Cover of book: Nonlegal Sanctioning in Private Legal Systems
Book Titles 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

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
Book Titles

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

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law", "Commercial Law & Business Law & Corporate Law"
Cover of book: Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Book Titles No access
Yannis Ockernahl
Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Cover of book: Der forderungslose Anfechtungsgegner
Book Titles No access
Paul Goes
Der forderungslose Anfechtungsgegner
Cover of book: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Book Titles No access
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover of book: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Edited Book No access
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover of book: Materielle Fusionskontrolle auf digitalen Märkten
Book Titles No access
Tobias Gawaz
Materielle Fusionskontrolle auf digitalen Märkten

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 Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex