, “Corporate Risk Management”, New York: Columbia University Press 2008, p. 28. Google Scholar öffnen
  169. Cirace, J, “Law, Economics, and Game Theory”, London: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 2018, p. 113-119, 238. Google Scholar öffnen
  170. Clarke, J, “Managing Better: Becoming a Limited Company”, Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency 1996, p. 2, 371. Google Scholar öffnen
  171. Colino, SM, “Cartels and Anti-Competitive Agreements, Volume 1”, in: C Callery (ed), “Should the European Union Embrace or Exorcise Leegin’s “Rule of Reason”?”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge 2012, p. 101. Google Scholar öffnen
  172. Colino, SM, “Competition Law of the EU and UK”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019, p. 393. Google Scholar öffnen
  173. Crooks, E, “The Unrelenting Machine: A Legacy of the Industrial Revolution”, Morrisville: Lulu 2012, p. 65. Google Scholar öffnen
  174. Cross, FB, and Miller, RL, “The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases – Tenth Edition”, Boston: Cengage Learning 2018, p. 571. Google Scholar öffnen
  175. Cruz, JB, “Between Competition and Free Movement”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2002, p. 89. Google Scholar öffnen
  176. Currie, W, “Value Creation from E-Business Models”, in: N Madeja, and D Schoder, “Value creation from Corporate websites: how different features contribute to success in e-Business”, Oxford: Elsevier 2004, p. 216. Google Scholar öffnen
  177. Czaprack, K, “Intellectual Property and the Limits of Antitrust: A Comparative Study of US and EU Approaches”, Chelthenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2009, p. 32. Google Scholar öffnen
  178. Dabbah, MM, “EC and UK Competition Law: Commentary, Cases and Materials”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004, p. 69, 105, 330, 351. Google Scholar öffnen
  179. Dabbah, MM, “International and Comparative Competition Law”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010, p. 71. Google Scholar öffnen
  180. Dabbah, MM, “Module B: Abuse of a dominant position”, London: University of London Press 2012, p. 33 Google Scholar öffnen
  181. Dand, R, “The International Cocoa Trade”, New York: Woodhead Publishing 1996, p. 82-83. Google Scholar öffnen
  182. Dand, R, “The International Cocoa Trade”, Cambridge/Philadelphia/New Delhi: Woodhead Publishing 2011, p. 97-98. Google Scholar öffnen
  183. Davies, K, “Understanding European Union Law”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge 2016, p. 54. Google Scholar öffnen
  184. Diebold, NF, “Non-Discrimination in International Trade in Services: ‘Likeness' in WTO/GATS”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010, p. 277. Google Scholar öffnen
  185. Dietz, T, “Global Order Beyond Law: How Information and Communication Technologies Facilitate Relational Contracting in International Trade”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, p. 192. Google Scholar öffnen
  186. DiMatteo, LA, “International Business Law and the Legal Environment: A Transactional Approach”, Abingdon: Routledge 2016, p. 251. Google Scholar öffnen
  187. DiMatteo, LA, “International Business Law and the Legal Environment: A Transactional Approach”, New York/London: Routledge 2017, p. 127. Google Scholar öffnen
  188. Dixit, AK, “Lawlessness and Economics: Alternative Modes of Governance”, Princeton: Princeton University 2004, p. 4, 60-61. Google Scholar öffnen
  189. Dolmans, M, “The Dominance and Monopolies Review”, London: Law Business Research Ltd 2014, p. 368, 373. Google Scholar öffnen
  190. Dominicé, C, “Etudes de droit international en l'honneur de Pierre Lalive”, in: B Goldman (ed), “Nouvelles Riflexions sur la Lex Mercatoria”, Basel/Frankfurt am Main: Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag 1993, p. 241-256. Google Scholar öffnen
  191. Drexl, J, Grimes, WS, and Jones, CA, “More Common Ground for International Competition Law?”, Chelthenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2011, p. 52. Google Scholar öffnen
  192. Drexl, J, Kerber, W, and Podszun, R, “Competition Policy and the Economic Approach: Foundations and Limitations”, in: D Zimmer (ed), “Consumer welfare, economic freedom and the moral quality of competition law – comments on Gregory Werden and Victor Vanberg”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2011, p. 72. Google Scholar öffnen
  193. Drexl, J, and Di Porto, F, “Competition Law as Regulation”, Chelthenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2015, p. 296. Google Scholar öffnen
  194. Dubowski, T, “Białystok Law Books 2 Constitutional Law Of The European Union”, Bialystok: Temida 2 2011, p. 116-120. Google Scholar öffnen
  195. Duncan, R, “Agricultural Futures and Options: A Guide to Using North American and European markets”, Abington: Woodhead Publishing 1992, p. 53-54, 109. Google Scholar öffnen
  196. Dunne, N, “Competition Law and Economic Regulation: Making and Managing Markets”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2015, p. 177. Google Scholar öffnen
  197. Duns, J, Duke, A, and Sweeney, B, “Comparative Competition Law”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2015, p. 172. Google Scholar öffnen
  198. Duval, A, and van Rompuy, B, “The Legacy of Bosman: Revisiting the Relationship Between EU Law and Sport”, in: K Pijetlovic (ed.), “EU Competition Law and Organisational Rules”, T.M.C. Asser Press 2016, p. 148. Google Scholar öffnen
  199. Ehlermann, C, and Gosling, L, “European Competition Law Annual 1998: Regulating Communications Markets”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2000, p. 476. Google Scholar öffnen
  200. Ehlermann, C, and Atanasiu, I, “European Competition Law Annual 2000: The Modernisation of EC Antitrust Policy”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2000, p. 141. Google Scholar öffnen
  201. Ehlermann, C, and Atanasiu, I, “European Competition Law Annual 2002: Constructing the EU Network of Competition Authorities”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2004, p. 261. Google Scholar öffnen
  202. Ehlermann, C, and Atanasiu, I, “European Competition Law Annual 2004: The Relationship Between Competition Law and the (Liberal) Professions”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2006, p. 454. Google Scholar öffnen
  203. Ehlermann, C, and Marquis, M, “European Competition Law Annual 2007: A Reformed Approach to Article 82 EC”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2008, p. xxv. Google Scholar öffnen
  204. Elcin, M, “Lex Mercatoria in International Arbitration Theory and Practice”, Vol. 1, Florence: Mert Elcin 2012, p. 5. Google Scholar öffnen
  205. Ellison, T, “The Cotton Trade of Great Britain: including a history of the Liverpool cotton market and of the Liverpool Cotton Brokers' Association”, London: Effingham Wilson 1886, p. 181–182, 184. Google Scholar öffnen
  206. Enaux, C, “Effiziente Marktregulierung in der Telekommunikation: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Ruckführung sektorspezifischer Sonderregulierung in das allgemeine Wettbewerbsrecht”, Münster: Lit Verlag 2004, p. 148, 156. Google Scholar öffnen
  207. Epstein, RA, “Contract - Freedom and Restraint: Liberty, Property, and the Law”, New York/Abingdon: Routledge 2000, p. 393, 363-364, 369. Google Scholar öffnen
  208. Erickson, DR, “Practical Handbook of Soybean Processing and Utilization”, Urbana: AOCS Press 1995, p. 50. Google Scholar öffnen
  209. Ezraichi, A, “Article 82 EC: Reflections on its Recent Evolution”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2009, p. 124. Google Scholar öffnen
  210. Ezrachi, A, “EU Competition Law: An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2014, p. 33. Google Scholar öffnen
  211. Fatur, A, “EU Competition Law and the Information and Communication Technology Network Industries”, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2012, p. 112 Google Scholar öffnen
  212. Ferretti, F, “EU Competition Law, the Consumer Interest and Data Protection: The Exchange Consumer Information in the Retail Financial Sector”, Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer 2014, p. 47. Google Scholar öffnen
  213. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Proceedings of the FAO Rice Conference 2004: Rice in Global Markets”, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2005, p. 56. Google Scholar öffnen
  214. Foster, N, “Blackstone's EU Treaties and Legislation 2014-2015”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, p. 609. Google Scholar öffnen
  215. Foster, N, “Foster on EU Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015, p. 381. Google Scholar öffnen
  216. Frederick, DA, “Antitrust Status of Farmer Cooperatives: The Story of the Capper-Volstead Act”, Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture 2002, p. 84. Google Scholar öffnen
  217. Frenz, W, “Handbook of EU Competition Law”, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016, p. 270. Google Scholar öffnen
  218. Frohloff, J, “Verletzung von Schiedsvereinbarungen: Eine Untersuchung des deutschen Schiedsverfahrensrechts zu den Pflichten der Schiedsparteien und den Rechtsfolgen ihrer Verletzung”, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2017, p. 50 Google Scholar öffnen
  219. Gabel, D, and Weiman, DF, “Opening Networks to Competition: The Regulation and Pricing of Access”, New York: Springer Science+Business Media 1998, p. 190. Google Scholar öffnen
  220. Galgano, F, “Lex mercatoria: storia del diritto commerciale”, Munich: Il Mulino 1993. Google Scholar öffnen
  221. Geradin, D, Layne-Farrar, A, and Petit, N, “EU Competition Law and Economics”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012, p. 1-134. Google Scholar öffnen
  222. Gerber, DJ, “Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1998, p. 264. Google Scholar öffnen
  223. Gert, B, “Morality: Its Nature and Justification”, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press 1998, p. 120. Google Scholar öffnen
  224. Gessner, V, “Contractual Certainty in International Trade: Empirical Studies and Theoretical Debates on Institutional Support for Global Economic Exchanges”, in: W Konradi (ed), “The Role of Lex Mercatoria in Supporting Globalised Transactions”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2009, p. 67, 70. Google Scholar öffnen
  225. Gharavi, H, and Liebscher, C, “The International Effectiveness of the Annulment of an Arbitral Award”, The Hague: Kluwer law International 2002, p. 34. Google Scholar öffnen
  226. Gideon, A, “Higher Education Institutions in the EU: Between Competition and Public Service”, Liverpool/Singapore: T.M.C. Asser Press 2017, p. 74, 75 (note 159). Google Scholar öffnen
  227. Givens, RA, “Antitrust: An Economic Approach”, New York: Law Journal Press 2005, p. 4-48.28. Google Scholar öffnen
  228. Comanor, GW, Jacquemin, K, and Jenny, A, “Competition Policy in Europe and North America”, New York: Hardwood Academic Publishers GmbH 1990, p. 231. Google Scholar öffnen
  229. Gorham, M, and Singh, N, “Electronic Exchanges: The Global Transformation from Pits to Bits”, London: Elsevier 2009, p. 4. Google Scholar öffnen
  230. Gormsen, LL, “A Principled Approach to Abuse of Dominance in European Competition Law”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010, p. 56-57. Google Scholar öffnen
  231. Goss, BA, “Futures Markets (Routledge Revivals): Their Establishment and Performance”, in: BA Goss (ed.), “The Forward Pricing Function of the London Metal Exchange”, London/Sydney: Croom Helm 1986, p. 157. Google Scholar öffnen
  232. Goyder, DG, “EC Competition Law, 3rd Edition”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1998, p. 145. Google Scholar öffnen
  233. Graham, C, Smith, F, and Smith, FM, “Competition, Regulation and the New Economy”, in: E Derclaye (ed), “Abuse of a Dominant Position and IP Rights”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2004, p. 74. Google Scholar öffnen
  234. Great Britain. Dept. of Trade and Industry, “Abuse of Market Power: A Consultative Document on Possible Legislative Option”, Richmond: H.M. Stationery Office 1992, p. 7. Google Scholar öffnen
  235. Grivetti, LE, and Shapiro, H, “Chocolate: History, Culture, and Heritage”, in: JH Momsen and P Richardson (ed), “Caribbean Cocoa: Planting and Production”, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons 2009, p. 481. Google Scholar öffnen
  236. Hagenfeld, V, “EC Competition Law - the Essential Facilities Doctrine: To what extent is the Essential Facilities Doctrine established in Community law and how has its application under Article 82 EC evolved over time”, Munich: GRIN Verlag GmbH 2009, p. 3-4. Google Scholar öffnen
  237. Hall, KL, “Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Second Edition”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005, p. 145. Google Scholar öffnen
  238. Haracoglou, I, “Competition Law and Patents: A Follow-on Innovation Perspective in the Biopharmaceutical Industry”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2008, p. 135. Google Scholar öffnen
  239. Harris, B, Planterose, R, and Tecks, J, “The Arbitration Act 1996: A Commentary”, Oxford/Malden/Melbourne: Blackwell Publishing 2007, p. 47, 309. Google Scholar öffnen
  240. Hawk, BE, “International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2003”, Huntington: Juris Publishing 2004, p. 423. Google Scholar öffnen
  241. Hawkins, C, “Roman Artisans and the Urban Economy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016, p. 120. Google Scholar öffnen
  242. Heckman, JJ, Nelson, RL, and Cabatingan, L, “Global Perspectives on the Rule of Law”, in: F Allen, and J Qian, “Comparing Legal and Alternative Institutions in Finance and Commerce”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge 2010, p. 128. Google Scholar öffnen
  243. Henderson, WO, “The Lancashire Cotton Famine 1861 - 65”, New York: Augustus M. Kelley 1969, p. 34. Google Scholar öffnen
  244. Hendrickson, KE, “The Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution in World History”, Band 3, London: Rowmann & Littlefield 2015, p. 103. Google Scholar öffnen
  245. Heremans, T, “Professional Services in the EU Internal Market: Quality Regulation and Self-Regulation”, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2012, p. 327. Google Scholar öffnen
  246. Hibbert, C, Weinreb, B, and Keay, J, “The London Encyclopaedia (3rd Edition)”, London: Macmillan London Limited 1983, p. 505. Google Scholar öffnen
  247. Hildebrand, D, “The Role of Economic Analysis in the EC Competition Rules”, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2009, p. 301. Google Scholar öffnen
  248. Hilty, RM, and Früh, A, “Lizenzkartellrecht: Schweizer Recht gespiegelt am US-amerikanischen und europäischen Recht”, Bern: Stämpfli Verlag AG 2017, p. 64. Google Scholar öffnen
  249. Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, “Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire”, in: N Hall (ed) “A ‘Quaker Confederation’? The great Liverpool cotton speculation of 1825 reconsidered”, Liverpool: Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, Vol. 151 2002, p. 1, 99. Google Scholar öffnen
  250. Hobbes, T, “Philosophicall Rudiments Concerning Government and Society (De Cive)”, London: J.C. for R. Royston 1651, p. 85. Google Scholar öffnen
  251. Hoffmann, G, “The Chemistry and Technology of Edible Oils and Fats and Their High Fat Products”, London/San Diego: Academic Press 1989, p. 201. Google Scholar öffnen
  252. Hofstadter, R, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays”, Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1965. Google Scholar öffnen
  253. Hope, E, “Competition and Trade Policies: Coherence or Conflict”, London/New York: Routledge 2005, p. 61. Google Scholar öffnen
  254. Horn, J, Rosenband, LN, and Smith, MR, “Reconceptualizing the Industrial Revolution”, Cambridge/London: The MIT Press 2010, p. 157. Google Scholar öffnen
  255. Horspool, M, and Humphreys, M, “European Union Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012, p. 438, 439 Google Scholar öffnen
  256. Hovenkamp, H, “The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution”, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press 2005, p. 2 Google Scholar öffnen
  257. Huang, J, “Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2014, p. 58-59. Google Scholar öffnen
  258. Huszar, ML, “Rohstoffe als Investmentklasse: Eine theoretische und empirische Analyse”, Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag GmbH 2008, p. 4-5. Google Scholar öffnen
  259. Hylton, KN, “Antitrust Law and Economics”, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing 2010, p. 24, 33, 50. Google Scholar öffnen
  260. Imwinkelried, EJ, and Friedman, RD, “The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence: Evidentiary Privileges”, Aspen: Aspen Law & Business Publishers 2002, p. 763. Google Scholar öffnen
  261. International Business Publications, “US: Importing into the Unites States Practical Guide”, Washington; International Business Publications 2008, p. 186. Google Scholar öffnen
  262. Ioannidou, M, “Consumer Involvement in Private EU Competition Law Enforcement”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015, p. 34. Google Scholar öffnen
  263. Jacobson, JM, “Antitrust Law Developments (sixth)”, Chicago: American Bar Association, Vol. 1, 2007, p. 433. Google Scholar öffnen
  264. Jänig, R, “Commercial Law: Selected Essays on the Law of Obligation, Insolvency and Arbitration”, Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen 2012, p. 125. Google Scholar öffnen
  265. Jayaram, R, and Kotwani, NR, “Industrial Economics and Telecommunication Regulations”, New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited 2012, p. 41. Google Scholar öffnen
  266. Jentzsch, N, “Financial Privacy: An International Comparison of Credit Reporting Systems”, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 2006, p. 89-94. Google Scholar öffnen
  267. Jiang, T, “China and EU Antitrust Review of Refusal to License IPR”, Antwerp: Maklu-Publishers 2015, p. 88, 141. Google Scholar öffnen
  268. Joelson, MR, “An International Antitrust Primer: A Guide to the Operation of United States, European Union and Other Key Competition Laws in the Global Economy”, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2006, p. 371. Google Scholar öffnen
  269. Joliet, R, “The Rule of Reason in Antitrust Law”, The Hague: Martinus Nijhof 1967, p. xx-198. Google Scholar öffnen
  270. Jones, A, and Sufrin, BE, “EC Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008, p. 281, 404. Google Scholar öffnen
  271. Jones, A, and Sufrin, BE, “EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, p. 259, 1073. Google Scholar öffnen
  272. Jones, A, and Sufrin, BE, “EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016, p. 22, 37, 163, 247, 372. Google Scholar öffnen
  273. Jung, T, and tom Dieck, MC, “Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality: Empowering Human, Place and Business”, Cham: Springer International Publishing AG 2018, p. 148. Google Scholar öffnen
  274. Kaczorowska, A, “European Union Law”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge-Cavendish 2008, p. 774. Google Scholar öffnen
  275. Kaysen, C, and Turner, DF, “Antitrust Policy: An Economic and Legal Analysis”, Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1959. Google Scholar öffnen
  276. Kehoe, DP, and McGinn, T, “Ancient Law, Ancient Society”, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 2017, p. 126. Google Scholar öffnen
  277. King, R, “Jehovah Himself Has Become King”, Bloomington: AuthorHouse 2010, p. 252. Google Scholar öffnen
  278. Kingston, S, “Greening EU Competition Law and Policy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012, p. 280. Google Scholar öffnen
  279. Kobrin, R, and Teller, A, “Purchasing Power: The Economics of Modern Jewish History”, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2015, p. 201-202. Google Scholar öffnen
  280. Kokkoris, I, and Lianos, I, “The Reform of EC Competition Law: New Challenges”, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2010, p. 402-403. Google Scholar öffnen
  281. Kolmar, M, “Principles of Microeconomics: An Integrative Approach”, Cham: Springer International Publishing AG 2017, p. 140. Google Scholar öffnen
  282. Komninos, A, “EC Private Antitrust Enforcement: Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law by National Courts”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2008, p. 151. Google Scholar öffnen
  283. Lafave, WR, and Scott, Jr., AW, “Substantive Criminal Law - 2nd Edition”, St. Paul: West Publishing Company 1986, p. 549. Google Scholar öffnen
  284. Lambert, L, “Spirituality, Inc.: Religion in the American Workplace”, New York/London: New York University Press 2009, p. 73. Google Scholar öffnen
  285. Landolt, PL, “Modernised EC Competition Law in International Arbitration”, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2006, p. 46, 237. Google Scholar öffnen
  286. Lanni, A, “Law and Order in Ancient Athens”, New York: Cambridge University Press 2016, p. 1-27, 34. Google Scholar öffnen
  287. LaRue, PH, Applebaum, HM, Calvani, T, Collins, WD, Halverson, JT, Johnston, TW, Jones, JA, Rill, JF, Sayre, WM, Schlitt, L, and Whiting, RA, “The Robinson-Patman Act: Policy and Law – Vol. 1”, Chicago: American Bar Association 1989, p. 25. Google Scholar öffnen
  288. Leczykiewicz, D, and Weatherill, S, “The Involvement of EU Law in Private Law Relationships”, in: O Odudu (ed), “Competition Law and Contract: The EU Defence”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2013, p. 395. Google Scholar öffnen
  289. Leczykiewicz, D, and Weatherill, S, “The Images of the Consumer in EU Law: Legislation, Free Movement and Competition Law”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, p. 70. Google Scholar öffnen
  290. Lee, I, “Encyclopedia of E-Commerce Development, Implementation, and Management, Band 1”, Hershey: IGI Global 2016, p. 1985. Google Scholar öffnen
  291. Lees, FA, “Financial Exchanges: A Comparative Approach”, New York/Abingdon: Routledge 2012, p. 164. Google Scholar öffnen
  292. Leser, HG, “Gesammelte Schriften”, Band 1, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1968, p. 11. Google Scholar öffnen
  293. Lew, JDM, Mistelis, LA, and Kröll, SM, “Comparative International Commercial Arbitration”, The Hague/London/New York: Kluwer Law International 2003, p. 332. Google Scholar öffnen
  294. Li, S, “Managing International Business in Relation-Based versus Rule-Based Countries”, New York: Business Expert Press, LCC 2009, p. 49-50. Google Scholar öffnen
  295. Lianos, I, and Geradin, D, “Handbook on European Competition Law: Substantive Aspects”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2013, p. 160. Google Scholar öffnen
  296. Lista, A, “International Commercial Sales: The Sale of Goods on Shipment Terms”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge 2017, p. 4, 10-11. Google Scholar öffnen
  297. Looijestijn-Clearie, A, Rusu, CS, and Veenbrink, M, “Boosting the Enforcement of EU Competition Law at the Domestic Level”, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2017, p. 2. Google Scholar öffnen
  298. Lorenz, M, “An Introduction to EU Competition Law”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2013, p. 45, 51-52, 76, 189, 208, 237. Google Scholar öffnen
  299. Lytras, MD, Damiani, E, Carroll, JM, Avison, D, Tennyson, RD, Dale, A, Naeve, A, Lefrere, P, Tan, F, Sipior, J, and Vossen, G, “Visioning and Engineering the Knowledge Society - A Web Science Perspective”, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 2009, p. 501. Google Scholar öffnen
  300. Mack, CS, “The Executive's Handbook of Trade and Business Associations: How They Work-and How to Make Them Work Effectively for You”, New York/Westport/Connecticut/London: Quorum Books 1991, p. 14. Google Scholar öffnen
  301. Mackenrodt, M, Gallego, BC, and Enchelmaier, S, “Abuse of Dominant Position: New Interpretation, New Enforcement Mechanisms?”, in: P Këllezi (ed), “Abuse below the Threshold of Dominance? – Market Power, Market Dominance, and Abuse of Economic Dependence”, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer 2008, p. 88, in: HKS Schmidt (ed), “Private Enforcement – Is Article 82 EC special?”, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer 2008, p. 151. Google Scholar öffnen
  302. Madhavan, KS, “Business & Ethics - An Oxymoron?”, Bangalore: KS Madhavan, p. 40. Google Scholar öffnen
  303. Mallard, G, and Sgard, J, “Contractual Knowledge: One Hundred Years of Legal Experimentation in Global Markets”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016, p. 157. Google Scholar öffnen
  304. Malloy, RP, “Law in a Market Context: An Introduction to Market Concepts in Legal Reasoning”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004, p. 132. Google Scholar öffnen
  305. Mansell, R, “The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society, 3 Volume Set, Volume 1”, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell 2015, p. 79. Google Scholar öffnen
  306. Mäntysaari, P, “The Law of Corporate Finance: General Principles and EU Law - Volume II: Contracts in General”, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer 2010, p. 159. Google Scholar öffnen
  307. Marciano, A, “Law and Economics: A Reader”, in: TJ Zywicki (ed), “The Rise and Fall of Efficiency in the Common Law: A Supply-Side Analysis”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge 2009, p. 364. Google Scholar öffnen
  308. Mark, J, Strange, R, and Burns, J, “The Food Industries, Vol. XXVIII”, London: Chapman & Hall 1993, p. 236. Google Scholar öffnen
  309. Marsden, P, “Handbook of Research in Trans-Atlantic Antitrust”, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2006, p. 268. Google Scholar öffnen
  310. Martínez, JP, “Net Neutrality: Contributions to the Debate”, Madrid: Fundación Telefónica 2011, p. 139. Google Scholar öffnen
  311. Marx, K, “Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations”, New York: International Publishers 1965, p. 30, 37, 104 [edited version by E. J. Hobsbawm]. Google Scholar öffnen
  312. Mathis, K, “Law and Economics in Europe: Foundations and Applications”, Dordrecht: Springer 2014, p. 374. Google Scholar öffnen
  313. Mattli, W, and Dietz, T, “International Arbitration & Global Governance: Contending Theories and Evidence”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, p. 190. Google Scholar öffnen
  314. McGinn, TAJ, “Obligations in Roman Law: Past, Present, and Future”, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 2012, p. 201. Google Scholar öffnen
  315. McNutt, PA, “Law, Economics and Antitrust: Towards a New Perspective”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2005, p. 136. Google Scholar öffnen
  316. Meisel, JW, “"Now" or Never: Is There Antitrust Liability for Noncommercial Boycotts?”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 80, No. 6 1980, p. 1317. Google Scholar öffnen
  317. Mendonca, M, and Kanungo, RN, “Ethical Leadership”, New York: Open University Press 2007, p. 15. Google Scholar öffnen
  318. Merkin, R, and Flannery, L, “Arbitration Act 1996”, Abingdon, Oxon: Informa Law 2014, p. 24, 32-33. Google Scholar öffnen
  319. Miller, R, and Jentz, G, “Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today: The Essentials”, Mason: Thomson West 2008, p. 674. Google Scholar öffnen
  320. Miller, RL, “Business Law Today, Comprehensive: Text and Cases: Diverse, Ethical, Online, and Global Environment – 10th Edition”, Stamford: Cengage Learning 2015, p. 886. Google Scholar öffnen
  321. Miller, RL, “Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials: Text and Summarized Cases – 11th Edition”, Boston: Cengage Learning 2015, p. 617. Google Scholar öffnen
  322. Mitchell, CE, “Contract Law and Contract Practice: Bridging the Gap between Legal Reasoning and Commercial Expectation”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2013, p. 30. Google Scholar öffnen
  323. Molenaar, C, “E-Marketing: Applications of information technology and the internet within marketing”, Abingdon: Routledge 2012, p. 105. Google Scholar öffnen
  324. Monti, G, “EC Competition Law”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007, p. 99, 192, 486. Google Scholar öffnen
  325. Morgan, J, “Contract Law Minimalism: A Formalist Restatement of Commercial Contract Law”, Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press 2013, p. 208. Google Scholar öffnen
  326. Morgan, J, “Great Debates in Contract Law”, London: Palgrave 2015, p. 88. Google Scholar öffnen
  327. Musmann, AC, “Recht und soziale Sanktionen: Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel des grenzüberschreitenden Baumwollhandels”, Baden-Baden: Nomos 2018. Google Scholar öffnen
  328. Nazzini, R, “The Foundations of European Union Competition Law: The Objective and Principles of Article 102”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011, p. 170, 185. Google Scholar öffnen
  329. Nee, I, “Managing Negative Word-of-Mouth on Social Media Platforms: The Effect of Hotel Management Responses on Observers’ Purchase Intention”, Bremen: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016, p. 2. Google Scholar öffnen
  330. Neergaard, U, Szyszczak, E, van de Gronden, JW, and Krajewski, M, “Social Services of General Interest in the EU”, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press 2013, p. 280. Google Scholar öffnen
  331. Newmann, P, “The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law: Three Volume Set”, London: Palgrave Macmillan 2002, p. 93. Google Scholar öffnen
  332. Nguyen, B, and Wait, A, “Essentials of Microeconomics”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge 2016, p. 77. Google Scholar öffnen
  333. Nistor, L, “Public Services and the European Union: Healthcare, Health Insurance and Education Services”, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press 2011, p. 183. Google Scholar öffnen
  334. Norman, P, “The Risk Controllers: Central Counterparty Clearing in Globalised Financial Markets”, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons 2011, p. 60. Google Scholar öffnen
  335. Nygh, PE, “Autonomy in International Contracts”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999, p. 92. Google Scholar öffnen
  336. O’Donoghue, R, and Padilla, AJ, “The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC”, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2006, p. 440-442. Google Scholar öffnen
  337. O’Donoghue, R, and Padilla, AJ, “The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC”, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2013, p. 282-283. Google Scholar öffnen
  338. Oltuski, A, “Precious Objects: A Story of Diamonds, Family, and a Way of Life”, New York: Scribner 2011, p. 76. Google Scholar öffnen
  339. Oswald, LJ, “The Law of Marketing – 2th Edition”, Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning 2010, p. 112. Google Scholar öffnen
  340. Ottow, A, “Market and Competition Authorities: Good Agency Principles”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015, p. 154. Google Scholar öffnen
  341. Oxford Corpus, “Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: Sixth Edition”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007. Google Scholar öffnen
  342. Papadopoulos, AS, “The International Dimension of EU Competition Law and Policy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010, p. 272. Google Scholar öffnen
  343. Parcu, PL, Monti, G, and Botta, M, “Abuse of Dominance in EU Competition Law: Emerging Trends”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2017, p. 2. Google Scholar öffnen
  344. Pareto, V, “Manual of Political Economy”, New York: Kelley 1906. Google Scholar öffnen
  345. Parker, R, “Polytheism and Society at Athens”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005, p. 9. Google Scholar öffnen
  346. Patel, KK, and Schweitzer, H, “The Historical Foundations of EU Competition Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013, p. 209. Google Scholar öffnen
  347. Perelman, C, “Justice, Law, and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning”, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company 1980, p. 59. Google Scholar öffnen
  348. Perle, EG, Fischer, MA, and Williams, JT, “Perle and Williams on Publishing Law”, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2009, p. 10-11. Google Scholar öffnen
  349. Polinsky, AM, and Shavell, S, “Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 2”, Amsterdam: Elsevier 2007, p. 1604. Google Scholar öffnen
  350. Posner, RA, “Law and Social Norms”, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press 2000, p. 172. Google Scholar öffnen
  351. Posner, RA, “Antitrust Law, Second Edition”, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2001, p. 194-195. Google Scholar öffnen
  352. Posner, RA, “Economics Analysis of Law”, New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2014, para. 8.6. Google Scholar öffnen
  353. Redfern, A, and Hunter, M, “Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration”, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2004, p. 24, 387. Google Scholar öffnen
  354. Revuelta, MB, “Mineral Resources: From Exploration to Sustainability Assessment”, Cham: Springer International Publishing AG 2018, p. 44. Google Scholar öffnen
  355. Richman, BD, “Stateless Commerce: The Diamond Network and the Persistence of Relational Exchange”, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press 2017, p. 14, 42-43, 77. Google Scholar öffnen
  356. Richman BD, et al, “Journal of Legal Analysis, Vol. 9, Is. 2”, in: B. D. Richman (ed), “An Autopsy of Cooperation: Diamond Dealers and the Limits of Trust-based Exchange”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017, p. 251, 255-256. Google Scholar öffnen
  357. Rißmann, K, “Die kartellrechtliche Beurteilung der Markenabgrenzung”, Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag 2008, p. 108. Google Scholar öffnen
  358. Ritter, L, and Braun, WD, “European Competition Law: A Practitioner's Guide”, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2005, p. 249. Google Scholar öffnen
  359. Robbins, D, “Handbook of Public Sector Economics”, Boca Raton: CRC Press 2005, p.185. Google Scholar öffnen
  360. Robbins, P, “Stolen Fruit: The Tropical Commodities Disaster”, London/New York: Zed Books 2003, p. 167. Google Scholar öffnen
  361. Robinson, Jr., L, “Marketing Dynamism & Sustainability: Things Change, Things Stay the Same”, Heidelberg/Dordrecht/New York/London: Springer 2012, p. 304. Google Scholar öffnen
  362. Roche, J, “The International Cotton Trade”, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing 1994, p. 17. Google Scholar öffnen
  363. Rubino-Sammartano, M, “International Arbitration: Law and Practice, Third Edition”, New York: JurisNet 2014, p. 1085-1086. Google Scholar öffnen
  364. Saferstein, HI, and Everett, JC, “State Antitrust Practice and Statutes (Fourth)”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2009, p. 10-3, 10-4. Google Scholar öffnen
  365. Sanchez-Taínta, AS, “The Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease through the Mediterranean Diet”, London/San Diego/Cambridge/Oxford: Elsevier 2018, p. 49. Google Scholar öffnen
  366. Šarčević, P, “Essays on International Commercial Arbitration”, London/Dordrecht/Boston: Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff 1989, p. 69. Google Scholar öffnen
  367. Sauter, W, “Coherence in EU Competition Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016, p. 75-87, 101, 256. Google Scholar öffnen
  368. Schmitthoff, CM, “The Unification of the Law of International Trade”, London: Sweet & Maxwell 1968. Google Scholar öffnen
  369. Schofield, NC, “Commodity Derivatives: Markets and Applications”, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons 2007, p. 75. Google Scholar öffnen
  370. Schoon, N, “Modern Islamic Banking: Products and Processes in Practice”, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons 2016, p. 117. Google Scholar öffnen
  371. Shaffer, BD, “In Restraint of Trade”, Cranbury/London/Mississauga: Associated University Presses 1997, p. 64. Google Scholar öffnen
  372. Shemtov, N, “Beyond the Code: Protection of Non-Textual Features of Software”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017, p. 65. Google Scholar öffnen
  373. Shield, RS, “Diamond Stories: Enduring Change on 47th Street”, London: Cornell University Press 2002, p. 92, 190-192. Google Scholar öffnen
  374. Slot, PJ, and Farley, M, “An Introduction to Competition Law”, Oxford/London/Portland: Hart Publishing 2017, p. 56. Google Scholar öffnen
  375. Sörling, SU, et al., “Studies presented to Pontus Hellström”, in: BL Sjöberg, “The Greek oikos: a space for interaction, revisited and reconsidered”, Uppsala: S. U. Sörling et al. 2014, p. 315. Google Scholar öffnen
  376. Stein, U, “Lex mercatoria: Realität und Theorie”, Band 28, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann 1995 p. 188. Google Scholar öffnen
  377. Stoyanova, M, “Competition Problems in Liberalized Telecommunications: Regulatory Solutions to Promote Effective Competition”, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2008, p. 144. Google Scholar öffnen
  378. Stuyck, J, Gilliams, H, and Ballon, E, “Modernisation of European Competition Law: The Commission's Proposal for a New Regulation Implementing Articles 81 and 82 EC”, Antwerp/Oxford/New York: Intersentia 2002, p. 108. Google Scholar öffnen
  379. Subrin, S, and Woo, MYK, “Litigating in America: Civil Procedure in Context”, New York: Aspen Publishers 2006, p. 165. Google Scholar öffnen
  380. Sullivan, ET, “Nonprice Predation under Section 2 of the Sherman Act”, Chicago: American Bar Association 1991, p. 55, 58. Google Scholar öffnen
  381. Sumangla, R, and Panwar, A, “Capturing, Analyzing, and Managing Word-of-Mouth in the Digital Marketplace”, Hershey: IGI Global 2016, p. 172 Google Scholar öffnen
  382. Sutherland, EE, “Law Making and the Scottish Parliament”, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 2011, p. 314. Google Scholar öffnen
  383. Terlinden, U, “City and Gender: Intercultural Discourse on Gender, Urbanism and Architecture”, Opladen: Leske + Budrich 2003, p. 43. Google Scholar öffnen
  384. Thorson, B, “Individual Rights in EU Law”, Oslo: Springer International 2016, p. 131. Google Scholar öffnen
  385. Tietje, C, and Brouder, A, “Handbook of Transnational Economic Governance Regimes”, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009, p. 656-657, 659. Google Scholar öffnen
  386. Tittle, P, “Ethical Issues in Business: Inquiries, Cases, and Readings”, Petersborough: Peg Tittle 2000, p. 41. Google Scholar öffnen
  387. Todd, JA, “The Cotton World: A Survey of the World's Cotton Supplies and Consumption”, London: Sir I. Pitman & Sons 1927, p. 91. Google Scholar öffnen
  388. Townley, C, “Article 81 EC and Public Policy”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2009, p. 64, 273. Google Scholar öffnen
  389. Townsend, T, “Cotton Trading Manual”, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited 2005, p. iii. Google Scholar öffnen
  390. Travaux du Comité français de droit international privé, “Droit international privé:”, in: B Goldman (ed), “La lex mercatoria dans les contrats et l'arbitrage internationaux: réalité et perspectives”, Paris: Travaux du Comité français de droit international privé 1979, p. 221-270. Google Scholar öffnen
  391. Ullrich, H, “The Evolution of European Competition Law: Whose Regulation, Which Competition?”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2006, p. 348. Google Scholar öffnen
  392. Union Internationale Des Advocats, “Arbitrage International Commercial, Vol. II”, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff 1960, p. 393. Google Scholar öffnen
  393. Vakerics, TV, “Antitrust Basics”, New York: Law Journal Press 2006, p. , 5-3, 6-40. Google Scholar öffnen
  394. van Bael & Bellis (firm), “Competition Law of the European Community”, The Hague: Kluwer Law Internationaal 2005, p. 52, 101, 438. Google Scholar öffnen
  395. van Boom, WH, Giesen, I, and Verheij, AJ, “Gedrag en privaatrecht: Over gedragspresumpties en gedragseffecten bij privaatrechtelijke leerstukken”, in: J van Erp, “Naming en shaming in het contractenrecht? Het reputatie-effect van schadevergoedingen tussen ondernemingen”, The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2008, p. 166. Google Scholar öffnen
  396. van der Hof, S, van den Berg, B, and Schermer, B, “Minding Minors Wandering the Web: Regulating Online Child Safety”, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press 2014, p. 136. Google Scholar öffnen
  397. Vishny, PH, “Guide to International Commerce Law”, New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. 1984, p. 2. Google Scholar öffnen
  398. Waters, TJ, and Morse, RH, “Antitrust & Trade Associations: How Trade Regulation Laws Apply to Trade and Professional Associations”, Chicago: American Bar Association 1996, p. 58, 65. Google Scholar öffnen
  399. Watson, L, and Watson, P, “Juvenal: Satire 6”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2014, 196. Google Scholar öffnen
  400. Welch, PJ, and Welch, GF, “Economics: Theory and Practice – Ninth Edition”, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons 2010, p. 408. Google Scholar öffnen
  401. Wendt, IE, “EU Competition Law and Liberal Professions: an Uneasy Relationship?”, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV 2013, p. 220, 269, 384, 512. Google Scholar öffnen
  402. Wengler, S, “Key Account Management in Business-to-Business Markets: An Assessment of Its Economic Value”, Berlin: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag 2006, p. 112. Google Scholar öffnen
  403. Wesseling, R, “The Modernisation of EC Antitrust Law”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2000, p. 116-117. Google Scholar öffnen
  404. Whish, R, and Bailey, D, “Competition Law: Eighth Edition”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015, p. 54, 174-174, 595. Google Scholar öffnen
  405. Williamson, OE, “The Economic Institutions of Capitalism”, New York: Macmillan 1985, p. 20. Google Scholar öffnen
  406. Wu, Q, “Competition Laws, Globalization and Legal Pluralism: China's Experience”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2013, p. 28. Google Scholar öffnen
  407. Zamir, E, and Teichman, D, “The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, p. 440. Google Scholar öffnen
  408. Standfacts Credit Services, Inc. v. Experian Information, 405 F.Supp.2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Google Scholar öffnen
  409. Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc., 570 F.2d 982, 992 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Google Scholar öffnen
  410. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 59 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Google Scholar öffnen
  411. Covad Communications Company v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 398 F.3d 666, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Google Scholar öffnen
  412. United States v. King, 229 F. 275 (D. Mass. 1915). Google Scholar öffnen
  413. United States v. Kansas City Star Company, No. 18444 (D. Kans. 1953). Google Scholar öffnen
  414. Pretz v. Holstein Friesian Ass’n, 698 F. Supp. 1531, 1539 (D. Kans. 1988). Google Scholar öffnen
  415. United States v. Otter Tail Power Co., 331 F. Supp. 54, 61 (D. Minn. 1971). Google Scholar öffnen
  416. Charleton v. Vt. Dairy Herd Improvement Ass’n, 782 F. Supp. 926, 932 (D. Vt. 1991). Google Scholar öffnen
  417. In re Educ. Testing Serv. Litig., 429 F. Supp. 2d 752, 759 (E.D. La. 2005). Google Scholar öffnen
  418. McElhinney v. Medical Protective Co., 549 F. Supp. 121, 132 (E.D. Ky. 1982). Google Scholar öffnen
  419. Bennett v. Cardinal Health Marmac Distribs., 2003-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 74, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). Google Scholar öffnen
  420. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 195 F.3d 1346, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Google Scholar öffnen
  421. Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Association, 359 F. Supp. 1260, 1265-1266 (N.D. Ga. 1973). Google Scholar öffnen
  422. Choiceparts v. General Motors Corporation, No. 01 C 0067 (N.D. Ill. 2005), para. 12. Google Scholar öffnen
  423. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Slekardis, 34 N.Y.2d 182 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974). Google Scholar öffnen
  424. Matarasso v. Continental Casualty Co., 56 N.Y.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982). Google Scholar öffnen
  425. Rabinowitz v. Olewski, 473 N.Y.S.2d 232, 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). Google Scholar öffnen
  426. Goldfinger v. Lisker, 500 N.E.2d 857, 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). Google Scholar öffnen
  427. Abraham v. Diamond Dealers, 896 N.Y.S.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Google Scholar öffnen
  428. Antco Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Sidermar S. p. A., 417 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), para. 215. Google Scholar öffnen
  429. United States v. Western Winter Sports Representatives Ass’n, Inc., 1962, Trade Cas. (CCH) 74,263 (W.D. Penn. 1973). Google Scholar öffnen
  430. Clamp-All Corp. v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute, 851 F.2d 478, 490, 492 (1st Cir. 1988). Google Scholar öffnen
  431. Fraser v. Major League Soccer, 284 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2002). Google Scholar öffnen
  432. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of R.I., 373 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2004). Google Scholar öffnen
  433. United States v. Consolidated Laundries Corp., 291 F.2d 563, 572-573 (2nd Cir. 1961). Google Scholar öffnen
  434. Volvo North America Corp. v. Men’s Int’l Prof’l Tennis Council, 857 F.2d 55, 74 (2nd Cir. 1988). Google Scholar öffnen
  435. Worldcrisa Corp. v. Armstrong, 129 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 1997), para. 74. Google Scholar öffnen
  436. Bogan v. Hodgkins, 166 F.3D 509, 515 (2nd Cir. 1999). Google Scholar öffnen
  437. Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. P’ship. v. Smith Cogeneration Int’l Inc., 198 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir.1999), para. 49. Google Scholar öffnen
  438. Satellite Television & Associated Resources, Inc. v. Continental Cablevision, 714 F.2d 351, 358 (4th Cir. 1983). Google Scholar öffnen
  439. Heattransfer Corp. v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 553 F.2d 964, 981 (5th Cir. 1977). Google Scholar öffnen
  440. United States v. Cont’Group 603 f.2d 444, 463 (5th Cir. 1979). Google Scholar öffnen
  441. United States v. Realty Multi-List Inc., 629 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir. 1980), para. 107. Google Scholar öffnen
  442. Adjusters Replace-A-Car, Inc. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc., 735 F.2d 884, 887-888 (5th Cir. 1984). Google Scholar öffnen
  443. United States v. American Airlines, Inc., 743 F.2D, 1114, 1116-1117 (5th Cir. 1984). Google Scholar öffnen
  444. Brown v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 384, 396 (5th Cir. 2006). Google Scholar öffnen
  445. Spirit Airlines v. Northwest Airlines, 431 F.3d 917, 935-936 (6th Cir. 2005). Google Scholar öffnen
  446. MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1113, 1132, 1143 (7th Cir. 1982). Google Scholar öffnen
  447. Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Mutual Hospital Insurance, Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338-1339 (7th Cir. 1986). Google Scholar öffnen
  448. Great Escape, Inc. v. Union City Body Co., 791 F.2d 532, 540-541 (7th Cir. 1986). Google Scholar öffnen
  449. Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Marshfield Clinic, 65 F.3d 1406, 1411 (7th Cir. 1995) Google Scholar öffnen
  450. United States v. Empire Gas Corp., 537 F.2d 296 (8th Cir. 1976). Google Scholar öffnen
  451. Trace X Chemical v. Canadian Industries, 738 F.2d 261, 266, 268 (8th Cir. 1984). Google Scholar öffnen
  452. Conoco, Inc. v. Inman Oil Company, Inc. 774 F.2d 895, 905 (8th Cir. 1985). Google Scholar öffnen
  453. General Industries Corp., 810 F.2d 795, 801 (8th Cir. 1987). Google Scholar öffnen
  454. City of Malden v. Union Elec. Co., 887 F.2d 157, 160 (8th Cir. 1989) Google Scholar öffnen
  455. Craftsmen Limousine v. Ford Motor Co., 491 F.3d 380, 389 (8th Cir. 2007). Google Scholar öffnen
  456. Deesen v. Professional Golfers' Association of America, 358 F. 2d 165 (9th Cir. 1966). Google Scholar öffnen
  457. Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Ragu Foods, Inc., 627 F.2d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 1980). Google Scholar öffnen
  458. Ferguson v. Greater Pocatello Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 848 F.2d 976, 983 (9th Cir. 1988). Google Scholar öffnen
  459. City of Anaheim v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 955 F.2d 1373, 1380 (9th Cir. 1992). Google Scholar öffnen
  460. Nova Designs, Inc. v. Scuba Retailers Association, 202 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th 2000). Google Scholar öffnen
  461. County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148, 1155 (9th Cir. 2001), para. IV, A, I. Google Scholar öffnen
  462. Paladin Assoc., Inc. v. Mont. Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003). Google Scholar öffnen
  463. Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006), para. 43. Google Scholar öffnen
  464. Olsen v. Progressive Music Supply, Inc., 703 F.2d 432, 438 (10th Cir. 1983). Google Scholar öffnen
  465. Gregory v. Fort Bridger Rendezvous Ass'n, 448 F.3d 1195, 1201 (10th Cir. 2006). Google Scholar öffnen
  466. CHA-Car, Inc. v. Calder Race Source, Inc., 752 F.2D 609, 613 (11th Cir. 1985). Google Scholar öffnen
  467. McGahee v. N. Propane Gas Co., 858 F.2d 1487, 1505 (11th Cir. 1988). Google Scholar öffnen
  468. Key Enterprises of Delaware v. Venice Hosp, 919 F.2d 1550, 1564 (11th Cir. 1990). Google Scholar öffnen
  469. Thompson v. Metro. Multi-List, Inc. 934 F.2d 1566, 1582 (11th Cir. 1991). Google Scholar öffnen
  470. Bailey v. Allgas, Inc., 284 F.3d 1237, 1250 (11th Cir. 2002). Google Scholar öffnen
  471. Morris Communications Corp. v. PGA Tour, 364 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2004). Google Scholar öffnen
  472. Brief for the United States As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Reiter, 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (No. 78-690), 1979 WL 213494, para. 12. Google Scholar öffnen
  473. Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U.S. 38, 44 (1904). Google Scholar öffnen
  474. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 62 (1911). Google Scholar öffnen
  475. United States v. American Tobacco Company, 221 U.S. 106 (1911). Google Scholar öffnen
  476. United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n, 224 U.S. 383 (1912). Google Scholar öffnen
  477. Eastern States Lumber Assn. v. United States, 234 U. S. 600, 601, 605, 608, 614 (1914). Google Scholar öffnen
  478. United States v. United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919). Google Scholar öffnen
  479. American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 377 (1921). Google Scholar öffnen
  480. United States v. American Linseed Oil Co., 262 U.S. 371 (1923). Google Scholar öffnen
  481. Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 227 (1939). Google Scholar öffnen
  482. Fashion Originators' Guild v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 312 U. S. 457, 458, 465, 468 (1941). Google Scholar öffnen
  483. American Medical Assn. v. United States, 317 U.S. 519, 535-536 (1943). Google Scholar öffnen
  484. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 2, 23 (1945). Google Scholar öffnen
  485. American Tobacco v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809 (1946). Google Scholar öffnen
  486. United States v. Griffith, 334 U.S. 100, 107-108 (1948). Google Scholar öffnen
  487. Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, 340 U. S. 211, 214 (1951). Google Scholar öffnen
  488. Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 625 (1953). Google Scholar öffnen
  489. Yates v. United States 354 U.S. 298, 334 (1957). Google Scholar öffnen
  490. Northern Pacific R. Go. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 5 (1958). Google Scholar öffnen
  491. Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207, 212-213 (1959). Google Scholar öffnen
  492. Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Co., 364 U.S. 656, 659 (1961). Google Scholar öffnen
  493. Silver v. New York Stock Exch. 373 U.S. 341 (1963). Google Scholar öffnen
  494. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570 (1966). Google Scholar öffnen
  495. Fed. Maritime Comm’n v. Aktiebolaget Svenska Amerika Linien, 390 U.S. 238, 250 (1968). Google Scholar öffnen
  496. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979), para. E. Google Scholar öffnen
  497. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979). Google Scholar öffnen
  498. Mid-Texas Communications v. Am. Tel. Tel., 615 F.2d 1372, 1389 n. 13 (5th Cir. 1980). Google Scholar öffnen
  499. Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-27 (1983) and Southland Copperweld v. Independence Tube, 467 U.S. 752 (1984), para. III. Google Scholar öffnen
  500. Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, para. 12 (1984). Google Scholar öffnen
  501. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764, 768 (1984). Google Scholar öffnen
  502. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Svc. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 768 (1984). Google Scholar öffnen
  503. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). Google Scholar öffnen
  504. NW Wholesale Stationers v. Pac. Stationery, 472 U.S. 284, 287, 293-297 (1985). Google Scholar öffnen
  505. Matsushita v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). Google Scholar öffnen
  506. Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 456 (1993). Google Scholar öffnen
  507. NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128, 134 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen
  508. California Dental Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission, 526 U.S. 756, 763, 780 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen
  509. Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 407 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen
  510. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. (2006) [J. Thomas, dissenting], para. 8. Google Scholar öffnen
  511. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen
  512. Rhone Mediterranee v. Achille Lauro [1983] 712 F. 2nd 50. Google Scholar öffnen
  513. Federal Bulk Carriers v C Itoh & Co default [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep 103. Google Scholar öffnen
  514. Aughton Limited (formerly Aughton Group Limited) v. M.F. Kent Services Limited, [1991] 57 BLR 1. Google Scholar öffnen
  515. Trygg Hansa Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Equitas Ltd, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 439. Google Scholar öffnen
  516. Azov Shipping co. v. Baltic Shipping co. [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 68, para. 5 and 31 Google Scholar öffnen
  517. Vale Do Rio Doce Navegacao SA & Anor v Shanghai Bao Steel Ocean Shipping Co Ltd. [2000] EWHC 205 (Comm), para. 45. Google Scholar öffnen
  518. Competition Appeal Tribunal 19 March 2002, case 1005/1/101 (Aberdeen Journals Limited v. Director General of Fair Trading), [2002] CAT 4, para. 96-97. Google Scholar öffnen
  519. Downing v. Al Tameer Establishment [2002] EWCA Civ 721. Google Scholar öffnen
  520. Mackley & Co Ltd v Gosport Marina Ltd [2002] EWHC 1315, para. 20, 22, 39. Google Scholar öffnen
