К Smyrnova


Abstract. The digital world is highly dynamic. The only way of survival is to keep innovating, in some extend even invent a way (legal or illegal) to secure its position. As this new phenomenon becomes increasingly sophisticated, the need for laws to govern it becomes more poignant. In consequence, the European Union has taken various actions towards realizing this aim of regulating the digital platform horizon. The evolutionary development of active & passive selling through new electronic or other innovative means which is currently erases national borders leads to the comprehensive involvement of different national competition regimes. The competition authority has kept close scrutinizing on those firms in dominant position in their relevant market. Not only this, as the digital market is mostly multiple sided, the interaction between market are also taking care. However, the competition laws should adapt in the proactively to prevent the anti-competitive measures. The competition authority needs to have the anticipation on the dynamic evolution of competition in digital market and act proactively. Thus the most crucial aspect is to balance the innovative progress & the necessity to control on competition. This article examines how the nature and logic of competition law changes as authorities expand the time horizon that they consider in their prospective analysis.
Key words: digitalization, competition law, abuse of dominant position, exploitative abuse, e-commerce, vertical agreements

Full Text:




Google/Motorola Mobility (Case COMP/M.6381) Commission Decision of 13 February 2012 [2012] C75/1.

Intel (Case COMP/C-3/37.990) Commission Decision of 13 May 2009 [2009] C227/13.

Final European Commission commitments Case COMP/AT.40.153 E-book MFNs & related matters

Granieri, M. and A. Renda (2012), Innovation Law and Policy in the European Union, Milan:Springer.

Campbell, R.W. (2012), “Rethinking Regulation and Innovation in the US Legal Services Market”, New York University Journal of Law and Business, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1-70.

Awrey, D. (2012), “Complexity, Innovation, and the Regulation of Modern Financial Markets”, Harvard Business Law Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 235-294.

Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин. Випуск 136. 2018. .

Bekkers, R., G. Duysters and B. Verspagen (2002), “Intellectual Property Rights, Strategic Agreements and Market Structure: the Case of GSM”, Research Policy, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp. 1141-1161.

[Belleflamme, Paul and Cecilia Vergari (2010) ‘Incentives to innovate in oligopolies’, The Manchester School 79(1): 6-28.

Handbook on European Competition Law. Substantive Aspects (2013) [ Ed. by Lianos I., Geradin D.]. – Cheltenham : Edward Elgar PublishingLimited: 665p.

Commission notice – Guidelines on Vertical Restraints /* SEC/2010/0411 final 10/05/2010

[11] Smyrnova K. V. (2013) EU Competition Law: textbook with schemes & case studies, Odesa : Feniks, 144 p.

Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market // OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36–68

The European Commission's preliminary report on its e-commerce sector inquiry

Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. v. Commission // ECR [1979] 461.

Case T-201/04 – Microsoft // ECR [2007] II-2977

Google/Motorola Mobility (Case COMP/M.6381) Commission Decision of 13 February 2012 [2012] C75/1.

Microsoft (Tying) (Case COMP/39.530) Commission Decision of 16 December 2009 [2010] C36/7, para 104;

Case T-201/04, Microsoft Corp. v Commission [2007] ECR II-3601

Commission notice on the definition of the relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law (1997) OJ C 372, p. 5–13.



  • There are currently no refbacks.