Course: European Business Environment

Professor: Dr. Sziebig Orsolya Johanna

& Dr. Tabajdi Gabriella

Name: Siekleng SAM

Username: U2XGQA

Homework 6: EU competition regulation – legal sources, principles, institutions, rules applying

to undertakings

1. In what cases is the principle of extraterritoriality applied in EU competition policy?

How does this relate to the contents of this principle?

➢ In EU competition policy, the principle of extraterritoriality applies to any collusive or

abusive behavior that has an impact on competition in the EU and trade between member
states. In the context of EU competition policy, extraterritoriality allows the EU to apply
its competition laws to conduct that has an impact on competition within the EU or trade
between member states
➢ This indicates that the EU can assert jurisdiction over behavior occurring outside its
boundaries if it has an impact on competition within the EU, demonstrating the
extraterritoriality of EU competition legislation.

2. How are objective and impact related to each other in EU competition investigations?
➢ the objective is to ensure that competition in the market remains fair and transparent,
and to prevent any practices that could harm consumers or stifle competition. The
European Commission, along with national competition authorities, is responsible for
enforcing EU competition rules and reviewing mergers that could have a significant
impact on the EU's internal market.
➢ The impact of these investigations is seen in several ways. First, they aim to detect and
address any infringements of EU competition rules, such as cartels or abuse of
dominant market positions, in order to maintain effective competition. Second, they
help maintain fair and open digital markets, particularly in the context of the growing
digital economy, where competition is crucial for innovation and consumer choice.
Third, they aim to prevent harmful effects on competition, protect consumers from anti-
competitive practices, and ensure a level playing field for businesses.
➢ Therefore, the objective of EU competition investigations is to ensure fair competition,
prevent anti-competitive practices, and protect consumers. The impact of these
investigations is seen in the detection and enforcement of competition infringements,
the promotion of fair and open digital markets, and the overall preservation of a
competitive and thriving internal market in the European Union.
 3. Which are the synonyms of the expression 'undertaking'?
➢ The synonyms of the expression 'undertaking' include company, enterprise, venture,
project, task, assignment, endeavor, and initiative. It used in context of EU competitive
policy which refer to economic operators affected by its mandates.

4. What is the main idea and logic of the leniency policy?

➢ The primary goal of the EU competition law's leniency policy is to incentivize companies
engaged in cartels to self-disclose their involvement and produce supporting
documentation in exchange for immunity from fines or a reduction in penalty. The leniency
program seeks to expose cartels, prevent new ones from forming, and undermine those that
already exist. The first corporation to report a cartel is granted immunity or reduced fines;
subsequent applications may receive reduced fines depending on the timeliness and quality
of their proof. In the end, this strategy will benefit consumers and competition inside the
EU by encouraging businesses to come forward with information regarding
anticompetitive behavior.

5. Please select any real-life case in connection with competition policy and summarise
it briefly. (what area of competition regulation was investigated? Who were the
involved parties? What was the decision? Anything that is interesting in terms of
competition regulation) https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search

• Case Title: Google Search (Shopping) Antitrust Case (Case AT.39740)

• Last Decision Date:27.06.2017

The case focused on Google's dominance in the online search market and its alleged anti-
competitive practices in the area of online shopping. The main party involved in the case was
Google, a multinational technology company. The European Commission, the executive branch of
the EU responsible for competition policy, conducted the investigation.

Decision: In June 2017, the European Commission fined Google €2.42 billion for abusing its
dominant position in the online search market by favoring its own comparison shopping service
over competitors in search results.1

This case highlights the importance of competition regulation in ensuring a level playing field and
promoting fair competition in the digital marketplace. It demonstrates the EU's commitment to
addressing anti-competitive behavior by dominant companies and protecting consumer welfare.

1
Relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54
of the EEA Agreement