  521. Esso Exploration and Production UK Ltd v. Electricity Supply Board [2004] EWHC 787 (Comm). Google Scholar öffnen
  522. Welex AG v. Rosa Maritime Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 938. Google Scholar öffnen
  523. Albon v. Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd (No 3) [2007] Lloyd’s Rep. L. Google Scholar öffnen
  524. Sea Trade Maritime Corporation v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The "Athena") (No 2), [2007] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 280, para. 64-65. Google Scholar öffnen
  525. Stretford v. The Football Association Ltd et al (CA) [2007] EWCA Civ 238, para. 38, 67. Google Scholar öffnen
  526. Sukuman Ltd v. Commonwealth Secretariat [2007] EWCA Civ 243, para. 36. Google Scholar öffnen
  527. Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v. Richards [2011] EWCA Civ 855. Google Scholar öffnen
  528. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC (Appellant) v. AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP (Respondent), [2011] EWCA Civ 647. Google Scholar öffnen
  529. Joint Stock Company "Aeroflot Russian Airlines" v. Berezovsky et al [2012] EWHC 1610 (Ch), para. 73. Google Scholar öffnen
  530. Lombard North Central plc et al. v. GATX Corporation [2012] EWHC 1067 (Comm), para. 21. Google Scholar öffnen
  531. Assaubayev et al v. Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd, [2014] EWCA Civ 1491. Google Scholar öffnen
  532. Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd v. Prolat S.R.L [2014] EWHC 3649 (Comm), para. 2. Google Scholar öffnen
  533. Commission, Competition in a media sector, press releases RAPID “Dutch fishermen allowed to land and auction catches in foreign ports following Commission action” (to access: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-01-84_en.htm?locale=EN). Google Scholar öffnen
  534. Commission, Competition in a media sector, press releases RAPID “Commission closes investigations into FIFA regulations on international football transfers” (to access: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-02-824_en.htm?locale=EN); “Commission, concerning Case IV / 36 583-SETCA-FGTB / FIFA” (to access: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/36583/36583_54_3.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  535. Commission, Competition in a media sector, press releases RAPID “Antitrust: Commission welcomes steps taken by collective rights management bodies in Hungary and Romania to improve competition” (to access: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/284&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN). Google Scholar öffnen
  536. Commission, press release IP/ 17/3622 of 2 October 2017 “Commission fines Lithuanian Railways €28 million for hindering competition on rail freight market” (to access: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-3622_en.htm). Google Scholar öffnen
  537. Commission, press release IP/ 17/3622 of 2 October 2017 “Commission fines Lithuanian Railways €28 million for hindering competition on rail freight market” (to access: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-3622_en.htm). Google Scholar öffnen
  538. Commission, press release IP/01/1641 of 23 November 2001 “Commission settles Marathon case with Thyssengas” (to access: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-01-1641_en.htm). Google Scholar öffnen
  539. Commission, press release IP/04/573 “Commission settles Marathon case with Gaz de France and Ruhrgas” (to access: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-04-573_e.htm). Google Scholar öffnen
  540. Commission Decision of 18 July 1975 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/21.353 (Kabelmetal-Luchaire), para. 11. Google Scholar öffnen
  541. Commission Decision of 21 November 1975 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/256 (Bomée-Stichting), para. II. Google Scholar öffnen
  542. Commission Decision of 2 December 1977 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/28.948 (Cauliflowers), para. II (4). Google Scholar öffnen
  543. Commission Decision of 2 December 1977 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/147 (Centraal Bureau voor de Rijwielhandel), para. 6, 28-29, 36. Google Scholar öffnen
  544. Commission Decision of 20 July 1978 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 (1) TFEU], Case No IV/28.852 (GB-Inno-BM/Fedetab), Case No IV/29.127 (Mestdagh-Huyghebaert/Fedetab), Case No IV/29.149 (Fedetab Recommendation), para. 123. Google Scholar öffnen
  545. Commission Decision of 5 December 1979 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/29.011 (Rennet), para. 30. Google Scholar öffnen
  546. Commission Decision of 9 July 1980 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/27.958 (National Sulphuric Acid Association), para. 47. Google Scholar öffnen
  547. Commission Decision of 10 July 1985 relating to a proceeding under Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterway, Case No IV/31.029 (French inland waterway charter traffic: EATE levy), para. 51. Google Scholar öffnen
  548. Commission Decision of 13 December 1985 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/27.590 (London Sugar Futures Market Limited). Google Scholar öffnen
  549. Commission Decision of 13 December 1985 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/27.591 (London Cocoa Terminal Market Association Limited). Google Scholar öffnen
  550. Commission Decision of 13 December 1985 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/27.592 (Coffee Terminal Market Association of London Limited). Google Scholar öffnen
  551. Commission Decision of 13 December 1985 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/27.593 (London Rubber Terminal Market Association Limited). Google Scholar öffnen
  552. Commission Decision of 10 December 1986 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/29.688 (The London Grain Futures Market). Google Scholar öffnen
  553. Commission Decision of 10 December 1986 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/30.176 (The London Potato Futures Association Limited). Google Scholar öffnen
  554. Commission Decision of 10 December 1986 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/31.614 (The London Meat Futures Exchange Limited), para. 12, 18. Google Scholar öffnen
  555. Commission Decision of 10 December 1986 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/29.036 (The GAFTA Soya Bean Meal Futures Association). Google Scholar öffnen
  556. Commission Decision of 4 December 1986 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/30.439 (Petroleum Exchange of London Limited). Google Scholar öffnen
  557. Commission Decision of 18 July 1988 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty, Case No IV/30.178 (Napier Brown - British Sugar). Google Scholar öffnen
  558. Commission Decision of 28 October 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/B-2/31.424, Hudson's Bay-Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening, para. 1 (a), 9, 10, 11. Google Scholar öffnen
  559. Commission Decision of 12 December 1988 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/27.393 and IV/27.394 (Publishers Association - Net Book Agreements), para. 73. Google Scholar öffnen
  560. Commission Decision of 26 February 1992 relating to a procedure pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty [now Articles 101 and 102 TFEU], Case No IV/33.544 (British Midland v. Aer Lingus), para. 5, 26-27. Google Scholar öffnen
  561. Commission Decision of 23 December 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/32.448 and IV/32.450 (Cewal, Cowac and Ukwal) and 86 [now Article 102 TFEU], Case No IV/32.448 and IV/32.450 (Cewal) of the EEC Treaty, para. 86. Google Scholar öffnen
  562. Commission Decision of 11 June 1993 relating a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/32.150 (EBU/Eurovision System), para. 59-67. Google Scholar öffnen
  563. Commission Decision of 21 December 1993 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 86 of the EC Treaty [now Article 102 TFEU], Case No IV/34.689 (Sea Containers v. Stena Sealink), para. 12, 41, 66, 75. Google Scholar öffnen
  564. Commission Decision of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/C/33.833 (Cartonboard). Google Scholar öffnen
  565. Commission Decision of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No IV/33.126 and 33.322 (Cement). Google Scholar öffnen
  566. Commission Decision of 11 March 1998 relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty [now Articles 101 and 102 TFEU], Case No IV/34.073, IV/34.395 and IV/35.436 (Van den Bergh Foods Limited), para. 224. Google Scholar öffnen
  567. Commission Decision of 24 January 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty [Article 101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Case No IV.F.1/36.718 (CECED), para. 55-57. Google Scholar öffnen
  568. Commission Decision of 14 July 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty [now Article 102 TFEU], Case No IV/D-2/34.780 (Virgin/British Airways), para. 87-88, 90-91 Google Scholar öffnen
  569. Commission Decision of 31 July 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Case No COMP/37.462 (Identrus), para. 46. Google Scholar öffnen
  570. Commission Decision of 5 December 2001, Case No IV/37.614/F3 PO (Interbrew and Alken-Maes), para. 223. Google Scholar öffnen
  571. Commission Decision of 27 August 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty [now Article 102 TFEU], Case No COMP/37.685 (GVG/FS), para. 132, 141, 152. Google Scholar öffnen
  572. Commission Decision of 30 April 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty [now Article 102 TFEU], Case No COMP/D/32.448 and 32/450 (Compagnie Maritime Belge), para. 35-36. Google Scholar öffnen
  573. Commission Decision of 24 May 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty [now Article 102 TFEU] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement against Microsoft Corporation, Case No COMP/C-3/37.792 (Microsoft), para. 18, 589, 984. Google Scholar öffnen
  574. Commission Decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Case No COMP/C2/38.698 (CISAC), para. 18, 125. Google Scholar öffnen
  575. Commission Decision of 8 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU], Case No 39.401 (E.ON/GDF), para. 265. Google Scholar öffnen
  576. Commission Decision of 14 October 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty [now Article 101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Case No COMP/39.416 (Ship classification), para. 3 (f) (g). Google Scholar öffnen
  577. Commission Decision of 22 June 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Case No COMP/39.525 (Telekomunikacja Polska), para. 874. Google Scholar öffnen
  578. Commission Decision of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Case No COMP/39.839 (Telefónica/Portugal Telecom), para. 444. Google Scholar öffnen
  579. Commission Decision of 19 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, Case No AT.39864 (BASF), para. 26. Google Scholar öffnen
  580. Order of the President of the CFI of 21 January 2004, case T-245/03R (Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d'Exploitants Agricoles (FNSEA) et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [1996] ECR I-4971, para. 45. Google Scholar öffnen
  581. Order of the President of the CFI of 14 December 2000, case T‑5/00 R (Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v. Commission of the European Communities), [2000] ECR II‑4121, para. 56, 64. Google Scholar öffnen
  582. Order of the President of the CFI of 21 January 2004, case T-217/03R (Federation nationale de la coopération bétail v. Commission of the European Communities), [2004] ECR II-241, para. 52-54. Google Scholar öffnen
  583. Opinion of the Advocate-General Kirschner of 21 February 1990, case T-5I/89 (Tetra Pak Rausing SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1990] ECR II-309, para. 68, 72. Google Scholar öffnen
  584. CFI 10 July 1990, Case T-51/89 (Tetra Pak Rausing SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1990] ECR II-309, para. 42. Google Scholar öffnen
  585. CFI 12 December 1991, Case T-30/89 (Hilti AG v. Commission of the European Communities), [1991] ECR II-1439, para. 92, 118. Google Scholar öffnen
  586. CFI 10 March 1992, joined cases T-68/89, T-77/89 and T-78/89 (Società Italiana Vetro SpA, Fabbrica Pisana SpA and PPG Vernante Pennitalia SpA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1992] ECR II-01403, para. 35. Google Scholar öffnen
  587. CFI 2 July 1992, Case T-61/89 (Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening v. Commission of the European Communities), [1992] ECR II-1931, para. 64, 78. Google Scholar öffnen
  588. CFI 22 April 1993, Case T-9/92 (Automobiles Peugeot SA and Peugeot SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1993] ECR II-493, para. 27. Google Scholar öffnen
  589. CFI 23 February 1994, joined cases T-39/92 and T-40/92 (Groupement des Cartes Bancaires "CB" and Europay International SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1994] ECR II-49113, para. 114. Google Scholar öffnen
  590. CFI 15 July 1994, Case T-17/93 (Matra Hachette SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1994] ECR II-595, para. 85, 135. Google Scholar öffnen
  591. CFI 6 October 1994, Case T-83/91 (Tetra Pak International SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1994] ECR II-00755, para. 83-84, 138. Google Scholar öffnen
  592. CFI 6 April 1995, Case T-141/89 (Tréfileurope Sales SARL v. Commission of the European Communities), [1995] ECR II-791, para. 96. Google Scholar öffnen
  593. CFI 8 October 1996, joined cases T-24/93, T-25/93, T-26/93 and T-28/93 (Compagnie Maritime Beige Transports SA and Compagnie Maritime Belge SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1996] ECR 11-1201, para. 107, 170, 172, 182-183,185. Google Scholar öffnen
  594. CFI 15 September 1998, joined cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 and T-388/94 (European Night Services Ltd (ENS) et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [1998] ECR II-1533, para. 203. Google Scholar öffnen
  595. CFI 27 November 1998, Case T-290/94 (Fort James France, formerly Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1997] ECR II-2137, para. 178–179. Google Scholar öffnen
  596. CFI 15 March 2000, joined cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95, T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95, T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T 46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95, T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95, T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95, T-62/95, T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95, T-70/95, T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 (Cimenteries CBR et al v. Commission), [2000] ECR II-491. Google Scholar öffnen
  597. CFI 21 March 2001, Case T-206/99 (Métropole Television SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [2001] ECR II-1057, para. 37. Google Scholar öffnen
  598. CFI 18 September 2001, Case T-112/99 (Métropole télévision (M6) et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [2001] ECR II-2459, para. 74, 76. Google Scholar öffnen
  599. CFI 28 February 2002, Case T-395/94 (Atlantic Container Line AB et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [2002] ECR II-595, para. 330. Google Scholar öffnen
  600. CFI 6 June 2002, case T-342/99 (Airtours plc. v. Commission of the European Communities), [2002] ECR II-2585, para. 62. Google Scholar öffnen
  601. CFI 30 September 2003, joined cases T-191/98, T-212/98 to T-214/98 (Atlantic Container Line AB et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [2003] ECR II-3275, para. 239, 939, 1112, 1456. Google Scholar öffnen
  602. CFI 23 October 2003, Case T-65/98 (Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities), [2003] ECR II-4653, para. 84, 107, 139. Google Scholar öffnen
  603. CFI 17 December 2003, Case T-219/99 (British Airways plc v. Commission of the European Communities), [2003] ECR II-05917, para. 293. Google Scholar öffnen
  604. CFI 26 January 2005, Case T-193/02 (Laurent Piau v. Commission of the European Communities), [2005] ECR II-209, para. 111. Google Scholar öffnen
  605. CFI 27 July 2005, joined cases T-49/02 to T-51/02 85 (Brasserie nationale SA (formerly Brasseries Funck-Bricher and Bofferding) et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [2005] ECR II-3033, para. 85. Google Scholar öffnen
  606. CFI 2 May 2006, Case T-328/03 (O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG v. Commission of the European Communities), [2006] ECR II-1231, para. 66, 69, 71, 73. Google Scholar öffnen
  607. CFI 27 September 2006, Case T-204/03 (Haladjian Frères v Commission), [2006], ECR II-03779, para. 28, 34, 36. Google Scholar öffnen
  608. CFI 12 December 2006, Case T-155/04 (SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v. Commission of the European Communities), [2006] ECR II-04797, para. 50. Google Scholar öffnen
  609. CFI 17 September 2007, Case T-201/04 (Microsoft Corp. v. Commission of the European Communities), [2007] ECR II-3601, para. 105, 275, 280, 442, 482, 1313. Google Scholar öffnen
  610. CFI 1 July 2008, case T‑276/04 (Compagnie Maritime Belge SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [2008] ECR II-1277. Google Scholar öffnen
  611. CFI 9 September 2009, Case T‑301/04 (Clearstream Banking AG and Clearstream International SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [2009] ECR II-3155, para. 47, 132. Google Scholar öffnen
  612. GC 1 July 2010, Case T-321/05 (AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc v. European Commission), [2010] ECR II-2805, para. 360, 824, 826. Google Scholar öffnen
  613. GC 23 November 2011, Case T-320/07 (Jones et al v. Commission), [2011], ECR II-00417, para. 115. Google Scholar öffnen
  614. GC 24 May 2012, Case T-111/08 (MasterCard, Inc. et al v. European Commission), [2012] ECR II-000, para. 87. Google Scholar öffnen
  615. GC 12 April 2013, Case T-442/08 (International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) et al v. European Commission), [2013] 5 CMLR, para. 12, 20. Google Scholar öffnen
  616. Opinion of the Advocate-General Darmon of 20 November 1986, case 45/85 (Verband der Sachversicherer v. Commission of the European Communities), [1987] ECR 405, p. 438. Google Scholar öffnen
  617. Opinion of the Advocate-General Lenz of 16 June 1994, Case C-360/92P (The Publishers Association v. Commission of the European Communities), [1995] ECR I-23, para. 43, 47. Google Scholar öffnen
  618. Joined Opinion of the Advocate-General Tesauro of 12 September 1995, joined cases C-319/93, C-40/94, C-224/94, and C-399/93 (Dijkstra v Friesland (Frico Domo) Coöperatie BA and Cornelis van Roessel et al v. De coöperatieve vereniging Zuivelcoöperatie Campina Melkunie VA and Willem de Bie et al v. De Coöperatieve Zuivelcoöperatie Campina Melkunie BA), [1995] ECR I-4515, para. 10, 31. Google Scholar öffnen
  619. Opinion of the Advocate-General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer of 27 June 1996, Case C-333/94P (Tetra Pak International SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1996] ECR I-5951, para. 57. Google Scholar öffnen
  620. Opinion of the Advocate-General Fennelly of 29 October 1998, joined cases C-395/96P, C-396/96P (Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports SA et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [2000] ECR I-1365, para. 143, 144, 151, 152, 162. Google Scholar öffnen
  621. Opinion of the Advocate-General Jacobs of 28 January 1999, joined cases C-115/97, C-116/97 and C-117/97 and Case C-219/97 (Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie), [1999] ECR I-5751, para. 272. Google Scholar öffnen
  622. Opinion of the Advocate-General Jacobs of 28 October 2004, Case C-53/03 (Synetairismos Farmakopoion Aitolias & Akarnanias (Syfait) et al v. GlaxoSmithKline plc und GlaxoSmithKline AEVE), [2005] ECR I-4609, para. 72. Google Scholar öffnen
  623. Opinion of the Advocate-General Poiares Maduro of 23 May 2007, Case C-438/05 (International Transport Workers' Federation v. Viking Line ABP et al), [2008] IRLR 143, para. 7. Google Scholar öffnen
  624. Opinion of the Advocate General of 19 February 2009, case C-8/08 (T-Mobile Netherlands BV et al v. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit), [2009] ECR I-04529, para. 55. Google Scholar öffnen
  625. ECJ 30 June 1966, Case 56/65 (Société Technique Minière (L.T.M.) v. Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH (M.B.U.)), [1966] ECR 235, p. 249. Google Scholar öffnen
  626. ECJ 13 July 1966, joined cases 56 and 58-64 (Établissements Consten S.à.R.L. and Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v. Commission of the European Economic Community) [1966] ECR 299, p. 249, 341-342, 348. Google Scholar öffnen
  627. ECJ 12 December 1967, Case C-23/67 (SA Brasserie de Haecht v. Consorts Wilkin-Janssen), [1967] ECR 525, p. 415. Google Scholar öffnen
  628. ECJ 9 July 1969, Case 5-69 (Franz Völk v S.P.R.L. Ets J. Vervaecke), [1969] ECR 295, para. 5-7. Google Scholar öffnen
  629. ECJ 25 November 1971, Case 22-71 (Béguelin Import Co. v. S.A.G.L. Import Export), [1971] ECR 949, para. 17, 29. Google Scholar öffnen
  630. ECJ 14 July 1972, Case 48/69 (Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Commission of the European Communities), [1972] ECR 619, para. 64. Google Scholar öffnen
  631. ECJ 21 February 1973, Case 6-72 (Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v. Commission of the European Communities), [1973] ECR 215, para. 25-27. Google Scholar öffnen
  632. ECJ 26 November 1975, Case 73-74 (Groupement des fabricants de papiers peints de Belgique et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [1975] ECR 1491, para. 32. Google Scholar öffnen
  633. ECJ 16 December 1975, joined cases 40 to 48, 50, 54 to 56, 111, 113 and 114-73 (Coöperatieve Vereniging "Suiker Unie" UA et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [1975] ECR 1663, para. 174. Google Scholar öffnen
  634. ECJ 25 October 1977, Case 26-76 (Metro SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co. KG v. Commission of the European Communities), [1977] ECR 1875, para. 20, 47. Google Scholar öffnen
  635. ECJ 14 February 1978, Case 27/76 (United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v. Commission of the European Communities), [1978] ECR 207, para. 10, 38, 108, 113-117, 168, 189-190, 208, 236. Google Scholar öffnen
  636. ECJ 13 February 1979, Case 85/76 (Hoffman-La Roche & Co. AG v. Commission of the European Communities), [1979] ECR 461, para. 41, 57-58, 91. Google Scholar öffnen
  637. ECJ 20 February 1979, Case C-120/78 (Rewe Zentrale v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein), [1979] ECR 649. Google Scholar öffnen
  638. ECJ 12 July 1979, joined cases 32/78, 36/78 to 82/78 (BMW Belgium SA et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [1979] ECR 2435, para. 36. Google Scholar öffnen
  639. ECJ 29 October 1980, joined cases 209 to 215 and 218/78 (Heintz van Landewyck SARL et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [1980] ECR 3125, para. 88, 183, 185. Google Scholar öffnen
  640. ECJ 8 June 1982, Case 258/78 (L.C. Nungesser KG and Kurt Eisele v. Commission of the European Communities), [1982] ECR 2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  641. ECJ 9 November 1983, Case 322/81 (NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v. Commission of the European Communities), [1983] ECR 3461, para. 57. Google Scholar öffnen
  642. ECJ 17 January 1984, joined cases 43/82 and 63/82 (Vereniging ter Bevordering van het Vlaamse Boekwezen, VBVB, and Vereniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des Boekhandels, VBBB, v. Commission of the European Communities), [1984] ECR 19, para. 52. Google Scholar öffnen
  643. ECJ 28 March 1984, joined cases 29 and 30/83 (Compagnie Royale Asturienne des Mines SA and Rheinzink GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities), [1984] ECR 1979, para. 26. Google Scholar öffnen
  644. ECJ 30 January 1985, Case 123/83 (Bureau national interprofessionnel du cognac v. Guy Clair), [1985] ECR 391, para. 22. Google Scholar öffnen
  645. ECJ 11 July 1985, Case 42/84 (Remia BV et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [1985] ECR 2566, para. 22. Google Scholar öffnen
  646. ECJ 3 October 1985, Case 311/84 (Centre belge d'études de marché - Télémarketing (CBEM) v. SA Compagnie luxembourgeoise de télédiffusion (CLT) and Information publicité Benelux (IPB), [1985] ECR 3261, para. 27. Google Scholar öffnen
  647. ECJ 28 January 1986, Case 161/84 (Pronuptia de Paris GmbH v. Pronuptia de Paris Irmgard Schillgallis), [1986] ECR 353. Google Scholar öffnen
  648. ECJ 22 October 1986, Case 75/84 (Metro SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co. KG v. Commission of the European Communities), [1986] ECR 3021, para. 85-86. Google Scholar öffnen
  649. ECJ 20 May 1987, Case 272/85 (Association nationale des travailleurs indépendants de la batellerie (ANTIB) v. Commission of the European Communities), [1987] ECR 2201, para. 25, 27-38. Google Scholar öffnen
  650. ECJ 16 June 1987, Case 118/85 (Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic), [1987] ECR 2599, para. 7. Google Scholar öffnen
  651. ECJ 23 April 1991, Case C-41/90 (Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH), [1991] ECR I-1979, para. 21. Google Scholar öffnen
  652. ECJ 3 July 1991, Case C-62/86 (AKZO Chemie BV v. Commission of the European Communities), [1991] ECR I-3359, para. 60. Google Scholar öffnen
  653. ECJ 31 March 1993, joined cases C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85, C-125/85, C-126/85, C-127/85, C-128/85 and C-129/85 (Ahlström Osakeyhtiö et al v. Commission), [1993] ECR I-01307. Google Scholar öffnen
  654. ECJ 27 April 1994, Case C-393/92 (Municipality of Almelo et al v. NV Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij), [1994] ECR I-1477, para. 42. Google Scholar öffnen
  655. ECJ 15 December 1994, Case C-250/92 (Gøttrup-Klim Grovvareforening et al v. Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab AmbA (DLG)), [1994] ECR I-5641, para. 14, 35. Google Scholar öffnen
  656. ECJ 6 April 1995, joined cases C-241/91P and C-242/91P (Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v. Commission of the European Communities), [1995] ECR I-00743, para. 56-57. Google Scholar öffnen
  657. ECJ 16 November 1995, Case C-244/94 (Federation Française des Sociétés d'Assurance, Société Paternelle Vie, Union des Assurances de Paris-Vie, Caisse d'Assurance et de Prévoyance Mutuelle des Agriculteurs and Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche), [1995] ECR I-4013, para. 14. Google Scholar öffnen
  658. ECJ 12 December 1995, Case C-399/93 (H. G. Oude Luttikhuis et al v. Verenigde Coöperatieve Melkindustrie Coberco BA), [1995] ECR I-4515, para. 3. Google Scholar öffnen
  659. ECJ 14 November 1996, Case C- 333/94 P (Tetra Pak International SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1996] ECR I-5951, para. 27, 31. Google Scholar öffnen
  660. ECJ 18 March 1997, Case C-343/95 (Cali e Figli), [1997] ECR I-1547, para. 22-23. Google Scholar öffnen
  661. ECJ 17 July 1997, Case C-219/95P (Ferriere Nord SpA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1997] ECR I-04411, para. 19. Google Scholar öffnen
  662. ECJ 11 December 1997, Case C-55/96 (Job Centre coop. arl.), [1997] ECR I-7119, para. 21. Google Scholar öffnen
  663. ECJ 28 May 1998, C-7/95P John Deere Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities), [1998] ECR I-311, para. 77. Google Scholar öffnen
  664. ECJ 18 June 1998, Case C-35/96 (Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic), [1998] ECR I-3851, para. 36. Google Scholar öffnen
  665. ECJ 26 November 1998, Case C-7/97 (Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG), [1998] ECR I-07791, para. 24, 37, 41, 43. Google Scholar öffnen
  666. ECJ 21 January 1999, Case C-216/96 (Carlo Bagnasco et al v. Banca Popolare di Novara soc. coop. arl. (BNP) et al), [1999] ECR I-135, para. 48. Google Scholar öffnen
  667. ECJ 1 June 1999, Case 126/97 (Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV), [1999] ECR I-3055, para 37. Google Scholar öffnen
  668. ECJ 8 July 1999, Case C-49/92P (Commission of the European Communities v. Anic Partecipazioni SpA) [1999] ECR I-4125, para. 112, 132, 133. Google Scholar öffnen
  669. ECJ 8 July 1999, case C-199/92P (Hüls AG v. Commisson of the European Communities), [1999] ECR I-4287, para. 163-166. Google Scholar öffnen
  670. ECJ 16 March 2000, joined cases C-395/96P, C-396/96P (Compagnie maritime belge transports SA et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [2000] ECR I-1365, para. 45, 130. Google Scholar öffnen
  671. ECJ 19 February 2002, Case C-309/99 (J. C. J. Wouters, J. W. Savelbergh and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, intervener: Raad van de Balies van de Europese Gemeenschap), [2002] ECR I-1577, para. 46, 97, 110. Google Scholar öffnen
  672. ECJ 2 October 2003, Case C-194/99P (Thyssen Stahl AG v. Commission of the European Communities), [2003] ECR I-10821, para. 59, 60, 62-63, 84. Google Scholar öffnen
  673. ECJ 6 January 2004, joined cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01P (Bayer v. Commission), [2004] ECR I-23, para. 101-102. Google Scholar öffnen
  674. ECJ 7 January 2004, joined cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P, (Aalborg Portland et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [2004] ECR I-123, para. 78, 81. Google Scholar öffnen
  675. ECJ 19 January 2004, Case C-453/00 (Kühne & Heitz NV v. Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren), [2004] ECR I-837, para. 20. Google Scholar öffnen
  676. ECJ 29 April 2004, Case C-418/01 (IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v. NDC Health GmbH & Co. KGIMS), [2004] ECR I-05039, para. 37-38, 46-47. Google Scholar öffnen
  677. ECJ 28 June 2005, joined cases C-189, 202, 205-208 and 213/02P (Dansk Rørindustri A/S et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [2005] ECR I-5425, para. 145. Google Scholar öffnen
  678. ECJ 11 July 2006, Case C-205/03P (Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. Commission of the European Communities, [2006] ECR I-6295, para. 25. Google Scholar öffnen
  679. ECJ 18 July 2006, Case C-519/04P (David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission of the European Communities), [2006] ECR I-6991, para. 42, 45. Google Scholar öffnen
  680. ECJ 21 September 2006, Case C-167/04P (JCB Service v. Commission of the European Communities), [2006] ECR I-8935, para. 162-163. Google Scholar öffnen
  681. ECJ 23 November 2006, Case C-238/05 (Asnef-Equifax, Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, SL and Administración del Estado v. Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)), [2006] ECR I-11125, para. 7, 46-48, 58, 70. Google Scholar öffnen
  682. ECJ 25 January 2007, Case C-407/04P (Dalmine SpA v. Commission of the European Communities), [2007] ECR I‑829, para. 90. Google Scholar öffnen
  683. ECJ 15 March 2007, Case C-95/04P (British Airways plc v. Commission of the European Communities), [2007] ECR I-2331, para. 77. Google Scholar öffnen
  684. ECJ 10 July 2008, Case C-413/06P (Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America v. Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala)), [2008] ECR I-4951, para. 124. Google Scholar öffnen
  685. ECJ 16 September 2008, joined cases C-468/06 to C-478/06 (ot. Lélos kai Sia EE et al v. GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton, formerly Glaxowellcome AEVE), [2008] ECR I-7139, para. 50. Google Scholar öffnen
  686. ECJ 20 November 2008, Case C-209/07 (Competition Authority v. Beef Industry Development Society Ltd and Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd.), [2008] ECR I-8637, para. 21. Google Scholar öffnen
  687. ECJ 4 June 2009, Case C-8/08 (T-Mobile Netherlands BV, KPN Mobile NV, Orange Nederland NV and Vodafone Libertel NV v. Raad van Bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit), [2009] ECR I-4529, para. 27, 36. Google Scholar öffnen
  688. ECJ 10 September 2009, Case C‑97/08P (Akzo Nobel NV et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [2009] I-08237, para. 54. Google Scholar öffnen
  689. ECJ 6 October 2009, joined cases C-501/06P (GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v. Commission of the European Communities), C-513/06P (and Commission of the European Communities v. GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited), C-515/06P (European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) v. Commission of the European Communities), and C-519/06P (Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) v. Commission of the European Communities), [2009] ECR I-09291, para. 7. Google Scholar öffnen
  690. ECJ 23 March 2010, joined cases C-236/08 to C-238/08 (Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA et al.), [2010] ECR I-02417, para. 3. Google Scholar öffnen
  691. ECJ 13 December 2012, Case C-226/11 (Expedia Inc. v. Autorité de la concurrence et al), [2012] ECR I-795, para. 16-17, 35-37. Google Scholar öffnen
  692. ECJ 7 February 2013, Case C-68/12 (Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky v. Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s), ECLI:EU:C:2013:71, para. 17. Google Scholar öffnen
  693. ECJ 28 February 2013, Case C-1/12 (Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas v. Autoridade da Concorrência), [2013] 4 CMLR 20, para. 99. Google Scholar öffnen
  694. ECJ 11 September 2014, Case C‑382/12P (MasterCard Inc. et al v. European Commission), [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2201, para. 242. Google Scholar öffnen
  695. ECJ 6 October 2015, Case C‑23/14 (Post Danmark A/S v. Konkurrencerådet), [2015] 651, p. 70-73. Google Scholar öffnen
  696. Article 281 of the Mainland CPL. Google Scholar öffnen
  697. The Companies Act 2006 (to access: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/pdfs/ukpga_20060046_en.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  698. The Human Rights Act 1988 (to access: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents). Google Scholar öffnen
  699. The Arbitration Act 1996 of 17 June 1996. Google Scholar öffnen
  700. The Companies Act (to access: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/mesicic3_jam_companies.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  701. The Companies Act of 1989 (to access: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/40/contents). Google Scholar öffnen
  702. The Arbitration Act 1996 (to access: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents). Google Scholar öffnen
  703. Chapter 8 of the Consolidated Laws of the State of New York of 1909 (Civil Practice Law & Rules) (to access: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP). Google Scholar öffnen
  704. Zivilprozessordnung (to access: https://dejure.org/gesetze/ZPO). Google Scholar öffnen
  705. Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen of 2017 (to access: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gwb/BJNR252110998.html). Google Scholar öffnen
  706. Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb of 2019 (to access: https://dejure.org/gesetze/UWG). Google Scholar öffnen
  707. United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (to access: https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/New-York-Convention-E.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  708. New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules of 1962 (to access: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP). Google Scholar öffnen
  709. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 (with amendments adopted in 2006) (to access: https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  710. United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (to access: https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/New-York-Convention-E.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  711. Federal Arbitration Act of 1947 (to access: https://sccinstitute.com/media/37104/the-federal-arbitration-act-usa.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  712. Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (to access: https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/761131/download). Google Scholar öffnen
  713. The Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community of 25 March 1957. Google Scholar öffnen
  714. Council Regulation No 17/62, First Regulation Implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty [now Articles 101 and 102 TFEU], [OJ 1962, No 87 28]. Google Scholar öffnen
  715. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2821/71 of the Council of 20 December 1971 on application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty [now Article 101(3) TFEU] to categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices, [OJ 1971, No. L 285]. Google Scholar öffnen
  716. Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law of 9 December 1997 [OJ 1997, No. C 372/5]. Google Scholar öffnen
  717. Notice on the application of the competition rules to access agreements in the telecommunications sector of 22 August 1998 [OJ 1998, No. C265/02]. Google Scholar öffnen
  718. Notice pursuant to Article 19(3) of Council Regulation No 17 (Î) of 9 January 1999 concerning Case No IV/F-1/36.160 (International Dental Exhibition). Google Scholar öffnen
  719. Commission, “White Paper on Modernisation of the Rules implementing Article 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty [now Articles 101 and 102 TFEU]” of 28 April 1999, [OJ 1999, No. C 132/01]. Google Scholar öffnen
  720. Notice published pursuant to Article 19(3) of Council Regulation No 17 of 13 June 2001 concerning Case No COMP/35.163 (Notification of FIA Regulations), Case No COMP/36.638 (Notification by FIA/FOA of agreements relating to the FIA Formula One World Championship), and Case No COMP/36.776 (GTR/FIA), sect. 6. Google Scholar öffnen
  721. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty [now Article 101 and 102 TFEU] [OJ 2003, No L 001]. Google Scholar öffnen
  722. Commission Recommendation concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises or any future recommendation replacing it of 20 May 2003, [OJ 2003, No. L 124]. Google Scholar öffnen
  723. The Commission – Notice – Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty [now Article 101 (3) TFEU] of 27 April 2004, [OJ 2004, No. C 101/97], para. 20. Google Scholar öffnen
  724. Commission Notice — Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty [now Articles 101 and 102 TFEU] of 27 April 2004, [OJ 2004, No. C 101/07]. Google Scholar öffnen
  725. Communication from the Commission — Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty [now Article 102 TFEU] to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings of 24 February 2009, [OJ 2009, No. C 45]. Google Scholar öffnen
  726. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1217/2010 of 14 December 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of research and development, [OJ 2010, No. L 335/36]. Google Scholar öffnen
  727. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1218/2010 of 14 December 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of specialisation agreements, [OJ 2010, No. L 335/43]. Google Scholar öffnen
  728. Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements of 14 January 2011, [OJ 2011, No. C 11/01]. Google Scholar öffnen
  729. Commission Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance which do not Appreciably Restrict Competition under Article 101(1) TFEU (de minimis) of 30 August 2014 [OJ 2014, No. C 291/1]. Google Scholar öffnen
  730. European Commission, IXth Report on Competition Policy, para. 22. Google Scholar öffnen
  731. National British Cattle and Sheep Breeders’ Association, Twenty-second Report on Competition Policy 1992, Annex III, p. 416. Google Scholar öffnen
  732. M. Monti, EC Commissioner for Competition, “The Future for Competition Policy in the European Union”, Speech, 9 July 2001, p.2 (europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-01-340_en.pdf); Google Scholar öffnen
  733. N. Kroes, EC Commissioner for Competition, “European Competition Policy – Delivering Better Markets and Better Choices”, Speech, 15 September 2005, p. 2 (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-05-512_en.htm). Google Scholar öffnen
  734. N. Kroes, EC Commissioner for Competition, “Preliminary Thoughts on Policy Review of Article 82”, Speech, 23 September 2005, p. 5 (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-05-537_en.htm?locale=en). Google Scholar öffnen
  735. E. Paulis, Deputy Director for the Directorate-General for Competition, “The Burden of Proof in Article 82 cases”, Speech, 6 September 2006, p. 5 (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/speeches/text/sp2006_014_en.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  736. N. Kroes, EC Commissioner for Competition, “Exclusionary abuses of dominance - the European Commission’s enforcement priorities”, Speech, 25 September 2008, p. 4 (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-08-457_en.htm?locale=en). Google Scholar öffnen
  737. The Site Terms and Conditions of Use (to access: https://www.nyddc.com/terms--conditions.html). Google Scholar öffnen
  738. DDC Bylaws (1999) (not publicly available). Google Scholar öffnen
  739. The World Federation of Diamond Bourses By-laws and Inner Rules (2016). Google Scholar öffnen
