Cover of book: Nonlegal Sanctioning in Private Legal Systems
Monograph Open Access Full access

Nonlegal Sanctioning in Private Legal Systems

Limits in US Antitrust Law and EU Competition Law
Authors:
Publisher:
 2021

Summary

Some modern-day trade associations in commodities industries have complex systems of private commercial enforcement. These associations impose nonlegal sanctions on disloyal industry actors for not complying with awards stemming from specialized commercial arbitration after a business conflict. These extrajudicial measures undermine states’ rights to enact formal legal rules, and could violate US Antitrust Law and EU Competition Law. Yet, they could be viewed as a viable alternative to lengthy and expensive court litigation. This book provides best practice guidelines to highlight under what conditions nonlegal sanctions imposed by a trade association and executed by its members do not violate US Antitrust Law and EU Competition Law.

Bibliographic data

Edition
1/2021
Copyright Year
2021
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8164-5
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2624-5
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Wirtschaftsrecht und Wirtschaftspolitik
Volume
306
Language
English
Pages
518
Product Type
Monograph

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 24 Download chapter (PDF)
  2. Introduction 25 - 34 Download chapter (PDF)
  3. Download chapter (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 chapter (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 chapter (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 chapter (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 chapter (PDF)

Bibliography (848)

  1. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  2. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  3. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  4. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  5. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  6. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  7. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  8. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  9. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  10. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  11. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  12. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  13. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  14. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  15. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  16. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  17. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  18. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  19. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  20. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  21. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  22. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  23. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  24. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  25. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  26. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  27. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  28. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  29. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  30. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  31. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  32. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  33. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  34. 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  35. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  36. Commission Decision of 5 December 2001, Case No IV/37.614/F3 PO (Interbrew and Alken-Maes), para. 223. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  37. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  38. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  39. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  40. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  41. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  42. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  43. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  44. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  45. Commission Decision of 19 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, Case No AT.39864 (BASF), para. 26. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  46. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  47. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  48. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  49. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  50. CFI 10 July 1990, Case T-51/89 (Tetra Pak Rausing SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1990] ECR II-309, para. 42. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  51. CFI 12 December 1991, Case T-30/89 (Hilti AG v. Commission of the European Communities), [1991] ECR II-1439, para. 92, 118. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  52. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  53. CFI 2 July 1992, Case T-61/89 (Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening v. Commission of the European Communities), [1992] ECR II-1931, para. 64, 78. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  54. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  55. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  56. CFI 15 July 1994, Case T-17/93 (Matra Hachette SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1994] ECR II-595, para. 85, 135. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  57. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  58. CFI 6 April 1995, Case T-141/89 (Tréfileurope Sales SARL v. Commission of the European Communities), [1995] ECR II-791, para. 96. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  59. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  60. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  61. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  62. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  63. CFI 21 March 2001, Case T-206/99 (Métropole Television SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [2001] ECR II-1057, para. 37. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  64. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  65. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  66. CFI 6 June 2002, case T-342/99 (Airtours plc. v. Commission of the European Communities), [2002] ECR II-2585, para. 62. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  67. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  68. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  69. CFI 17 December 2003, Case T-219/99 (British Airways plc v. Commission of the European Communities), [2003] ECR II-05917, para. 293. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  70. CFI 26 January 2005, Case T-193/02 (Laurent Piau v. Commission of the European Communities), [2005] ECR II-209, para. 111. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  71. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  72. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  73. CFI 27 September 2006, Case T-204/03 (Haladjian Frères v Commission), [2006], ECR II-03779, para. 28, 34, 36. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  74. CFI 12 December 2006, Case T-155/04 (SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v. Commission of the European Communities), [2006] ECR II-04797, para. 50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  75. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  76. CFI 1 July 2008, case T‑276/04 (Compagnie Maritime Belge SA v. Commission of the European Communities), [2008] ECR II-1277. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  77. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  78. GC 1 July 2010, Case T-321/05 (AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc v. European Commission), [2010] ECR II-2805, para. 360, 824, 826. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  79. GC 23 November 2011, Case T-320/07 (Jones et al v. Commission), [2011], ECR II-00417, para. 115. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  80. GC 24 May 2012, Case T-111/08 (MasterCard, Inc. et al v. European Commission), [2012] ECR II-000, para. 87. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  81. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  82. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  83. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  84. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  85. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  86. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  87. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  88. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  89. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  90. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  91. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  92. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  93. ECJ 12 December 1967, Case C-23/67 (SA Brasserie de Haecht v. Consorts Wilkin-Janssen), [1967] ECR 525, p. 415. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  94. ECJ 9 July 1969, Case 5-69 (Franz Völk v S.P.R.L. Ets J. Vervaecke), [1969] ECR 295, para. 5-7. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  95. ECJ 25 November 1971, Case 22-71 (Béguelin Import Co. v. S.A.G.L. Import Export), [1971] ECR 949, para. 17, 29. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  96. ECJ 14 July 1972, Case 48/69 (Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Commission of the European Communities), [1972] ECR 619, para. 64. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  97. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  98. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  99. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  100. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  101. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  102. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  103. ECJ 20 February 1979, Case C-120/78 (Rewe Zentrale v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein), [1979] ECR 649. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  104. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  105. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  106. ECJ 8 June 1982, Case 258/78 (L.C. Nungesser KG and Kurt Eisele v. Commission of the European Communities), [1982] ECR 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  107. ECJ 9 November 1983, Case 322/81 (NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v. Commission of the European Communities), [1983] ECR 3461, para. 57. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  108. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  109. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  110. ECJ 30 January 1985, Case 123/83 (Bureau national interprofessionnel du cognac v. Guy Clair), [1985] ECR 391, para. 22. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  111. ECJ 11 July 1985, Case 42/84 (Remia BV et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [1985] ECR 2566, para. 22. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  112. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  113. ECJ 28 January 1986, Case 161/84 (Pronuptia de Paris GmbH v. Pronuptia de Paris Irmgard Schillgallis), [1986] ECR 353. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  114. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  115. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  116. ECJ 16 June 1987, Case 118/85 (Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic), [1987] ECR 2599, para. 7. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  117. ECJ 23 April 1991, Case C-41/90 (Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH), [1991] ECR I-1979, para. 21. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  118. ECJ 3 July 1991, Case C-62/86 (AKZO Chemie BV v. Commission of the European Communities), [1991] ECR I-3359, para. 60. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  119. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  120. ECJ 27 April 1994, Case C-393/92 (Municipality of Almelo et al v. NV Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij), [1994] ECR I-1477, para. 42. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  121. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  122. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  123. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  124. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  125. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  126. ECJ 18 March 1997, Case C-343/95 (Cali e Figli), [1997] ECR I-1547, para. 22-23. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  127. ECJ 17 July 1997, Case C-219/95P (Ferriere Nord SpA v. Commission of the European Communities), [1997] ECR I-04411, para. 19. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  128. ECJ 11 December 1997, Case C-55/96 (Job Centre coop. arl.), [1997] ECR I-7119, para. 21. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  129. ECJ 28 May 1998, C-7/95P John Deere Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities), [1998] ECR I-311, para. 77. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  130. ECJ 18 June 1998, Case C-35/96 (Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic), [1998] ECR I-3851, para. 36. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  131. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  132. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  133. ECJ 1 June 1999, Case 126/97 (Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV), [1999] ECR I-3055, para 37. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  134. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  135. ECJ 8 July 1999, case C-199/92P (Hüls AG v. Commisson of the European Communities), [1999] ECR I-4287, para. 163-166. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  136. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  137. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  138. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  139. ECJ 6 January 2004, joined cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01P (Bayer v. Commission), [2004] ECR I-23, para. 101-102. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  140. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  141. ECJ 19 January 2004, Case C-453/00 (Kühne & Heitz NV v. Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren), [2004] ECR I-837, para. 20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  142. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  143. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  144. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  145. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  146. ECJ 21 September 2006, Case C-167/04P (JCB Service v. Commission of the European Communities), [2006] ECR I-8935, para. 162-163. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  147. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  148. ECJ 25 January 2007, Case C-407/04P (Dalmine SpA v. Commission of the European Communities), [2007] ECR I‑829, para. 90. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  149. ECJ 15 March 2007, Case C-95/04P (British Airways plc v. Commission of the European Communities), [2007] ECR I-2331, para. 77. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  150. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  151. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  152. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  153. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  154. ECJ 10 September 2009, Case C‑97/08P (Akzo Nobel NV et al v. Commission of the European Communities), [2009] I-08237, para. 54. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  155. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  156. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  157. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  158. ECJ 7 February 2013, Case C-68/12 (Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky v. Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s), ECLI:EU:C:2013:71, para. 17. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  159. ECJ 28 February 2013, Case C-1/12 (Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas v. Autoridade da Concorrência), [2013] 4 CMLR 20, para. 99. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  160. ECJ 11 September 2014, Case C‑382/12P (MasterCard Inc. et al v. European Commission), [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2201, para. 242. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  161. ECJ 6 October 2015, Case C‑23/14 (Post Danmark A/S v. Konkurrencerådet), [2015] 651, p. 70-73. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  162. Article 281 of the Mainland CPL. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  163. The Companies Act 2006 (to access: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/pdfs/ukpga_20060046_en.pdf). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  164. The Human Rights Act 1988 (to access: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  165. The Arbitration Act 1996 of 17 June 1996. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  166. The Companies Act (to access: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/mesicic3_jam_companies.pdf). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  167. The Companies Act of 1989 (to access: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/40/contents). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  168. The Arbitration Act 1996 (to access: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  169. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  170. Zivilprozessordnung (to access: https://dejure.org/gesetze/ZPO). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  171. Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen of 2017 (to access: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gwb/BJNR252110998.html). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  172. Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb of 2019 (to access: https://dejure.org/gesetze/UWG). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  173. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  174. New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules of 1962 (to access: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  175. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  176. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  177. Federal Arbitration Act of 1947 (to access: https://sccinstitute.com/media/37104/the-federal-arbitration-act-usa.pdf). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  178. Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (to access: https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/761131/download). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  179. The Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community of 25 March 1957. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  180. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  181. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  182. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  183. Notice on the application of the competition rules to access agreements in the telecommunications sector of 22 August 1998 [OJ 1998, No. C265/02]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  184. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  185. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  186. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  187. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  188. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  189. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  190. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  191. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  192. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  193. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  194. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  195. 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]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  196. European Commission, IXth Report on Competition Policy, para. 22. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  197. National British Cattle and Sheep Breeders’ Association, Twenty-second Report on Competition Policy 1992, Annex III, p. 416. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  198. 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); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  199. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  200. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  201. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  202. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  203. The Site Terms and Conditions of Use (to access: https://www.nyddc.com/terms--conditions.html). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  204. DDC Bylaws (1999) (not publicly available). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  205. The World Federation of Diamond Bourses By-laws and Inner Rules (2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  206. The Articles of Association of the International Cotton Association (to access: https://www.ica-ltd.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Articles_Nov2018.pdf). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  207. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  208. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  209. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  210. The Arbitration Rules No. 125 of 2018 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2018/125_2018.pdf). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  211. Gafta Rules - Mediation Rules & Agreement of 2014 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2014/128_2014.pdf). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  212. Simple Disputes Arbitration Rules No. 126 of 2010 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2010/126.pdf). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  213. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  214. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  215. Guidelines for GAFTA Appointment of Arbitrators (to access: https://www.gafta.com/Guidelines-for-Gafta-Appointment-of-Arbitrators). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  216. Mediation Rules No. 128 of 2012 (to access: https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2012/128.pdf). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  217. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  218. The FCC Articles of Association (2017) (to access: https://www.cocoafederation.com/dashboard/documents/download/371). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  219. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  220. The Application Procedure to Join the FCC Arbitration and Appeal Panel of 2017 (to access: https://www.cocoafederation.com/dashboard/documents/download/382). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  221. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  222. The London Metal Exchange Rules and Regulations of 2019 (to access: https://www.lme.com/LME-Clear/Rules-and-regulations). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  223. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  224. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  225. FOSFA Rules and Regulations of 2018 (to access: https://www.fosfa.org/about-us/rules-and-regulations/). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  226. FOSFA Rules of Arbitration and Appeal of 2018 (to access: https://www.fosfa.org/document-library/rules-of-arbitration-and-appeal-april-2018/). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  227. 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/). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  228. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  229. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  230. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  231. ICA, ICA membership directory, incorporating annual review. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  232. The London Metal Exchange, “A Guide to the LME”, The London Metal Exchange 2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  233. The London Metal Exchange, “A Guide to Trading LME”, The London Metal Exchange 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  234. http://www.ica-ltd.org/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  235. http://www.nyddc.com/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  236. http://www.gafta.com/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  237. http://www.cocoafederation.com/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  238. https://www.lme.com/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  239. http://www.fosfa.org/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  240. http://www.cicca.info/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  241. https://www.ica-ltd.org/about-ica/our-board/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  242. https://www.ica-ltd.org/about-ica/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  243. https://www.ica-ltd.org/safe-trading/member-search/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  244. https://www.ica-ltd.org/arbitration/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  245. https://www.ica-ltd.org/advanced-level-arbitrator-training/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  246. https://www.ica-ltd.org/basic-level-arbitrator-training/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  247. https://www.ica-ltd.org/safe-trading/loua-part-one/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  248. https://www.nyddc.com/contact-us.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  249. https://www.diamondintelligence.com/magazine/magazine.aspx?id=9862. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  250. https://www.nyddc.com/terms--conditions.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  251. https://www.nyddc.com/membership.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  252. https://www.nyddc.com/arbitration. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  253. https://www.wfdb.com/diamond-dealers-club. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  254. https://www.nyddc.com/officers.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  255. https://www.nyddc.com/membership.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  256. https://www.nyddc.com/membership.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  257. http://www.nyddc.com/uploads/2/3/7/3/23730718/ddc_membership_application.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  258. https://www.wfdb.com/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  259. https://www.wfdb.com/wfdb-bourses. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  260. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/06/archives/the-citys-most-exclusive-club.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  261. https://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=49902&ArticleTitle=New+York+Adapting+to+Changing+Diamond+Market. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  262. https://www.gafta.com/about. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  263. https://www.gafta.com/Membership. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  264. https://www.gafta.com/Council. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  265. https://www.gafta.com/Staff/75508. https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Arbitration/Gafta_Qualified_Arbitrator_Status_201.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  266. https://www.gafta.com/Gafta-Professional-Development-GPD. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  267. https://www.gafta.com/Distance-Learning-Programme. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  268. https://www.gafta.com/Trade-Diploma. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  269. https://www.gafta.com/Gafta-Qualified-Arbitrators-Annual-Continuing-Professional-Development-GPD-Policy. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  270. https://www.gafta.com/about. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  271. https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Arbitration/Defaulters/Defaulters_on_Gafta_Awards_of_Arbitration_2011-present.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  272. https://www.cocoafederation.com/fcc/members. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  273. https://www.cocoafederation.com/membership/categories-of-membership. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  274. https://www.cocoafederation.com/services/arbitration/arbitration. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  275. https://www.cocoafederation.com/dashboard/documents/download/211. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  276. https://www.cocoafederation.com/services/arbitration/defaulters. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  277. https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Trading/Trading-venues/Ring#tabIndex=0. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  278. https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Trading/Systems/LMEselect#tabIndex=0. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  279. https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Trading/Access-the-market/Membership-categories#tabIndex=0. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  280. https://www.lme.com/en-GB/About/Regulation/Arbitration#tabIndex=0. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  281. https://www.lme.com/About/Regulation/Arbitration/Arbitration-panel. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  282. https://www.lme.com/About/Regulation/Arbitration#tabIndex=1). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  283. https://uk.globaldatabase.com/company/federation-of-oils-seeds-and-fats-associations-limited. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  284. http://www.datalog.co.uk/browse/detail.php/CompanyNumber/00926329/CompanyName/FEDERATION+OF+OILS+SEEDS+AND+FATS+ASSOCIATIONS+LIMITED. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  285. https://www.fosfa.org/about-us/officers-of-the-federation/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  286. https://www.fosfa.org/membership/categories-of-membership/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  287. https://www.fosfa.org/document-library/rules-for-small-claims-single-tier-april-2018/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  288. https://www.fosfa.org/arbitration/posted-companies/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  289. https://www.ica-ltd.org/media/layout/documents/publications/lca_econtract.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  290. https://www.gafta.com/write/MediaUploads/Contracts/2018/1_2018.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  291. https://www.cocoafederation.com/dashboard/documents/freecontent/rules/cocoa-beans/contract-rules-for-cocoa-beans/ENG. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  292. https://www.lme.com/-/media/Files/Metals/Precious-Metals/LMEprecious/LMEprecious-Contract-Specifications.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  293. https://www.lme.com/en-GB/About/Regulation/Arbitration#tabIndex=2. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  294. http://www.rheinische-warenboerse.de/upload/Contract_No_26_2822.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  295. https://www.wfdb.com/media-news-press/news-headlines/370-ddc-announces-new-initiative-to-safeguard-diamond-transactions. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  296. www2.ef.jcu.cz/~sulista/pages/kdfp/BUEN1-1.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  297. https://thebusinessprofessor.com/knowledge-base/the-sherman-act-antitrust-law/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  298. https://www.ica-ltd.org/safe-trading/loua-part-one/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  299. http://www.africotton.org/aca/en/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  300. http://english.china-cotton.org/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  301. http://acsa-cotton.org/). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  302. http://www.cicca.info/member_associations.php. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  303. http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/cotton/traders/trading-rules.aspx. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  304. https://www.nyddc.com/about-the-ddc.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  305. http://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-18/business/fi-1708_1_diamond-prices. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  306. http://www.heritagediamonds.net/antwerp-diamond-bourse/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  307. https://www.auction-house.ru/en/news_analytics/rynok-almazov-mira/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  308. https://www.icco.org/about-cocoa/trading-a-shipping.html. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  309. https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/brief-united-states-and-federal-trade-commission-amici-curiae-supporting-0. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  310. https://www.nyddc.com/ddc-news--events/rapaport-qa-with-david-lasher-managing-director-of-the-new-york-diamond-dealers-club. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  311. https://www.nyddc.com/ddc-news—events. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  312. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  313. Decision N°05-D-33 of 27 June 2005 on practices implemented by Ilec., p. 6. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  314. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  315. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  316. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  317. Akman, P, ““Consumer” versus “Customer”: the Devil in the Detail”, ESRC Centre for Competition Policy Working Paper No. 08-34 2008, p. 8. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  318. Areeda, P, “Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles”, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 58, No. 3 1989, p. 853. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  319. Armstrong, Jr., NA, Carroll, JD, and Yook, CC, “Sherman Act Section 1 Fundamentals”, LexisNexis 2019, p. 3. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  320. Association of Legal Administrators, “Antitrust Guide: For Members of the Association of Legal Administrators”, Association of Legal Administrators 2019, p. 1. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  321. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  322. Aviram, A, “The Paradox of Spontaneous Formation of Private Legal Systems”, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 192 2003, p. 1-72. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  323. Barber, CF, “Refusals to Deal under the Federal Antitrust Laws”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 103, No. 7 1955, p. 847. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  324. Behrens, P, “The ordoliberal concept of "abuse" of a dominant position and its impact on Article 102 TFEU”, Econstor 2015, p. 5, 20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  325. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  326. Bernstein, L, “Private Commercial Law in the Cotton Industry: Creating Cooperation Through Rules, Norms, and Institutions”, Michigan Law Review 2001, p. 7. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  327. Bird, CC, “Sherman Act Limitations on Noncommercial Concerted Refusals to Deal”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1970, No. 2 1970, p. 253-254. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  328. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  329. Bork, RH, “Legislative Intent and the Policy of the Sherman Act”, The Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 9 1966. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  330. Bossone, B, “The Role of Trust in Financial Sector Development”, Policy Research Working Paper 2200 1999, p. 18. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  331. Brodley, JF, “Antitrust Analysis of Joint Ventures: An Overview”, American Bar Association, Vol. 66, No. 3, 1998, p. 1526. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  332. Bruce, AB, “Bailliére's Encyclopædia of Scientific Agriculture”, Bailliér, Tindall and Cox 1931, p. 520. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  333. Calliess, G, and Zumbransen, P, “Rough Consensus and Running Code: A Theory of Transnational Private Law”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2010, p. 2110. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  334. Calliess, G, “Lex Mercatoria”, Zentra Working Papers in Transnational Studies No. 52 / 201 2015, p. 1-15. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  335. Calliess, G, “Lex mercatoria”, Encyclopedia of Private International Law 2017, p. 1119-1129. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  336. Chaplan, B, “The Economics of Non-State Legal Systems”, Libertarian Alliance 1997, p. 2, 13. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  337. Charny, D, “Nonlegal Sanctions in Commercial Relationships”, Harvard Law Review 1993, p. 392-393. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  338. Cheung, CMK, and Lee, MKO, “Online Consumer Reviews: Does Negative Electronic Word-of-Mouth Hurt More?”, Association for Information Systems 2008, p. 2. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  339. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  340. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  341. Dammann, J, and Hansmann, H, “Globalizing Commercial Litigation”, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 1 2008, p. 1. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  342. Drahozal, CR, “Private Ordering and International Commercial Arbitration”, Penn State Law Review, Vol. 113:4 2009, p. 1032. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  343. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  344. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  345. Geradin, D, and Petit, N, “Price Discrimination under EC Law: The Need for a Case-by-Case Approach”, Coleurope 2005, p. 15. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  346. Gerard, D, “Effects-based enforcement of Article 101 TFEU: the “object paradox””, Kluwer Competition Law Blog 2012, p. 1. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  347. Goldman, B, “Frontières du Droit et Lex Mercatoria”, Arch. De Philosophie Du Droit 1964, p. 177-192. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  348. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  349. Haddock, GB, “The Right of Trade Associations to Deny Membership and to Expel Members”, Antitrust Bulletin Vol. 13 1968, p. 555-556. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  350. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  351. Hatzopoulos, V, “The EU essential facilities doctrine”, College of Europe 2006, p. 19-20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  352. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  353. Heyer, K, “Consumer Welfare and the Legacy of Robert Bork”, The University of Chicago Press 2014, p. 20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  354. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  355. Hovenkamp, HJ, “The Rule of Reason”, Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository 2018, p. 96. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  356. ICN Advocacy Working Group, “Explaining the Benefits of Competition to the General Public”, International Competition Network 2017, p. 3. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  357. Jones, TT, and Pickering, JF, “The Consumer’s Interest in Competition Policy”, Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 1979, p. 98. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  358. Jones, A, “The Boundaries of an Undertaking in EU Competition Law”, European Competition Journal 2015, p. 302. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  359. Kahn, AE, “Market Power and Economic Growth: Guides to Public Policy”, Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 8 1963. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  360. Katz, ED, “Private Order and Public Institutions”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 8 2000, p. 2482. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  361. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  362. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  363. Kube, S, and Traxler, C, “The interaction of legal and social norm enforcement”, Journal of Public Economic Theory 2010, p. 1. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  364. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  365. Lévesque, G-H, “The Concrete Characteristics of Laissez-Faire Capitalism”, Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, Vol. 5, No. 5, 1950, p. 41-42. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  366. Lörcher, T, Pendell, G, and Lowery, W, “CMS Guide to Arbitration, Vol. 1”, CMS Legal Services EEIG 2012, p. 521. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  367. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  368. Mark, W, and Weidemaier, C, “Toward a Theory of Precedent in Arbitration”, William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 51, Is. 5 2010, p. 1901. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  369. Mazzacano, P, “The Lex Mercatoria as Autonomous Law”, Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy Research Paper No. 29 2008, p. 1. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  370. McMillan, J, and Woodruf, C, “Private Order under Dysfunctional Public Order”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 8 2000, p. 2421. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  371. Michaels, R, “The True Lex Mercatoria: Law Beyond the State”, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 14 2007, p. 448. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  372. Möschel, W, “Competition Policy from an Ordo Point of View”, German Neo-Liberals and the Social Market Economy 1989, p. 146. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  373. Newman, JM, “Procompetitive Justifications in Antitrust Law”, Social Science Research Network 2017, p. 7. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  374. Nicolaides, P, “The balancing myth: The Economics of Article 81(1) & (3)”, Legal Issues of Economic Integration 2005, p. 134-143. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  375. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  376. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  377. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “The Essential Facilities Concept”, OCDE/GD(96)113 1996, p. 97. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  378. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Latin American Competition Forum”, DAF/COMP/LACF 2011, p. 21. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  379. Ottervanger, T, “Socially Responsible Competition: Competition law in a changing society”, Markt & Mededinging 2010, p. 9. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  380. Peyt, H, and Nørager, N, “Current Developments in Member States”, European Competition Journal 4 2008, p. 332. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  381. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  382. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  383. Post, RC, “The Social Foundations of Defamation Law: Reputation and the Constitution”, California Law Review, Vol. 74, No. 691 1986, p. 692. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  384. Pritchard, JR, “Oilseed quality requirements for processing”, Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 1983, p. 322. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  385. Prüfer, J, “Business Associations and Private Ordering”, TILEC Discussion Paper 2012, p. 4. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  386. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  387. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  388. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  389. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  390. Routledge, “Code-Sharing Agreements in Scheduled Passenger Air Transport–The European Competition Authorities' Perspective”, European Competition Journal 2006, p. 279. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  391. Salop, SC, “Exclusionary Conduct, Effect on Consumers, and the Flawed Profit-Sacrifice Standard”, 73 Antitrust L. J. 2006, p. 330. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  392. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  393. SBD, “De Belgische Diamentnijverheid”, Algemene vergadering van SBD 2014, p. 7. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  394. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  395. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  396. Stucke, ME, “Does the Rule of Reason Violate the Rule of Law?”, U.C. Davis Law Review, Vol. 42 2009, p. 1422. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  397. Sussman, E, and Wilkinson, J, “Benefits Of Arbitration for Commercial Disputes”, Dispute Resolution Magazine 2012. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  398. The Yale Law Journal Company, “Intra-Enterprise Conspiracy under the Sherman Act”, The Yale Law Journal Company, Vol. 63, No. 3 1954, p. 372. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  399. TradeAssociationForum, “The Benefits of Trade Associations”, TradeAssociationForum 2009, p. 2, 4. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  400. Trenz, M, and Berger, B, “Analyzing Online Customer Reviews – An Interdisciplinary Literature Review and Research Agenda”, ECIS 2013, p. 2. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  401. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  402. van Cleynenbreugel, P, “Single Entity Tests in US Antitrust and EU Competition Law”, Orbi 2011, p. 6. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  403. van Erp, J, “Reputational Sanctions in Private and Public Regulation”, Erasmus Law Review, Vol. 1, Is. 5 2009, p. 146. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  404. Velkar, A, ”‘Deep’ integration of 19th century grain markets: coordination and standardisation in a global value chain”, London School of Economics 2010, p. 24. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  405. Waller, SP, “Areeda, Epithets, and Essential Facilities”, Wisconsin Law Review 2008, p. 368. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  406. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  407. Weitbrecht, A, “From Freiburg to Chicago and Beyond—the First 50 Years of European Competition Law”, European Competition Law Review 2008, p. 85. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  408. Williams, KD, “Ostracism”, Annual Review of Psychology 2007, p. 428. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  409. Willis Towers Wadson, “Preserving Your Reputation”, Willis Alert, Issue 17 2011, p. 3. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  410. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  411. Zirhlioglu, E, “The Diamond Industry and the Industry’s Dispute Resolution Mechanisms”, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 2013, p. 4. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  412. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  413. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  414. Akman, P, “The Concept of Abuse in EU Competition Law: Law and Economic Approaches”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2012, [abstract], p. 59, 63, 127. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  415. Al-Ameen, A, “Antitrust: The Person-centred Approach”, Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer International Publishing, Switzerland 2014, p. 73. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  416. Albors-Llorens, A, “EC Competition Law and Policy”, Abingdon: Routledge 2002, p. 152. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  417. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  418. Allensworth, RH, “The Commensurability Myth in Antitrust”, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 1 2016, p. 5 (citation 7). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  419. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  420. American Bar Association, “Antitrust & Trade Associations: How Trade Regulation Laws Apply to Trade and Professional Associations”, Chicago: American Bar Association 1996, p. 62. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  421. American Bar Association, “Model Jury Instructions in Civil Antitrust Cases”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2005, p. C-35. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  422. American Bar Association, “Joint Ventures: Antitrust Analysis of Collaborations Among Competitors”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2006, p. 102. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  423. American Bar Association, “Antitrust and Associations Handbook”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2009, p. 64, 68-69. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  424. American Bar Association, “Model Jury Instructions in Criminal Antitrust Cases”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2009, p. 71-75. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  425. American Bar Association, “Antitrust Health Care Handbook, Fourth Edition”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2010, p. 50-51. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  426. American Bar Association, “Federal Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2010, p. 71. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  427. American Bar Association, “Proof of Conspiracy under Federal Antitrust Laws”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2010, p. 24. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  428. Andenas, M, Marsden, P, and Hutchings, M, “Current Competition Law Volume II”, London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2004, p. 359. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  429. Anderman, SD, “The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 40. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  430. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  431. Andrews, N, “Arbitration and Contract Law”, Basel: Springer International Publishing 2016, p. 130, 140. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  432. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  433. Anonymous, “How to Deal with Negative Electronic Word-Of-Mouth?”, Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag 2011, p. 4. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  434. Antwerp World Diamond Centre, “Antwerp Diamond Masterplan – Diamonds love Antwerp 2020”, Antwerp World Diamond Centre 2012, p. 5, 69, 148, 154. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  435. Applewhite, TH, “Proceedings of the World Conference on Lauric Oils: Sources, Processing, and Application”, Champaign: AOCS Press 1994, p. 29. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  436. Areeda, PE, and Hovenkamp, H, “Antitrust Law –Vol. 3”, New York: Aspen Publishers 2008, p. 446. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  437. Aspen Publishers, “Antitrust: Keyed to Pitofsky, Goldschmid, and Wood's Trade Regulation: Cases and Materials Fifth Edition”, New York: Aspen Publishers 2004, p. 71. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  438. Aspen Publishers, “Antitrust”, New York: Aspen Publishers 2004, p. 38. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  439. Atkin, M, “The International Grain Trade”, Abington: Woodhead Publishing 1995, p. 111, 113. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  440. Atkinson, B, and John, S, “Studying Economics”, Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2001, p. 9. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  441. Baffes, J, Larson, DF, and Varangis, P, “Commodity Market Reforms: Lessons of Two Decades”, Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction 2001, p. 38. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  442. Baker, HD, and Jursa, M, “Documentary Sources in Ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman Economic History”, Oxford/Philadelphia: Oxbow Books 2014, p. 147. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  443. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  444. Banks, E, “Exchange-Traded Derivatives”, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons 2003, p. 105-106. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  445. Barak, A, “The Judge in a Democracy”, Princeton/Woodstock: Princeton University Press 2006, p. 113. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  446. Barnard, C, and Peers, S, “European Union Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017, p. 521. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  447. Barton, J, and Smith, RH, “The Handbook for the New Legal Writer”, New York: Wolters Kluwer 2019, p. 345. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  448. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  449. Bavasso, A, “Communications in EU Law: Antitrust Market Power and Public Interest”, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2003, p. 164. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  450. Beckert, S, “Empire of Cotton: A Global History”, New York: Vintage Books 2014, p. 40. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  451. Beckett, ST, “Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use – Fourth Edition”, Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing 2009, p. 25. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  452. Beckett, ST, Fowler, MS, and Ziegler, GR, “Beckett's Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use – Fifth Edition”, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell 2017, p. 28. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  453. Beggs-Humphreys, M, Gregor, H, and Humphreys, D, “The Industrial Revolution”, Abingdon: Routledge 1959, p. 27. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  454. Berman, HJ, “Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition”, Cambridge/London: Cambridge University Press 1983, p. 519. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  455. Berman, PS, “Global Legal Pluralism: A Jurisprudence Of Law Beyond Borders”, New York: Cambridge University Press 2012, p. 13. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  456. Bernholz, P, and Vaubel, R, “Explaining Monetary and Financial Innovation: A Historical Analysis”, Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer International Publishing 2014, p. 267. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  457. Berry, E, Homewood, M, J, Bogusz, B, “Complete EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017, p. 596, 610. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  458. Bhatia, V, K, Garzone, G, and Degano, C, “Arbitration Awards: Generic Features and Textual Realisations”, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2012, p. 177. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  459. Binmore, K, “Game Theory and the Social Contract: Playing Fair”, Cambridge/London: The MIT Press 1994, p. 112. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  460. Bittman, JB, “Trading and Hedging with Agricultural Futures and Options”, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons 2013, p. 2. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  461. Blair, RD, and Sokol, DD, “The Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics – Vol. 2”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015, p. 156. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  462. Blanco, LO, “Shipping Conferences under EC Antitrust Law: Criticism of a Legal Paradox”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2007, p. 375. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  463. Blanco, LO, “Market Power in EU Antitrust Law”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2011, p. 22, 56, 104, 106-107 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  464. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  465. Bogart, JH, “Circuit Conflicts in Antitrust Litigation”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2009, p. 34. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  466. Boisson de Chazournes, L, Kohen, M, and Viñuales, JE, “Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement”, Leiden/Boston: Koninklijke Brill NV 2013, p. 273. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  467. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  468. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  469. Branch, AE, “International Purchasing and Management”, London: Thomson 2000, p. 63. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  470. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  471. Bussani, M, and Sebok, AJ, “Comparative Tort Law: Global Perspectives”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2015, p. 18. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  472. Cafaggi, F, “Enforcement of Transnational Regulation: Ensuring Compliance in a Global World”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2012, p. 218. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  473. Cahill, D, Power, V, and Connery, N, “European Law”, New York: Oxford University Press 2011, p. 164. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  474. Camerer, CF, “Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction”, Princeton/Woodstock: Princeton University Press 2003, p. 445. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  475. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  476. Carter, JH, and Fellas, J, “International Commercial Arbitration in New York”, New York: Oxford University Press 2010, p. 16. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  477. Candlin, CN, “Discourse and Practice in International Commercial Arbitration: Issues, Challenges, and Prospects”, London/New York: Routledge 2016, p. 265. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  478. Castleman, M, “The New Healing Herbs: The Classic Guide to Nature's Best Medicines”, Emmaus: Rodale 2001, p. 140. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  479. Chander, K, “Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Commerce: Volume 3”, New Delhi: Sarup & Sons 1999, p. 780. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  480. Chatnani, NN, “Commodity Markets: Operations, Instruments, and Applications”, New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill 2010, p. 4. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  481. Chen, K, and Fadlalla, A, “Online Consumer Protection: Theories of Human Relativism: Theories of Human Relativism”, New York: IGI Global 2009, p. 278. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  482. Chew, DH, “Corporate Risk Management”, New York: Columbia University Press 2008, p. 28. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  483. Cirace, J, “Law, Economics, and Game Theory”, London: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 2018, p. 113-119, 238. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  484. Clarke, J, “Managing Better: Becoming a Limited Company”, Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency 1996, p. 2, 371. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  485. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  486. Colino, SM, “Competition Law of the EU and UK”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019, p. 393. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  487. Crooks, E, “The Unrelenting Machine: A Legacy of the Industrial Revolution”, Morrisville: Lulu 2012, p. 65. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  488. Cross, FB, and Miller, RL, “The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases – Tenth Edition”, Boston: Cengage Learning 2018, p. 571. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  489. Cruz, JB, “Between Competition and Free Movement”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2002, p. 89. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  490. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  491. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  492. Dabbah, MM, “EC and UK Competition Law: Commentary, Cases and Materials”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004, p. 69, 105, 330, 351. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  493. Dabbah, MM, “International and Comparative Competition Law”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010, p. 71. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  494. Dabbah, MM, “Module B: Abuse of a dominant position”, London: University of London Press 2012, p. 33 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  495. Dand, R, “The International Cocoa Trade”, New York: Woodhead Publishing 1996, p. 82-83. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  496. Dand, R, “The International Cocoa Trade”, Cambridge/Philadelphia/New Delhi: Woodhead Publishing 2011, p. 97-98. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  497. Davies, K, “Understanding European Union Law”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge 2016, p. 54. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  498. Diebold, NF, “Non-Discrimination in International Trade in Services: ‘Likeness' in WTO/GATS”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010, p. 277. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  499. Dietz, T, “Global Order Beyond Law: How Information and Communication Technologies Facilitate Relational Contracting in International Trade”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, p. 192. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  500. DiMatteo, LA, “International Business Law and the Legal Environment: A Transactional Approach”, Abingdon: Routledge 2016, p. 251. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  501. DiMatteo, LA, “International Business Law and the Legal Environment: A Transactional Approach”, New York/London: Routledge 2017, p. 127. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  502. Dixit, AK, “Lawlessness and Economics: Alternative Modes of Governance”, Princeton: Princeton University 2004, p. 4, 60-61. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  503. Dolmans, M, “The Dominance and Monopolies Review”, London: Law Business Research Ltd 2014, p. 368, 373. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  504. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  505. Drexl, J, Grimes, WS, and Jones, CA, “More Common Ground for International Competition Law?”, Chelthenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2011, p. 52. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  506. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  507. Drexl, J, and Di Porto, F, “Competition Law as Regulation”, Chelthenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2015, p. 296. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  508. Dubowski, T, “Białystok Law Books 2 Constitutional Law Of The European Union”, Bialystok: Temida 2 2011, p. 116-120. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  509. Duncan, R, “Agricultural Futures and Options: A Guide to Using North American and European markets”, Abington: Woodhead Publishing 1992, p. 53-54, 109. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  510. Dunne, N, “Competition Law and Economic Regulation: Making and Managing Markets”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2015, p. 177. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  511. Duns, J, Duke, A, and Sweeney, B, “Comparative Competition Law”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2015, p. 172. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  512. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  513. Ehlermann, C, and Gosling, L, “European Competition Law Annual 1998: Regulating Communications Markets”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2000, p. 476. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  514. Ehlermann, C, and Atanasiu, I, “European Competition Law Annual 2000: The Modernisation of EC Antitrust Policy”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2000, p. 141. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  515. Ehlermann, C, and Atanasiu, I, “European Competition Law Annual 2002: Constructing the EU Network of Competition Authorities”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2004, p. 261. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  516. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  517. Ehlermann, C, and Marquis, M, “European Competition Law Annual 2007: A Reformed Approach to Article 82 EC”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2008, p. xxv. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  518. Elcin, M, “Lex Mercatoria in International Arbitration Theory and Practice”, Vol. 1, Florence: Mert Elcin 2012, p. 5. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  519. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  520. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  521. Epstein, RA, “Contract - Freedom and Restraint: Liberty, Property, and the Law”, New York/Abingdon: Routledge 2000, p. 393, 363-364, 369. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  522. Erickson, DR, “Practical Handbook of Soybean Processing and Utilization”, Urbana: AOCS Press 1995, p. 50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  523. Ezraichi, A, “Article 82 EC: Reflections on its Recent Evolution”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2009, p. 124. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  524. Ezrachi, A, “EU Competition Law: An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2014, p. 33. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  525. Fatur, A, “EU Competition Law and the Information and Communication Technology Network Industries”, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2012, p. 112 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  526. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  527. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  528. Foster, N, “Blackstone's EU Treaties and Legislation 2014-2015”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, p. 609. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  529. Foster, N, “Foster on EU Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015, p. 381. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  530. Frederick, DA, “Antitrust Status of Farmer Cooperatives: The Story of the Capper-Volstead Act”, Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture 2002, p. 84. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  531. Frenz, W, “Handbook of EU Competition Law”, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016, p. 270. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  532. 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  533. Gabel, D, and Weiman, DF, “Opening Networks to Competition: The Regulation and Pricing of Access”, New York: Springer Science+Business Media 1998, p. 190. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  534. Galgano, F, “Lex mercatoria: storia del diritto commerciale”, Munich: Il Mulino 1993. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  535. Geradin, D, Layne-Farrar, A, and Petit, N, “EU Competition Law and Economics”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012, p. 1-134. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  536. Gerber, DJ, “Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1998, p. 264. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  537. Gert, B, “Morality: Its Nature and Justification”, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press 1998, p. 120. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  538. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  539. Gharavi, H, and Liebscher, C, “The International Effectiveness of the Annulment of an Arbitral Award”, The Hague: Kluwer law International 2002, p. 34. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  540. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  541. Givens, RA, “Antitrust: An Economic Approach”, New York: Law Journal Press 2005, p. 4-48.28. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  542. Comanor, GW, Jacquemin, K, and Jenny, A, “Competition Policy in Europe and North America”, New York: Hardwood Academic Publishers GmbH 1990, p. 231. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  543. Gorham, M, and Singh, N, “Electronic Exchanges: The Global Transformation from Pits to Bits”, London: Elsevier 2009, p. 4. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  544. Gormsen, LL, “A Principled Approach to Abuse of Dominance in European Competition Law”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010, p. 56-57. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  545. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  546. Goyder, DG, “EC Competition Law, 3rd Edition”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1998, p. 145. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  547. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  548. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  549. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  550. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  551. Hall, KL, “Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Second Edition”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005, p. 145. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  552. Haracoglou, I, “Competition Law and Patents: A Follow-on Innovation Perspective in the Biopharmaceutical Industry”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2008, p. 135. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  553. Harris, B, Planterose, R, and Tecks, J, “The Arbitration Act 1996: A Commentary”, Oxford/Malden/Melbourne: Blackwell Publishing 2007, p. 47, 309. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  554. Hawk, BE, “International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2003”, Huntington: Juris Publishing 2004, p. 423. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  555. Hawkins, C, “Roman Artisans and the Urban Economy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016, p. 120. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  556. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  557. Henderson, WO, “The Lancashire Cotton Famine 1861 - 65”, New York: Augustus M. Kelley 1969, p. 34. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  558. Hendrickson, KE, “The Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution in World History”, Band 3, London: Rowmann & Littlefield 2015, p. 103. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  559. Heremans, T, “Professional Services in the EU Internal Market: Quality Regulation and Self-Regulation”, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2012, p. 327. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  560. Hibbert, C, Weinreb, B, and Keay, J, “The London Encyclopaedia (3rd Edition)”, London: Macmillan London Limited 1983, p. 505. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  561. Hildebrand, D, “The Role of Economic Analysis in the EC Competition Rules”, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2009, p. 301. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  562. Hilty, RM, and Früh, A, “Lizenzkartellrecht: Schweizer Recht gespiegelt am US-amerikanischen und europäischen Recht”, Bern: Stämpfli Verlag AG 2017, p. 64. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  563. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  564. Hobbes, T, “Philosophicall Rudiments Concerning Government and Society (De Cive)”, London: J.C. for R. Royston 1651, p. 85. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  565. Hoffmann, G, “The Chemistry and Technology of Edible Oils and Fats and Their High Fat Products”, London/San Diego: Academic Press 1989, p. 201. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  566. Hofstadter, R, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays”, Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1965. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  567. Hope, E, “Competition and Trade Policies: Coherence or Conflict”, London/New York: Routledge 2005, p. 61. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  568. Horn, J, Rosenband, LN, and Smith, MR, “Reconceptualizing the Industrial Revolution”, Cambridge/London: The MIT Press 2010, p. 157. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  569. Horspool, M, and Humphreys, M, “European Union Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012, p. 438, 439 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  570. Hovenkamp, H, “The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution”, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press 2005, p. 2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  571. Huang, J, “Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2014, p. 58-59. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  572. Huszar, ML, “Rohstoffe als Investmentklasse: Eine theoretische und empirische Analyse”, Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag GmbH 2008, p. 4-5. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  573. Hylton, KN, “Antitrust Law and Economics”, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing 2010, p. 24, 33, 50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  574. Imwinkelried, EJ, and Friedman, RD, “The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence: Evidentiary Privileges”, Aspen: Aspen Law & Business Publishers 2002, p. 763. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  575. International Business Publications, “US: Importing into the Unites States Practical Guide”, Washington; International Business Publications 2008, p. 186. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  576. Ioannidou, M, “Consumer Involvement in Private EU Competition Law Enforcement”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015, p. 34. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  577. Jacobson, JM, “Antitrust Law Developments (sixth)”, Chicago: American Bar Association, Vol. 1, 2007, p. 433. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  578. Jänig, R, “Commercial Law: Selected Essays on the Law of Obligation, Insolvency and Arbitration”, Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen 2012, p. 125. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  579. Jayaram, R, and Kotwani, NR, “Industrial Economics and Telecommunication Regulations”, New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited 2012, p. 41. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  580. Jentzsch, N, “Financial Privacy: An International Comparison of Credit Reporting Systems”, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 2006, p. 89-94. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  581. Jiang, T, “China and EU Antitrust Review of Refusal to License IPR”, Antwerp: Maklu-Publishers 2015, p. 88, 141. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  582. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  583. Joliet, R, “The Rule of Reason in Antitrust Law”, The Hague: Martinus Nijhof 1967, p. xx-198. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  584. Jones, A, and Sufrin, BE, “EC Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008, p. 281, 404. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  585. Jones, A, and Sufrin, BE, “EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, p. 259, 1073. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  586. Jones, A, and Sufrin, BE, “EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016, p. 22, 37, 163, 247, 372. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  587. Jung, T, and tom Dieck, MC, “Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality: Empowering Human, Place and Business”, Cham: Springer International Publishing AG 2018, p. 148. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  588. Kaczorowska, A, “European Union Law”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge-Cavendish 2008, p. 774. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  589. Kaysen, C, and Turner, DF, “Antitrust Policy: An Economic and Legal Analysis”, Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1959. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  590. Kehoe, DP, and McGinn, T, “Ancient Law, Ancient Society”, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 2017, p. 126. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  591. King, R, “Jehovah Himself Has Become King”, Bloomington: AuthorHouse 2010, p. 252. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  592. Kingston, S, “Greening EU Competition Law and Policy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012, p. 280. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  593. Kobrin, R, and Teller, A, “Purchasing Power: The Economics of Modern Jewish History”, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2015, p. 201-202. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  594. Kokkoris, I, and Lianos, I, “The Reform of EC Competition Law: New Challenges”, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2010, p. 402-403. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  595. Kolmar, M, “Principles of Microeconomics: An Integrative Approach”, Cham: Springer International Publishing AG 2017, p. 140. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  596. Komninos, A, “EC Private Antitrust Enforcement: Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law by National Courts”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2008, p. 151. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  597. Lafave, WR, and Scott, Jr., AW, “Substantive Criminal Law - 2nd Edition”, St. Paul: West Publishing Company 1986, p. 549. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  598. Lambert, L, “Spirituality, Inc.: Religion in the American Workplace”, New York/London: New York University Press 2009, p. 73. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  599. Landolt, PL, “Modernised EC Competition Law in International Arbitration”, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2006, p. 46, 237. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  600. Lanni, A, “Law and Order in Ancient Athens”, New York: Cambridge University Press 2016, p. 1-27, 34. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  601. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  602. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  603. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  604. Lee, I, “Encyclopedia of E-Commerce Development, Implementation, and Management, Band 1”, Hershey: IGI Global 2016, p. 1985. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  605. Lees, FA, “Financial Exchanges: A Comparative Approach”, New York/Abingdon: Routledge 2012, p. 164. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  606. Leser, HG, “Gesammelte Schriften”, Band 1, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1968, p. 11. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  607. Lew, JDM, Mistelis, LA, and Kröll, SM, “Comparative International Commercial Arbitration”, The Hague/London/New York: Kluwer Law International 2003, p. 332. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  608. Li, S, “Managing International Business in Relation-Based versus Rule-Based Countries”, New York: Business Expert Press, LCC 2009, p. 49-50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  609. Lianos, I, and Geradin, D, “Handbook on European Competition Law: Substantive Aspects”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2013, p. 160. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  610. Lista, A, “International Commercial Sales: The Sale of Goods on Shipment Terms”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge 2017, p. 4, 10-11. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  611. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  612. Lorenz, M, “An Introduction to EU Competition Law”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2013, p. 45, 51-52, 76, 189, 208, 237. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  613. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  614. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  615. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  616. Madhavan, KS, “Business & Ethics - An Oxymoron?”, Bangalore: KS Madhavan, p. 40. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  617. Mallard, G, and Sgard, J, “Contractual Knowledge: One Hundred Years of Legal Experimentation in Global Markets”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016, p. 157. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  618. Malloy, RP, “Law in a Market Context: An Introduction to Market Concepts in Legal Reasoning”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004, p. 132. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  619. Mansell, R, “The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society, 3 Volume Set, Volume 1”, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell 2015, p. 79. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  620. Mäntysaari, P, “The Law of Corporate Finance: General Principles and EU Law - Volume II: Contracts in General”, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer 2010, p. 159. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  621. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  622. Mark, J, Strange, R, and Burns, J, “The Food Industries, Vol. XXVIII”, London: Chapman & Hall 1993, p. 236. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  623. Marsden, P, “Handbook of Research in Trans-Atlantic Antitrust”, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2006, p. 268. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  624. Martínez, JP, “Net Neutrality: Contributions to the Debate”, Madrid: Fundación Telefónica 2011, p. 139. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  625. Marx, K, “Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations”, New York: International Publishers 1965, p. 30, 37, 104 [edited version by E. J. Hobsbawm]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  626. Mathis, K, “Law and Economics in Europe: Foundations and Applications”, Dordrecht: Springer 2014, p. 374. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  627. Mattli, W, and Dietz, T, “International Arbitration & Global Governance: Contending Theories and Evidence”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, p. 190. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  628. McGinn, TAJ, “Obligations in Roman Law: Past, Present, and Future”, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 2012, p. 201. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  629. McNutt, PA, “Law, Economics and Antitrust: Towards a New Perspective”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2005, p. 136. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  630. Meisel, JW, “"Now" or Never: Is There Antitrust Liability for Noncommercial Boycotts?”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 80, No. 6 1980, p. 1317. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  631. Mendonca, M, and Kanungo, RN, “Ethical Leadership”, New York: Open University Press 2007, p. 15. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  632. Merkin, R, and Flannery, L, “Arbitration Act 1996”, Abingdon, Oxon: Informa Law 2014, p. 24, 32-33. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  633. Miller, R, and Jentz, G, “Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today: The Essentials”, Mason: Thomson West 2008, p. 674. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  634. Miller, RL, “Business Law Today, Comprehensive: Text and Cases: Diverse, Ethical, Online, and Global Environment – 10th Edition”, Stamford: Cengage Learning 2015, p. 886. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  635. Miller, RL, “Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials: Text and Summarized Cases – 11th Edition”, Boston: Cengage Learning 2015, p. 617. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  636. Mitchell, CE, “Contract Law and Contract Practice: Bridging the Gap between Legal Reasoning and Commercial Expectation”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2013, p. 30. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  637. Molenaar, C, “E-Marketing: Applications of information technology and the internet within marketing”, Abingdon: Routledge 2012, p. 105. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  638. Monti, G, “EC Competition Law”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007, p. 99, 192, 486. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  639. Morgan, J, “Contract Law Minimalism: A Formalist Restatement of Commercial Contract Law”, Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press 2013, p. 208. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  640. Morgan, J, “Great Debates in Contract Law”, London: Palgrave 2015, p. 88. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  641. Musmann, AC, “Recht und soziale Sanktionen: Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel des grenzüberschreitenden Baumwollhandels”, Baden-Baden: Nomos 2018. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  642. Nazzini, R, “The Foundations of European Union Competition Law: The Objective and Principles of Article 102”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011, p. 170, 185. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  643. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  644. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  645. Newmann, P, “The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law: Three Volume Set”, London: Palgrave Macmillan 2002, p. 93. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  646. Nguyen, B, and Wait, A, “Essentials of Microeconomics”, Abingdon/New York: Routledge 2016, p. 77. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  647. Nistor, L, “Public Services and the European Union: Healthcare, Health Insurance and Education Services”, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press 2011, p. 183. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  648. Norman, P, “The Risk Controllers: Central Counterparty Clearing in Globalised Financial Markets”, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons 2011, p. 60. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  649. Nygh, PE, “Autonomy in International Contracts”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999, p. 92. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  650. O’Donoghue, R, and Padilla, AJ, “The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC”, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2006, p. 440-442. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  651. O’Donoghue, R, and Padilla, AJ, “The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC”, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2013, p. 282-283. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  652. Oltuski, A, “Precious Objects: A Story of Diamonds, Family, and a Way of Life”, New York: Scribner 2011, p. 76. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  653. Oswald, LJ, “The Law of Marketing – 2th Edition”, Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning 2010, p. 112. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  654. Ottow, A, “Market and Competition Authorities: Good Agency Principles”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015, p. 154. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  655. Oxford Corpus, “Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: Sixth Edition”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  656. Papadopoulos, AS, “The International Dimension of EU Competition Law and Policy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010, p. 272. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  657. Parcu, PL, Monti, G, and Botta, M, “Abuse of Dominance in EU Competition Law: Emerging Trends”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2017, p. 2. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  658. Pareto, V, “Manual of Political Economy”, New York: Kelley 1906. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  659. Parker, R, “Polytheism and Society at Athens”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005, p. 9. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  660. Patel, KK, and Schweitzer, H, “The Historical Foundations of EU Competition Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013, p. 209. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  661. Perelman, C, “Justice, Law, and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning”, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company 1980, p. 59. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  662. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  663. Polinsky, AM, and Shavell, S, “Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 2”, Amsterdam: Elsevier 2007, p. 1604. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  664. Posner, RA, “Law and Social Norms”, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press 2000, p. 172. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  665. Posner, RA, “Antitrust Law, Second Edition”, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2001, p. 194-195. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  666. Posner, RA, “Economics Analysis of Law”, New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2014, para. 8.6. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  667. Redfern, A, and Hunter, M, “Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration”, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2004, p. 24, 387. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  668. Revuelta, MB, “Mineral Resources: From Exploration to Sustainability Assessment”, Cham: Springer International Publishing AG 2018, p. 44. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  669. Richman, BD, “Stateless Commerce: The Diamond Network and the Persistence of Relational Exchange”, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press 2017, p. 14, 42-43, 77. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  670. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  671. Rißmann, K, “Die kartellrechtliche Beurteilung der Markenabgrenzung”, Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag 2008, p. 108. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  672. Ritter, L, and Braun, WD, “European Competition Law: A Practitioner's Guide”, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2005, p. 249. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  673. Robbins, D, “Handbook of Public Sector Economics”, Boca Raton: CRC Press 2005, p.185. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  674. Robbins, P, “Stolen Fruit: The Tropical Commodities Disaster”, London/New York: Zed Books 2003, p. 167. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  675. Robinson, Jr., L, “Marketing Dynamism & Sustainability: Things Change, Things Stay the Same”, Heidelberg/Dordrecht/New York/London: Springer 2012, p. 304. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  676. Roche, J, “The International Cotton Trade”, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing 1994, p. 17. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  677. Rubino-Sammartano, M, “International Arbitration: Law and Practice, Third Edition”, New York: JurisNet 2014, p. 1085-1086. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  678. Saferstein, HI, and Everett, JC, “State Antitrust Practice and Statutes (Fourth)”, Chicago: American Bar Association 2009, p. 10-3, 10-4. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  679. Sanchez-Taínta, AS, “The Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease through the Mediterranean Diet”, London/San Diego/Cambridge/Oxford: Elsevier 2018, p. 49. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  680. Šarčević, P, “Essays on International Commercial Arbitration”, London/Dordrecht/Boston: Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff 1989, p. 69. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  681. Sauter, W, “Coherence in EU Competition Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016, p. 75-87, 101, 256. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  682. Schmitthoff, CM, “The Unification of the Law of International Trade”, London: Sweet & Maxwell 1968. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  683. Schofield, NC, “Commodity Derivatives: Markets and Applications”, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons 2007, p. 75. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  684. Schoon, N, “Modern Islamic Banking: Products and Processes in Practice”, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons 2016, p. 117. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  685. Shaffer, BD, “In Restraint of Trade”, Cranbury/London/Mississauga: Associated University Presses 1997, p. 64. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  686. Shemtov, N, “Beyond the Code: Protection of Non-Textual Features of Software”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017, p. 65. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  687. Shield, RS, “Diamond Stories: Enduring Change on 47th Street”, London: Cornell University Press 2002, p. 92, 190-192. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  688. Slot, PJ, and Farley, M, “An Introduction to Competition Law”, Oxford/London/Portland: Hart Publishing 2017, p. 56. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  689. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  690. Stein, U, “Lex mercatoria: Realität und Theorie”, Band 28, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann 1995 p. 188. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  691. Stoyanova, M, “Competition Problems in Liberalized Telecommunications: Regulatory Solutions to Promote Effective Competition”, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2008, p. 144. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  692. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  693. Subrin, S, and Woo, MYK, “Litigating in America: Civil Procedure in Context”, New York: Aspen Publishers 2006, p. 165. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  694. Sullivan, ET, “Nonprice Predation under Section 2 of the Sherman Act”, Chicago: American Bar Association 1991, p. 55, 58. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  695. Sumangla, R, and Panwar, A, “Capturing, Analyzing, and Managing Word-of-Mouth in the Digital Marketplace”, Hershey: IGI Global 2016, p. 172 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  696. Sutherland, EE, “Law Making and the Scottish Parliament”, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 2011, p. 314. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  697. Terlinden, U, “City and Gender: Intercultural Discourse on Gender, Urbanism and Architecture”, Opladen: Leske + Budrich 2003, p. 43. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  698. Thorson, B, “Individual Rights in EU Law”, Oslo: Springer International 2016, p. 131. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  699. Tietje, C, and Brouder, A, “Handbook of Transnational Economic Governance Regimes”, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009, p. 656-657, 659. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  700. Tittle, P, “Ethical Issues in Business: Inquiries, Cases, and Readings”, Petersborough: Peg Tittle 2000, p. 41. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  701. Todd, JA, “The Cotton World: A Survey of the World's Cotton Supplies and Consumption”, London: Sir I. Pitman & Sons 1927, p. 91. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  702. Townley, C, “Article 81 EC and Public Policy”, Portland: Hart Publishing 2009, p. 64, 273. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  703. Townsend, T, “Cotton Trading Manual”, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited 2005, p. iii. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  704. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  705. Ullrich, H, “The Evolution of European Competition Law: Whose Regulation, Which Competition?”, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing 2006, p. 348. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  706. Union Internationale Des Advocats, “Arbitrage International Commercial, Vol. II”, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff 1960, p. 393. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  707. Vakerics, TV, “Antitrust Basics”, New York: Law Journal Press 2006, p. , 5-3, 6-40. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  708. van Bael & Bellis (firm), “Competition Law of the European Community”, The Hague: Kluwer Law Internationaal 2005, p. 52, 101, 438. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  709. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  710. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  711. Vishny, PH, “Guide to International Commerce Law”, New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. 1984, p. 2. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  712. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  713. Watson, L, and Watson, P, “Juvenal: Satire 6”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2014, 196. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  714. Welch, PJ, and Welch, GF, “Economics: Theory and Practice – Ninth Edition”, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons 2010, p. 408. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  715. Wendt, IE, “EU Competition Law and Liberal Professions: an Uneasy Relationship?”, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV 2013, p. 220, 269, 384, 512. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  716. Wengler, S, “Key Account Management in Business-to-Business Markets: An Assessment of Its Economic Value”, Berlin: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag 2006, p. 112. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  717. Wesseling, R, “The Modernisation of EC Antitrust Law”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2000, p. 116-117. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  718. Whish, R, and Bailey, D, “Competition Law: Eighth Edition”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015, p. 54, 174-174, 595. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  719. Williamson, OE, “The Economic Institutions of Capitalism”, New York: Macmillan 1985, p. 20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  720. Wu, Q, “Competition Laws, Globalization and Legal Pluralism: China's Experience”, Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing 2013, p. 28. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  721. Zamir, E, and Teichman, D, “The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law”, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, p. 440. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  722. Standfacts Credit Services, Inc. v. Experian Information, 405 F.Supp.2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  723. Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc., 570 F.2d 982, 992 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  724. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 59 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  725. Covad Communications Company v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 398 F.3d 666, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  726. United States v. King, 229 F. 275 (D. Mass. 1915). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  727. United States v. Kansas City Star Company, No. 18444 (D. Kans. 1953). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  728. Pretz v. Holstein Friesian Ass’n, 698 F. Supp. 1531, 1539 (D. Kans. 1988). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  729. United States v. Otter Tail Power Co., 331 F. Supp. 54, 61 (D. Minn. 1971). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  730. Charleton v. Vt. Dairy Herd Improvement Ass’n, 782 F. Supp. 926, 932 (D. Vt. 1991). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  731. In re Educ. Testing Serv. Litig., 429 F. Supp. 2d 752, 759 (E.D. La. 2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  732. McElhinney v. Medical Protective Co., 549 F. Supp. 121, 132 (E.D. Ky. 1982). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  733. Bennett v. Cardinal Health Marmac Distribs., 2003-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 74, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  734. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 195 F.3d 1346, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  735. Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Association, 359 F. Supp. 1260, 1265-1266 (N.D. Ga. 1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  736. Choiceparts v. General Motors Corporation, No. 01 C 0067 (N.D. Ill. 2005), para. 12. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  737. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Slekardis, 34 N.Y.2d 182 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  738. Matarasso v. Continental Casualty Co., 56 N.Y.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  739. Rabinowitz v. Olewski, 473 N.Y.S.2d 232, 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  740. Goldfinger v. Lisker, 500 N.E.2d 857, 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  741. Abraham v. Diamond Dealers, 896 N.Y.S.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  742. Antco Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Sidermar S. p. A., 417 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), para. 215. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  743. United States v. Western Winter Sports Representatives Ass’n, Inc., 1962, Trade Cas. (CCH) 74,263 (W.D. Penn. 1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  744. Clamp-All Corp. v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute, 851 F.2d 478, 490, 492 (1st Cir. 1988). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  745. Fraser v. Major League Soccer, 284 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2002). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  746. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of R.I., 373 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2004). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  747. United States v. Consolidated Laundries Corp., 291 F.2d 563, 572-573 (2nd Cir. 1961). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  748. Volvo North America Corp. v. Men’s Int’l Prof’l Tennis Council, 857 F.2d 55, 74 (2nd Cir. 1988). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  749. Worldcrisa Corp. v. Armstrong, 129 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 1997), para. 74. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  750. Bogan v. Hodgkins, 166 F.3D 509, 515 (2nd Cir. 1999). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  751. Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. P’ship. v. Smith Cogeneration Int’l Inc., 198 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir.1999), para. 49. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  752. Satellite Television & Associated Resources, Inc. v. Continental Cablevision, 714 F.2d 351, 358 (4th Cir. 1983). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  753. Heattransfer Corp. v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 553 F.2d 964, 981 (5th Cir. 1977). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  754. United States v. Cont’Group 603 f.2d 444, 463 (5th Cir. 1979). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  755. United States v. Realty Multi-List Inc., 629 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir. 1980), para. 107. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  756. Adjusters Replace-A-Car, Inc. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc., 735 F.2d 884, 887-888 (5th Cir. 1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  757. United States v. American Airlines, Inc., 743 F.2D, 1114, 1116-1117 (5th Cir. 1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  758. Brown v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 384, 396 (5th Cir. 2006). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  759. Spirit Airlines v. Northwest Airlines, 431 F.3d 917, 935-936 (6th Cir. 2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  760. MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1113, 1132, 1143 (7th Cir. 1982). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  761. Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Mutual Hospital Insurance, Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338-1339 (7th Cir. 1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  762. Great Escape, Inc. v. Union City Body Co., 791 F.2d 532, 540-541 (7th Cir. 1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  763. Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Marshfield Clinic, 65 F.3d 1406, 1411 (7th Cir. 1995) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  764. United States v. Empire Gas Corp., 537 F.2d 296 (8th Cir. 1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  765. Trace X Chemical v. Canadian Industries, 738 F.2d 261, 266, 268 (8th Cir. 1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  766. Conoco, Inc. v. Inman Oil Company, Inc. 774 F.2d 895, 905 (8th Cir. 1985). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  767. General Industries Corp., 810 F.2d 795, 801 (8th Cir. 1987). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  768. City of Malden v. Union Elec. Co., 887 F.2d 157, 160 (8th Cir. 1989) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  769. Craftsmen Limousine v. Ford Motor Co., 491 F.3d 380, 389 (8th Cir. 2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  770. Deesen v. Professional Golfers' Association of America, 358 F. 2d 165 (9th Cir. 1966). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  771. Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Ragu Foods, Inc., 627 F.2d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 1980). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  772. Ferguson v. Greater Pocatello Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 848 F.2d 976, 983 (9th Cir. 1988). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  773. City of Anaheim v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 955 F.2d 1373, 1380 (9th Cir. 1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  774. Nova Designs, Inc. v. Scuba Retailers Association, 202 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th 2000). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  775. County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148, 1155 (9th Cir. 2001), para. IV, A, I. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  776. Paladin Assoc., Inc. v. Mont. Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  777. Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006), para. 43. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  778. Olsen v. Progressive Music Supply, Inc., 703 F.2d 432, 438 (10th Cir. 1983). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  779. Gregory v. Fort Bridger Rendezvous Ass'n, 448 F.3d 1195, 1201 (10th Cir. 2006). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  780. CHA-Car, Inc. v. Calder Race Source, Inc., 752 F.2D 609, 613 (11th Cir. 1985). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  781. McGahee v. N. Propane Gas Co., 858 F.2d 1487, 1505 (11th Cir. 1988). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  782. Key Enterprises of Delaware v. Venice Hosp, 919 F.2d 1550, 1564 (11th Cir. 1990). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  783. Thompson v. Metro. Multi-List, Inc. 934 F.2d 1566, 1582 (11th Cir. 1991). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  784. Bailey v. Allgas, Inc., 284 F.3d 1237, 1250 (11th Cir. 2002). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  785. Morris Communications Corp. v. PGA Tour, 364 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2004). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  786. Brief for the United States As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Reiter, 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (No. 78-690), 1979 WL 213494, para. 12. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  787. Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U.S. 38, 44 (1904). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  788. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 62 (1911). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  789. United States v. American Tobacco Company, 221 U.S. 106 (1911). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  790. United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n, 224 U.S. 383 (1912). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  791. Eastern States Lumber Assn. v. United States, 234 U. S. 600, 601, 605, 608, 614 (1914). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  792. United States v. United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  793. American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 377 (1921). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  794. United States v. American Linseed Oil Co., 262 U.S. 371 (1923). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  795. Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 227 (1939). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  796. Fashion Originators' Guild v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 312 U. S. 457, 458, 465, 468 (1941). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  797. American Medical Assn. v. United States, 317 U.S. 519, 535-536 (1943). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  798. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 2, 23 (1945). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  799. American Tobacco v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809 (1946). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  800. United States v. Griffith, 334 U.S. 100, 107-108 (1948). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  801. Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, 340 U. S. 211, 214 (1951). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  802. Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 625 (1953). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  803. Yates v. United States 354 U.S. 298, 334 (1957). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  804. Northern Pacific R. Go. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 5 (1958). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  805. Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207, 212-213 (1959). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  806. Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Co., 364 U.S. 656, 659 (1961). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  807. Silver v. New York Stock Exch. 373 U.S. 341 (1963). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  808. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570 (1966). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  809. Fed. Maritime Comm’n v. Aktiebolaget Svenska Amerika Linien, 390 U.S. 238, 250 (1968). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  810. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979), para. E. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  811. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  812. Mid-Texas Communications v. Am. Tel. Tel., 615 F.2d 1372, 1389 n. 13 (5th Cir. 1980). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  813. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  814. Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, para. 12 (1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  815. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764, 768 (1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  816. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Svc. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 768 (1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  817. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  818. NW Wholesale Stationers v. Pac. Stationery, 472 U.S. 284, 287, 293-297 (1985). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  819. Matsushita v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  820. Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 456 (1993). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  821. NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128, 134 (1998). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  822. California Dental Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission, 526 U.S. 756, 763, 780 (1999). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  823. Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 407 (2004). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  824. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. (2006) [J. Thomas, dissenting], para. 8. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  825. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  826. Rhone Mediterranee v. Achille Lauro [1983] 712 F. 2nd 50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  827. Federal Bulk Carriers v C Itoh & Co default [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep 103. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  828. Aughton Limited (formerly Aughton Group Limited) v. M.F. Kent Services Limited, [1991] 57 BLR 1. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  829. Trygg Hansa Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Equitas Ltd, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 439. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  830. Azov Shipping co. v. Baltic Shipping co. [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 68, para. 5 and 31 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  831. Vale Do Rio Doce Navegacao SA & Anor v Shanghai Bao Steel Ocean Shipping Co Ltd. [2000] EWHC 205 (Comm), para. 45. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  832. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  833. Downing v. Al Tameer Establishment [2002] EWCA Civ 721. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  834. Mackley & Co Ltd v Gosport Marina Ltd [2002] EWHC 1315, para. 20, 22, 39. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  835. Esso Exploration and Production UK Ltd v. Electricity Supply Board [2004] EWHC 787 (Comm). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  836. Welex AG v. Rosa Maritime Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 938. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  837. Albon v. Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd (No 3) [2007] Lloyd’s Rep. L. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  838. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  839. Stretford v. The Football Association Ltd et al (CA) [2007] EWCA Civ 238, para. 38, 67. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  840. Sukuman Ltd v. Commonwealth Secretariat [2007] EWCA Civ 243, para. 36. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  841. Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v. Richards [2011] EWCA Civ 855. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  842. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC (Appellant) v. AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP (Respondent), [2011] EWCA Civ 647. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  843. Joint Stock Company "Aeroflot Russian Airlines" v. Berezovsky et al [2012] EWHC 1610 (Ch), para. 73. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  844. Lombard North Central plc et al. v. GATX Corporation [2012] EWHC 1067 (Comm), para. 21. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  845. Assaubayev et al v. Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd, [2014] EWCA Civ 1491. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  846. Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd v. Prolat S.R.L [2014] EWHC 3649 (Comm), para. 2. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  847. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245
  848. 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748926245

Similar publications

from the series "Wirtschaftsrecht und Wirtschaftspolitik"
Cover of book: Die geographische Schiedsfähigkeit des Unionskartellrechts
Monograph No access
Henri Kirner
Die geographische Schiedsfähigkeit des Unionskartellrechts
Cover of book: Die gerichtliche Übertragung von Nachermittlungen auf die Kartellbehörde
Monograph No access
Dars Ferber
Die gerichtliche Übertragung von Nachermittlungen auf die Kartellbehörde
Cover of book: Materielle Fusionskontrolle auf digitalen Märkten
Monograph No access
Tobias Gawaz
Materielle Fusionskontrolle auf digitalen Märkten
Cover of book: Wettbewerbsrechtliche Grenzen des Datenaustauschs und Datenzugangs
Monograph No access
Frederik Gutmann
Wettbewerbsrechtliche Grenzen des Datenaustauschs und Datenzugangs
Cover of book: Effizienzvorteile in der Zusammenschlusskontrolle
Monograph No access
Jonathan Beel
Effizienzvorteile in der Zusammenschlusskontrolle

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex