Podcasts about tfeu

Speaker: Dr Andriani Kalintiri, King's College LondonAbstract: Is EU antitrust law resilient in the face of change? This question has acquired prominence amidst the many crises and disruptions of recent times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and digitalisation. Attempts to answer it though have been rather narrow in scope and tend to employ the language of resilience casually. This article contributes to knowledge (a) by developing a conceptual framework for understanding and assessing legal resilience in administrative enforcement systems and (b) by applying it to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU with a view to investigating its ability to respond to change in a systematic manner. The analysis reveals that the current regime exhibits several design features that enable decisionmakers to make resilience choices as needed, and the resilience choices that have been made on various occasions are prima facie justifiable given the nature of the problem the European Commission and/or the EU Courts were faced with. However, certain aspects of the existing legal framework may weaken or limit EU antitrust law's ability to deal with certain problems, in particular (very) complex ones, whereas some of the resilience choices that have been made have had implications for legal certainty, coherence and legitimacy that may not have been sufficiently appreciated so far. The article highlights the added value of a legal resilience perspective for effectively using EU antitrust law as a tool for tackling problems in an ever-changing world and demonstrates that, albeit not a panacea, such a perspective may reinforce the quality of enforcement and public's trust in it.3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners: https://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/centre-activitiesFor more information about CELS see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Andriani Kalintiri, King's College LondonAbstract: Is EU antitrust law resilient in the face of change? This question has acquired prominence amidst the many crises and disruptions of recent times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and digitalisation. Attempts to answer it though have been rather narrow in scope and tend to employ the language of resilience casually. This article contributes to knowledge (a) by developing a conceptual framework for understanding and assessing legal resilience in administrative enforcement systems and (b) by applying it to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU with a view to investigating its ability to respond to change in a systematic manner. The analysis reveals that the current regime exhibits several design features that enable decisionmakers to make resilience choices as needed, and the resilience choices that have been made on various occasions are prima facie justifiable given the nature of the problem the European Commission and/or the EU Courts were faced with. However, certain aspects of the existing legal framework may weaken or limit EU antitrust law's ability to deal with certain problems, in particular (very) complex ones, whereas some of the resilience choices that have been made have had implications for legal certainty, coherence and legitimacy that may not have been sufficiently appreciated so far. The article highlights the added value of a legal resilience perspective for effectively using EU antitrust law as a tool for tackling problems in an ever-changing world and demonstrates that, albeit not a panacea, such a perspective may reinforce the quality of enforcement and public's trust in it.3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners: https://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/centre-activitiesFor more information about CELS see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: LawAI's Summer Research Fellowship - apply by February 16, published by LawAI on February 8, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Announcing the Institute for Law & AI's 2024 Summer Research Fellowship in Law & AI - apply before EOD Anywhere on Earth, February 16! LawAI (formerly the Legal Priorities Project) are looking for talented law students and postdocs who wish to use their careers to address risks from transformative artificial intelligence, to engage in an 8-12 week long fellowship focused on exploring pressing questions at the intersection of law and AI governance. Fellows will work with their supervisor to pick a research question, and will spend the majority of their time conducting legal research on their chosen topic. They may also assist other LawAI team members with projects, as well as work on their career plans with the assistance of the LawAI team and other AI governance professionals in our network. Fellows will join the team some time between June and October, in a fully remote capacity. We're offering fellows a stipend of $10,000. The following are some examples of topics and questions we'd be particularly keen for fellows to research (though we are open to suggestions of other topics from candidates, which focus on mitigating risks from transformative AI): Liability - How will existing liability regimes apply to AI-generated or -enabled harms? What unique challenges exist, and how can legislatures and courts respond? Existing authority - What powers do US agencies currently have to regulate transformative AI? What constraints or obstacles exist to exercising those powers? How might the major questions doctrine or other administrative law principles affect the exercise of these authorities? First Amendment - How will the First Amendment affect leading AI governance proposals? Are certain approaches more or less robust to judicial challenge? Can legislatures and agencies proactively adjust their approaches to limit the risk of judicial challenge? International institutions - How might one design a new international organization to promote safe, beneficial outcomes from the development of transformative artificial intelligence? What role and function should such an organization prioritize? Comparative law - Which jurisdictions are most likely to influence the safe, beneficial development of AI? What opportunities are being under-explored relative to the importance of law in that jurisdiction? EU law - What existing EU laws influence the safe, beneficial development of AI? What role can the EU AI Act play, and how does it interact with other relevant provisions, such as the precautionary principle under Art. 191 TFEU in mitigating AI risk? Anticipatory regulation - What lessons can be learned from historic efforts to proactively regulate new technologies as they developed? Do certain practices or approaches seem more promising than others? Adaptive regulation - What practices best enable agencies to quickly and accurately adjust their regulations to changes in the object of their regulation? What information gathering practices, decision procedures, updating protocols, and procedural rules help agencies keep pace with changes in technology and consumer and market behaviors? Developing other specific AI-governance proposals - For example: How might a government require companies to maintain the ability to take down, patch, or shutdown their models? How might a government regulate highly capable, but low-compute models? How might governments or private industry develop an effective insurance market for AI? If you're interested in applying, or know of anyone who might be, you can find further details in our application information pack, and apply here before EOD February 16. Feel free to reach out to careers@law-ai.org if you have any questions! Than...

11 August, 2022 - Marco Botta is part-time Professor at the European University Institute (EUI), where he is the coordinator of the Florence Competition Programme (FCP) and ENTraNCE for Judges. In addition, he is Affiliated Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (MPI) in Munich (Germany). Finally, he is Adjunct Professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Vienna (Austria), where he teaches EU, competition and State aid law. Prof. Botta's most recent work (forthcoming) discusses the ‘revival' of exploitative abuses in Europe. In particular, it analyses the legal test and recent enforcement trends concerning excessive and discriminatory pricing, as well as unfair trading conditions under Art. 102 TFEU. In digital markets, this revival of exploitative abuses has mostly concerned unfair trading conditions. In Prof. Botta's opinion, peculiarities of digital markets (i.e. close to zero marginal costs, winner takes all dynamics and zero-price markets) make hard for a competition agency to assess an excessive pricing case under United Brands test and the benchmarking approach.

On this episode of the AdC's CompCast – Competition Talks series, Giorgio Monti, professor of Competition Law at Tilburg Law School addresses “The Google Shopping Judgement – Lessons for Article 102 TFEU and for the Regulation of Digital Markets”.

Dr Or Brook (Leeds University) gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "Non-Competition Interests in EU Antitrust Law: An Empirical Study of Article 101 TFEU" on 11 March 2022 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CELS (the Centre for European Legal Studies). Biography: Dr Or Brook is a Lecturer in Competition Law and the deputy-director of the Centre for Business Law and Practice, School of Law at the University of Leeds, where she teaches EU and international competition law, business regulation, and quantitative research methods. Holding an academic background in law and economics, she employs empirical approaches to study questions related to the goals of competition law, the role of public policy consideration, decentralised enforcement, and the exercise of enforcement discretion. Dr Brook is the director of the UK branch of the International Academic Society for competition law (ASCOLA UK) and a Non-Resident Institute Research Fellow at the Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law. This entry provides an audio-only item for iTunes. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Dr Or Brook (Leeds University) gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "Non-Competition Interests in EU Antitrust Law: An Empirical Study of Article 101 TFEU" on 11 March 2022 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CELS (the Centre for European Legal Studies). Biography: Dr Or Brook is a Lecturer in Competition Law and the deputy-director of the Centre for Business Law and Practice, School of Law at the University of Leeds, where she teaches EU and international competition law, business regulation, and quantitative research methods. Holding an academic background in law and economics, she employs empirical approaches to study questions related to the goals of competition law, the role of public policy consideration, decentralised enforcement, and the exercise of enforcement discretion. Dr Brook is the director of the UK branch of the International Academic Society for competition law (ASCOLA UK) and a Non-Resident Institute Research Fellow at the Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law. This entry provides an audio-only item for iTunes. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Belarus öffnete Ende des Jahres 2021 die Grenzen für Flüchtlinge nach Europa an der polnischen Grenze. Dabei kam es massenweise zu Kollektivausweisungen von polnischer und europäischer Seite. Wie diese rechtlich einzuordnen sind und welche Rechtsgrundlagen insofern entscheidend sind erklärt Dana Schmalz im Interview. Isabel erörtert im Grundlagenteil zuvor das internationale Schutzsystem der Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention. Wir freuen uns über Lob, Anmerkungen und Kritik an podcast@voelkerrechtsblog.org. Abonniert unseren Podcast via RSS, über Spotify oder überall dort, wo es Podcasts gibt. Es gibt nun die Möglichkeit, auf diesen Plattformen den Völkerrechtspodcast zu bewerten, wir freuen uns sehr über 5 Sterne! Hintergrundinformationen: Dana Schmalz, Refugees, Democracy and the Law (Routledge 2021) Moderation: Philipp Eschenhagen & Sophie Schuberth Grundlagen: Isabel Lischewski Interview: Dana Schmalz & Philipp Eschenhagen Schnitt: Daniela Rau Credits: Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Europäisches Parlament: The proposed Council decision on provisional emergency measures for the external border with Belarus based on article 78(3) TFEU, 15. Dezember 2021 (gefunden über twitter.de)

In his address to the IIEA, Mr Justice Clarke discusses the challenges which are currently posed to the rule of law in the European Union. He outlines his views on the gravity of the threat to the rule of law and examines whether this threat has the potential to be an existential one for the EU. A series of judgements from EU Member State national courts in recent years have questioned the supremacy of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which may have repercussions for judiciaries in other Member States, such as Ireland. Mr Justice Clarke offers a view on what national courts can do to address such challenges. He also addresses potential difficulties stemming from the different ways that membership of the Union and the status of international treaties are addressed in the constitutions of Member States. About the Speaker: Mr. Justice Frank Clarke was Chief Justice of Ireland from July 2017 to October 2021. He was called to the Bar of Ireland in 1973 and to the Inner Bar in 1985. He was appointed a judge of the High Court in 2004 and a judge of the Supreme Court in 2012. He was the ACA-Europe Correspondent for the Supreme Court from 2013 to 2021 and was a Vice-President of the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union. He is a former professor at King's Inns, a Judge in Residence at Griffith College Dublin, an Adjunct Professor of Trinity College Dublin and of University College Cork. He is a member of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the TFEU to provide an opinion on the appointment of judges to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This podcast focuses on the latest developments in Case C-594/18 P: Austria v European Commission, a long-running legal saga surrounding the development of a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in the UK, which sheds light on EU state aid rules and the interaction between the Euratom Treaty and the TFEU. As the Euratom Treaty does not contain state aid rules, to what extent do the principles of the TFEU apply when it comes to determining the compatibility of state aid to the nuclear sector? In 2014, the EC approved the UK’s plans to give state aid to support the construction of two EPR reactor units at Hinkley Point C, deeming it compatible with EU state aid guidelines, and thus the internal market. The basis of their approval was Art 107(3)(c) TFEU. The project, a joint venture between EDF and CGN, would be the first new nuclear power station in the UK in almost 20 years, and account for roughly 7% of the UK’s electricity supply. In the rare move of one MS challenging a state aid decision for another, Austria launched an appeal to this decision in 2015 on the basis that approval of the scheme contradicted the EU policy to support renewable energy. The case divided Member States. In July 2018, the GC dismissed the action on the basis that there was no need to establish an EU-wide objective of common interest for the project or, surprisingly, to establish that the aid is there to correct a market failure. Furthermore, it was found that the ET principles are separate from those of the TFEU/TEU, and thus the principles on the protection of the environment do not apply. Austria appealed the decision. In a non-binding opinion of 7 May 2020, AG Gerard Hogan suggested EU judges should dismiss the appeal. He argued that Art 107(3)(c) TFEU does not predicate the compatibility of state aid upon it serving a ‘public’ or ‘common’ interest objective. Rather, compatibility need only be determined according to the potential of the aid to distort competition or trade. By accepting the objectives of the ET, all MS have “clearly signified their unqualified acceptance in principle of the right of other Member States to develop nuclear power plants in their own territories should they wish to do so.” He also noted that EU law (via Art 194 TFEU) has given each MS the right to determine its own energy mix. Ultimately, according to Hogan’s interpretation, compatibility cannot be used as an instrument to effect positive integration. In the subsequent ruling of 22 Sept 2020, the Court dismissed Austria’s appeal and confirmed that the construction of the power plant may benefit from state aid, as originally approved by the EC pursuant to Art 107(3)(c) TFEU and in line with AG Hogan’s opinion. The Court confirmed that in the absence of specific state aid rules in the ET, the state aid rules of the TFEU are applicable to the nuclear energy sector. The Court concluded that the compatibility of aid is not dependent on the pursuit of a ‘common interest.’ The existence of a market failure may therefore be a factor in declaring aid compatible, but it is not a requisite for compatibility, according to the conditions laid out in Art 107(3)(c). Significantly, contrary to the GC’s findings, the new ruling held that state aid for an economic activity, which contravenes environmental rules, cannot be declared compatible with the internal market. The same is true for the provisions of secondary EU law on the environment. However, in the same ruling, the Court noted that the EC is required to take into account the negative effects of the state aid on competition and trade between MS only, and concludes that the GC in its earlier ruling was correct in the interpretation that the EC did not have to take into account the negatives effects of the measures on the environmental principles. How does this tally? What can be deducted from this split conclusion with respect to environmental protection principles?