  740. The Articles of Association of the International Cotton Association (to access: https://www.ica-ltd.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Articles_Nov2018.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  741. Bylaws and Rules of the International Cotton Association Limited of 2018 (to access: https://www.ica-ltd.org/media/layout/documents/rulebooks/2018-11-rulebook-en.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  742. The General Rules and Regulations Applicable to All Members of 2017 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Membership/General_Rules_and_RegulationsApplicable_to_All_Members_2017.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  743. The General Rules and Regulations Applicable to all Members of 2017 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Membership/General_Rules_and_Regulations_Applicable_to_All_Members_2017.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  744. The Arbitration Rules No. 125 of 2018 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2018/125_2018.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  745. Gafta Rules - Mediation Rules & Agreement of 2014 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2014/128_2014.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  746. Simple Disputes Arbitration Rules No. 126 of 2010 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2010/126.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  747. Arbitration Rules No.127 For use with Charter Parties or Other Forms of Maritime Transport of 2014 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2014/127_2014.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  748. Rules and Code of Conduct for Qualified Arbitrators & Qualified Mediators (to access: https://www.gafta.com/Rules-and-Code-of-Conduct-for-Qualified-Arbitrators-Qualified-Mediators). Google Scholar öffnen
  749. Guidelines for GAFTA Appointment of Arbitrators (to access: https://www.gafta.com/Guidelines-for-Gafta-Appointment-of-Arbitrators). Google Scholar öffnen
  750. Mediation Rules No. 128 of 2012 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2012/128.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  751. The Contract for the Delivery of Goods Central and Eastern Europe in Bulk or Bags No. 49 of 2018 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2018/49_2018.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  752. The FCC Articles of Association (2017) (to access: https://www.cocoafederation.com/dashboard/documents/download/371). Google Scholar öffnen
  753. The FCC Arbitration and Appeal Rules of 2017 (to access: https://www.cocoafederation.com/dashboard/documents/freecontent/rules/arbitration-and-appeal/arbitration-appeal-rules/ENG). Google Scholar öffnen
  754. The Application Procedure to Join the FCC Arbitration and Appeal Panel of 2017 (to access: https://www.cocoafederation.com/dashboard/documents/download/382). Google Scholar öffnen
  755. Dispute Resolution Service: A Guide to FCC Arbitration of 2015 (to access: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjjrYja14HhAhWCyqQKHVmID60QFjABegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cocoafederation.com%2Fdashboard%2Fdocuments%2Fdownload%2F211&usg=AOvVaw38QHl1n8pHknBUKlz_6uof). Google Scholar öffnen
  756. The London Metal Exchange Rules and Regulations of 2019 (to access: https://www.lme.com/LME-Clear/Rules-and-regulations). Google Scholar öffnen
  757. The LME Articles of Association of 2013 (to access: https://www.lme.com/-/media/Files/LME-Clear/Governance/Approved-LMEC-Articles-of-Association.pdf?la=en-GB). Google Scholar öffnen
  758. The LME Rulebook of 2019 (to access: https://www.lme.com/-/media/Files/Regulation/Rulebook/Full-Rulebook/Rulebook-as-of-January-2019.pdf?la=en-GB). Google Scholar öffnen
  759. FOSFA Rules and Regulations of 2018 (to access: https://www.fosfa.org/about-us/rules-and-regulations/). Google Scholar öffnen
  760. FOSFA Rules of Arbitration and Appeal of 2018 (to access: https://www.fosfa.org/document-library/rules-of-arbitration-and-appeal-april-2018/). Google Scholar öffnen
  761. The FOSFA Rules of Brokerage Commission and Interest (2018) (to access: https://www.fosfa.org/document-library/rules-for-brokerage-commissions-and-interest-april-2018/). https://www.fosfa.org/arbitration/directory-of-fosfa-arbitrators/). Google Scholar öffnen
  762. FOSFA Code of Practice for Arbitrators of 2018 (to access: https://www.fosfa.org/content/uploads/2018/03/Code-of-Practice-for-Arbitrators-and-Time-Sheet-April-2018.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  763. FOSFA Guide to Arbitrations and Appeals of 2018 (to access: https://www.fosfa.org/content/uploads/2018/03/FOSFA-Guide-to-Arbitrations-and-Appeals-April-2018.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  764. GAFTA Contract No. 1 – General Contract for Shipment of Feeding Stuffs in Bags Tale Quale – CIF/CIFFO/C&F/C&FFO Terms of 2018. (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2018/1_2018.pdf). Google Scholar öffnen
  765. ICA, ICA membership directory, incorporating annual review. Google Scholar öffnen
  766. The London Metal Exchange, “A Guide to the LME”, The London Metal Exchange 2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  767. The London Metal Exchange, “A Guide to Trading LME”, The London Metal Exchange 2016. Google Scholar öffnen
  768. http://www.ica-ltd.org/. Google Scholar öffnen
  769. http://www.nyddc.com/. Google Scholar öffnen
  770. http://www.gafta.com/. Google Scholar öffnen
  771. http://www.cocoafederation.com/. Google Scholar öffnen
  772. https://www.lme.com/. Google Scholar öffnen
  773. http://www.fosfa.org/. Google Scholar öffnen
  774. http://www.cicca.info/. Google Scholar öffnen
  775. https://www.ica-ltd.org/about-ica/our-board/. Google Scholar öffnen
  776. https://www.ica-ltd.org/about-ica/. Google Scholar öffnen
  777. https://www.ica-ltd.org/safe-trading/member-search/. Google Scholar öffnen
  778. https://www.ica-ltd.org/arbitration/. Google Scholar öffnen
  779. https://www.ica-ltd.org/advanced-level-arbitrator-training/. Google Scholar öffnen
  780. https://www.ica-ltd.org/basic-level-arbitrator-training/. Google Scholar öffnen
  781. https://www.ica-ltd.org/safe-trading/loua-part-one/. Google Scholar öffnen
  782. https://www.nyddc.com/contact-us.html. Google Scholar öffnen
  783. https://www.diamondintelligence.com/magazine/magazine.aspx?id=9862. Google Scholar öffnen
  784. https://www.nyddc.com/terms--conditions.html. Google Scholar öffnen
  785. https://www.nyddc.com/membership.html. Google Scholar öffnen
  786. https://www.nyddc.com/arbitration. Google Scholar öffnen
  787. https://www.wfdb.com/diamond-dealers-club. Google Scholar öffnen
  788. https://www.nyddc.com/officers.html. Google Scholar öffnen
  789. https://www.nyddc.com/membership.html. Google Scholar öffnen
  790. https://www.nyddc.com/membership.html. Google Scholar öffnen
  791. http://www.nyddc.com/uploads/2/3/7/3/23730718/ddc_membership_application.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  792. https://www.wfdb.com/. Google Scholar öffnen
  793. https://www.wfdb.com/wfdb-bourses. Google Scholar öffnen
  794. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/06/archives/the-citys-most-exclusive-club.html. Google Scholar öffnen
  795. https://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=49902&ArticleTitle=New+York+Adapting+to+Changing+Diamond+Market. Google Scholar öffnen
  796. https://www.gafta.com/about. Google Scholar öffnen
  797. https://www.gafta.com/Membership. Google Scholar öffnen
  798. https://www.gafta.com/Council. Google Scholar öffnen
  799. https://www.gafta.com/Staff/75508. https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Arbitration/Gafta_Qualified_Arbitrator_Status_201.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  800. https://www.gafta.com/Gafta-Professional-Development-GPD. Google Scholar öffnen
  801. https://www.gafta.com/Distance-Learning-Programme. Google Scholar öffnen
  802. https://www.gafta.com/Trade-Diploma. Google Scholar öffnen
  803. https://www.gafta.com/Gafta-Qualified-Arbitrators-Annual-Continuing-Professional-Development-GPD-Policy. Google Scholar öffnen
  804. https://www.gafta.com/about. Google Scholar öffnen
  805. https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Arbitration/Defaulters/Defaulters_on_Gafta_Awards_of_Arbitration_2011-present.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  806. https://www.cocoafederation.com/fcc/members. Google Scholar öffnen
  807. https://www.cocoafederation.com/membership/categories-of-membership. Google Scholar öffnen
  808. https://www.cocoafederation.com/services/arbitration/arbitration. Google Scholar öffnen
  809. https://www.cocoafederation.com/dashboard/documents/download/211. Google Scholar öffnen
  810. https://www.cocoafederation.com/services/arbitration/defaulters. Google Scholar öffnen
  811. https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Trading/Trading-venues/Ring#tabIndex=0. Google Scholar öffnen
  812. https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Trading/Systems/LMEselect#tabIndex=0. Google Scholar öffnen
  813. https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Trading/Access-the-market/Membership-categories#tabIndex=0. Google Scholar öffnen
  814. https://www.lme.com/en-GB/About/Regulation/Arbitration#tabIndex=0. Google Scholar öffnen
  815. https://www.lme.com/About/Regulation/Arbitration/Arbitration-panel. Google Scholar öffnen
  816. https://www.lme.com/About/Regulation/Arbitration#tabIndex=1). Google Scholar öffnen
  817. https://uk.globaldatabase.com/company/federation-of-oils-seeds-and-fats-associations-limited. Google Scholar öffnen
  818. http://www.datalog.co.uk/browse/detail.php/CompanyNumber/00926329/CompanyName/FEDERATION+OF+OILS+SEEDS+AND+FATS+ASSOCIATIONS+LIMITED. Google Scholar öffnen
  819. https://www.fosfa.org/about-us/officers-of-the-federation/. Google Scholar öffnen
  820. https://www.fosfa.org/membership/categories-of-membership/. Google Scholar öffnen
  821. https://www.fosfa.org/document-library/rules-for-small-claims-single-tier-april-2018/. Google Scholar öffnen
  822. https://www.fosfa.org/arbitration/posted-companies/. Google Scholar öffnen
  823. https://www.ica-ltd.org/media/layout/documents/publications/lca_econtract.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  824. https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2018/1_2018.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  825. https://www.cocoafederation.com/dashboard/documents/freecontent/rules/cocoa-beans/contract-rules-for-cocoa-beans/ENG. Google Scholar öffnen
  826. https://www.lme.com/-/media/Files/Metals/Precious-Metals/LMEprecious/LMEprecious-Contract-Specifications.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  827. https://www.lme.com/en-GB/About/Regulation/Arbitration#tabIndex=2. Google Scholar öffnen
  828. http://www.rheinische-warenboerse.de/upload/Contract_No_26_2822.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  829. https://www.wfdb.com/media-news-press/news-headlines/370-ddc-announces-new-initiative-to-safeguard-diamond-transactions. Google Scholar öffnen
  830. www2.ef.jcu.cz/~sulista/pages/kdfp/BUEN1-1.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  831. https://thebusinessprofessor.com/knowledge-base/the-sherman-act-antitrust-law/. Google Scholar öffnen
  832. https://www.ica-ltd.org/safe-trading/loua-part-one/. Google Scholar öffnen
  833. http://www.africotton.org/aca/en/. Google Scholar öffnen
  834. http://english.china-cotton.org/. Google Scholar öffnen
  835. http://acsa-cotton.org/). Google Scholar öffnen
  836. http://www.cicca.info/member_associations.php. Google Scholar öffnen
  837. http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/cotton/traders/trading-rules.aspx. Google Scholar öffnen
  838. https://www.nyddc.com/about-the-ddc.html. Google Scholar öffnen
  839. http://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-18/business/fi-1708_1_diamond-prices. Google Scholar öffnen
  840. http://www.heritagediamonds.net/antwerp-diamond-bourse/. Google Scholar öffnen
  841. https://www.auction-house.ru/en/news_analytics/rynok-almazov-mira/. Google Scholar öffnen
  842. https://www.icco.org/about-cocoa/trading-a-shipping.html. Google Scholar öffnen
  843. https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/brief-united-states-and-federal-trade-commission-amici-curiae-supporting-0. Google Scholar öffnen
  844. https://www.nyddc.com/ddc-news--events/rapaport-qa-with-david-lasher-managing-director-of-the-new-york-diamond-dealers-club. Google Scholar öffnen
  845. https://www.nyddc.com/ddc-news—events. Google Scholar öffnen
  846. Decision n° 98-D-73 of 25 November 1998 on a referral and a request for interim measures submitted by the National Employers' Union of dental technicians. Google Scholar öffnen
  847. Decision N°05-D-33 of 27 June 2005 on practices implemented by Ilec., p. 6. Google Scholar öffnen
  848. Danish Competition Council of 30 January 2008, (Lokale Pengeinstitutter (the Association of Local Banks, Savings Banks and Cooperative Banks in Denmark; the Association) Pharmaceutische Handelsconventie’ (PHC), Eighth Report on Competition Policy 1978, p. 73. Google Scholar öffnen

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus dem Schwerpunkt "Europarecht & Internationales Recht & Rechtsvergleichung", "Handelsrecht & Wirtschaftsrecht & Gesellschaftsrecht"
Cover des Buchs: Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Yannis Ockernahl
Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Cover des Buchs: Der forderungslose Anfechtungsgegner
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Paul Goes
Der forderungslose Anfechtungsgegner
Cover des Buchs: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover des Buchs: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover des Buchs: Materielle Fusionskontrolle auf digitalen Märkten
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Tobias Gawaz
Materielle Fusionskontrolle auf digitalen Märkten

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login via Open Athens
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex