No abstract

Owing to its particular features, the market of luxury goods is a point of interest to lawyers as much as to other professions such as economists or sociologists. These features play an important role in legal regulation of the market. While the starting point is competition law, the assessment of anticompetitive conduct under Article 101 of the TFEU cannot be complete without resorting to intellectual property law policies and rules. With the rise of the importance of internet sales, novel issues have been put before the competition authorities and reviewing courts, such as legality of various types of online restrictions in the selective distribution systems. Employing a combined IP law and competition law approach to these issues, this paper offers insights and comments on EU case law, with primary focus on the recent CJEU judgment in Coty. The intricacies of the interplay among different competition law rules and exemptions is particularly evidenced in this case. However, limited by its fact-pattern, the Coty judgment may serve as a clarification about the deluxe competition law treatment only of certain online sale prohibitions within the SDSs, while there will certainly be continuing discussions and national case law developments on other internet related competition law restrictions awaiting further elucidations by the CJEU.

No abstract

, is controversial for at least two reasons. First is the territorial reach of the EU competition law outside the EU borders, and second relates to the treatment of exclusivity rebates. With regards to the former, for the first time the CJEU confirmed the position of the Commission and the General Court regarding the extended territorial reach of the EU antitrust legislation. Quite the opposite, the CJEU quashed the General Court ruling as to the former, arguably rejecting the traditional per se infringement of exclusivity rebates and embracing the effects-based analysis. The doctrine is somewhat divided as to whether this judgment is a much needed clarification of the two issues or it indicates a new direction in EU competition law analysis. This paper is addressing the most important ideas in the doctrinal interpretations and related arguments, and provides critical assessment of the present state of affairs. It also raises certain points relevant to the Intel judgment, which so far have not been given sufficient attention in the case comments and scholarship.

<span>Issues arising in the context of determining the law governing competition law breaches are numerous and complex. The situation is no different following the harmonisation of the national rules as a result of the recently adopted Directive on damages for infringements of the competition law provisions. This paper is aimed at scrutinising various such issues, in particular it deals with interpretation of the concepts found in Article 6(3) of the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations and the related aspects of interaction between EU and national competition laws. From the scope of application ratione materiae of the mentioned conflict-of-law provision and defining the “market” as an essential component of the connecting factor lex mercati, to the functioning of the general provisions aimed at protecting public interests, the author presents the opposing views expressed in legal theory and points out the principles which should be taken into account in the course of the analysis. Additional emphasis is put on the thorny questions which originate from erroneous translation of the EU legislation into the Croatian language.&nbsp;</span>