In this podcast, Leigh Hancher discusses the recent non-binding opinion (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-594/18%20) of Gerard Hogan, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, with regard to a decision on state aid to the nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C in the UK. In Hogan’s opinion, EU judges should dismiss an appeal by Austria aimed at overturning the approval of UK state aid to support the construction of the nuclear plant. Hogan stated, “it is clear that the development of nuclear power is, as reflected in the Euratom Treaty, a clearly defined objective of EU law”. In 2014, after several agreed changes to the plans, the European Commission approved the UK’s plans to give state aid to support the construction of two EPR reactor units at Hinkley Point C, deeming it compatible with EU state aid guidelines and thus the internal market. At the time, it was considered by the Commission that the aid was justified as there was a “lack of market-based financial instruments and other contracts to hedge against the substantial investment risks in the project”. The project is a joint venture between EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation, with the latter holding a 33.5% stake. The planned plant, which would be the first new nuclear power station to be built in the UK in almost twenty years, would account for approximately 7% of the UK’s electricity supply. Austria first launched an appeal to this decision in 2015 on the basis that approval of the scheme contradicted EU policy to support renewable energy. The then Austrian chancellor Werner Faymann argued that nuclear power “is not an innovative technology and is therefore not worthy of a subsidy”. He added that “[State] aid is there to support new and modern technologies that are in the general interest of all EU countries. This is in no way true of nuclear power.” The case divided Member States. In the course of proceedings, Luxembourg intervened in support of Austria while France, Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and the UK intervened in support of the Commission. In July 2018, the General Court dismissed the action brought by Austria. However, in September 2018, Austria appealed against the decision before the European Court of Justice. In his opinion of 7 May 2020, Hogan stated that, by accepting the objectives of the Euratom Treaty, all Member States have “clearly signified their unqualified acceptance in principle of the right of other Member States to develop nuclear power plants in their own territories should they wish to do so.” He also notes that EU law (according to Art 194 TFEU) has given each Member State the right to determine its own energy mix. Hogan comments that, according to its wording and the position of the provision in the TFEU, aid, in order to be compatible with the Treaty, neither has to pursue an ‘objective of common interest’ nor an ‘objective of public interest’. It only has to ‘facilitate the development of certain economic activities’ and it must not ‘adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’ As Hogan noted, “This case can be described as the legal side of a dispute between Member States that are in favour of nuclear power and those that are not. Both sides claim that they pursue their course with a view to protecting the environment”. While a decision on this appeal is still pending, Hogan’s opinion will be taken into account when the European Court ultimately rules on Austria’s appeal. In the podcast, Leigh Hancher shares her thoughts on the opinion.

In this podcast, Dr Leonie Reins from Tilburg University discusses the role of the energy solidarity principle (as outlined in Article 194 TFEU) and the foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regulation in the development of a more integrated EU regulatory framework and a fully-fledged Energy Union. In particular, she examines how the General Court’s recent interpretation of the energy solidarity principle as seen in the OPAL case and the FDI screening will impact the energy sector.

Are prescription drug prices too high and can antitrust and competition law be used to regulate the “right” price? NYU professor Harry First and Lauren Rackow will talk to John Roberti and Ricardo Woolery about the recent trend of increasing prescription drug prices, whether the “right” price exists, and whether antitrust and competition law have tools to regulate these prices. Listen to this episode to learn more about how competition experts think about high drug prices and calls for greater antitrust and competition law enforcement to regulate them. Related Links: Harry First, Excessive Drug Pricing as an Antitrust Violation, 82 Antitrust Law Journal 701 (2019) U.S. Dep't of Justice, Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Chapter 1 (2008)  A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission's Investigative, Law Enforcement, and Rulemaking Authority, Section II(2) Overview of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Hosted by: John Roberti and Ricardo Woolery

Unit 4 - Fundamental Transactions and Cross-Border Mobility: The Centros Case, Freedom of establishment for companies (Art. 49, 54 TFEU), Scope and effect of FoE, The real seat conflicts rule as obstacle, ECJ: break-up of the real seat rule, Impact on foreign company incorporations, Competition for charters: initial choice of law, www.go-limited.de, Increase of capital, Domestic mergers, Cross-border mergers, Total cost of Centros-style incorporations.

Unit 1 - Course content and methodological approach; Course outline; Functioning of the European Union (EU); The origin of the EU and recent developments; Growth of the EU; EU institutions: The European Council, European Commission, European Parliament, Council, Court of Justice of the European Union; Sources of European law; Supremacy of European law; Hierarchy of laws; Legislative competences (Arts. 2-6 TFEU); Legislative procedure; A "United States of Europe "?.

Unit 3 - Overstretching disclosure?; Consolidated accounts; IAS-Regulation; Impact of financial reporting standards on legal capital rules. Unit 4 - The Centros case; Freedom of establishment (Art. 49 TFEU); Scope and effect of FoE; FoE for companies (Art. 54 TFEU); The real seat conflicts rule as obstacle.

In this podcast, Panagiotis Tsangaris, alumnus of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, discusses the competition law and regulation issues that arise as a result of capacity withdrawals in the electricity wholesale markets, exploring the application of Article 102 TFEU and the terms of Regulation 1227/2011 (REMIT). visit the Florence School of Regulation website: fsr.eui.eu In electricity wholesale markets, market power is mainly exercised either by withdrawing generation capacity (physical withdrawal) or by pricing it above competitive levels (economic withdrawal) in order to achieve a higher market price and, thereby, increase revenue. Inevitably, capacity withdrawal practices can be damaging for both the market and consumers. Thus, the ability of competent authorities to intervene against practices of physical and economic withholding of capacity is crucial. As with any other form of market abuse, the physical and economic withholding of capacity is subject to the application of competition law, in particular Article 102 TFEU. In addition, Regulation 1227/2011 on wholesale market integrity and transparency (REMIT) also enhances transparency in wholesale energy markets and prohibits any acts of market manipulation on wholesale energy markets and may be turned to in order to deal with capacity withdrawal practices. Panagiotis Tsangaris discusses the scope and application of both, as well as the roles of ACER and the NRAs in monitoring the markets, the definition and geographic delineation of the markets in an increasingly interconnected and integrated market across Europe, and the challenges of determining market dominance. For more, you can see Panagiotis Tsangaris’ recent publication here: https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783662555125?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction_authors&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID8793001&utm_content=deeplink

In R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 the Supreme Court gave the final word on the process that needs to be taken for triggering Article 50 TFEU and getting Brexit underway.

In one of the most high profile cases of the year the High Court had to decide whether the government could use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 TFEU following the EU referendum in June 2016. Music from bensound.com

In this paper, we discuss the actual relevance of efficiency considerations in the EC practice of Article 102 TFEU cases. We first review final Commission Decisions published since 2009 as well as investigations opened during that period to identify enforcement priorities and the actual relevance of efficiency considerations and other objective justifications in the EU Commission’s practice. Thereafter, we contrast this practice with the business view on the actual relevance of pro- and anticompetitive motives, with a focus on low price strategies.

true face essence & convention promotion