| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:Pomen in dokazovanje relevantnih trgov v odškodninskih sporih zaradi zlorabe prevladujočega položaja na področju telekomunikacij : magistrsko delo
Authors:Žičkar, Jan (Author)
Ferčič, Aleš (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Zickar_Jan_2019.pdf (588,00 KB)
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper (mb22)
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Sodni spori, v katerih en gospodarski subjekt od drugega gospodarskega subjekta zahteva plačilo odškodnine zaradi zlorabe prevladujočega položaja, v praksi predstavljajo obsežne spore, v katerih se pojavlja večje število tako pravnih kot dejanskih vprašanj, pri čemer je sporna vprašanja potrebno obravnavati po smiselnem vrstnem redu, saj je določena izmed njih potrebno rešiti predhodno iz razloga, da je k razreševanju oziroma presoji nadaljnjega oziroma nadaljnjih sploh mogoče pristopiti. Vprašanje, ki ga je potrebno razrešiti v začetni fazi spora, je določitev upoštevnega trga. Eno izmed možnosti stranke za podajo navedb in dokazovanje upoštevnega trga v odškodninskem sporu zaradi zlorabe prevladujočega položaja na področju telekomunikacij predstavljajo odločbe Javne agencije Republike Slovenije za varstvo konkurence (v nadaljevanju: AVK), ki med drugim spremlja in analizira razmere na trgu, če so pomembne za razvijanje učinkovite konkurence, vodi postopke in izdaja odločbe v skladu z zakonom ter odločbe in analize Agencije za komunikacijska omrežja in storitve Republike Slovenije (v nadaljevanju: AKOS), ki na področju zagotavljanja in izvajanja elektronskih komunikacij v skladu z načeli konkurenčnega prava na področju elektronskih komunikacij določa produktne, storitvene in geografske trge, ki ustrezajo razmeram v državi, pri čemer sodeluje z organom, pristojnim za varstvo konkurence. Prvi organ predstavlja organ, pristojen za varstvo konkurence, drugi pa organ, ki je med drugim pristojen za sektorsko regulacijo na področju telekomunikacij. Organ za varstvo konkurence sankcionira protikonkurenčna ravnanja praviloma za nazaj, tj ex-post, pri čemer gre praviloma za prepoved določenih ravnanj, sektorski regulator pa regulira trg praviloma vnaprej, tj. ex-ante, z namenom preprečiti protikonkurenčna ravnanja, pri čemer gre praviloma za ukrepe v smislu določanja obveznosti določenega ravnanja. V primeru spora med pravdnima strankama o opredelitvi in določitvi upoštevnega trga se lahko stranka kot na svoje lastne navedbe sklicuje na odločbe konkurenčnega organa in/ali sektorskega regulatorja oziroma njihovo vsebino uporabi za ta namen, jih predlaga kot dokaze o obstoju ter vsebini določenega upoštevnega trga ali pa gre za kombinacijo obojega. Jasno je, da je sodišče vezano na pravnomočno odločbo konkurenčnega organa o kršitvi ali pravnomočno odločbo o kršitvi, izdano v postopku sodnega varstva zoper odločbo agencije. Iz tega izhaja, da je sodišče vezano na odločbo konkurenčnega organa glede protipravnega ravnanja subjekta, pri tem pa se postavlja vprašanje, ali je pri tem vezano tudi na ugotovitev obstoja in obsega samega relevantnega trga, kot je bil ugotovljen v odločbi. V zvezi z odločbami sektorskega regulatorja pa se kot ključno postavlja vprašanje, ali jih je potrebno upoštevati kot neposreden dokaz o obstoju določenega upoštevnega trga, ali pa je potrebno njihovo vsebino šteti kot del navedb stranke ter končno, ob upoštevanju vsebine ugovorov nasprotne stranke, določiti upoštevni trg posebej za potrebe odškodninskega spora. Pri tem je potrebno upoštevati naravo ter namen teh odločb, saj ima sektorski regulator z opravljanjem vnaprejšnje regulacije drugačne cilje kot konkurenčni organ, ki sankcionira protikonkurenčna ravnanja za nazaj, čeprav oba organa uporabljata za opredelitev upoštevnih trgov metode, ki so skladne z načeli konkurenčnega prava.
Keywords:konkurenčno pravo, zloraba prevladujočega položaja, odškodninski spor, relevantni trgi, dokazovanje, Javna agencija Republike Slovenije za varstvo konkurence, Agencija za komunikacijska omrežja in storitve Republike Slovenije, odločbe
Year of publishing:2019
Place of performance:[Maribor
Publisher:J. Žičkar]
Number of pages:72 f.
Source:Maribor
UDC:339.353:621.039(043.3)
COBISS_ID:5745451 Link is opened in a new window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:WFQANQRJ
License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
This work is available under this license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International
Views:85
Downloads:16
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:AddThis
AddThis uses cookies that require your consent. Edit consent...

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Meaning and averment of relevant markets in compensation dispute because of abuse of dominant position in electronic communication sector
Abstract:Commercial disputes where plaintiff claims damages because of abuse of dominant position from defendant in practice denotes extensive disputes in which there are many legal and factual issues that have to be addressed. Questions at issue have to be considered in reasonable order because some of them have to be resolved in advance so others can than be addressed. Issue that has to be resolved at the early stage of dispute is definition of relevant market. One of the options for argumentation and proof of relevant market in damages dispute because of abuse of dominant position at the telecommunication sector are decisions of Slovenian Competition Protection Agency that analyse market conditions, manages procedures and adopts decisions and also decisions and analyses of Agency for Communication Networks and Services of the Republic of Slovenia which in field of telecommunications also determines relevant markets in accordance with competition law principles in cooperation with Slovenian Competition Protection Agency. First organ is competent for protection of competition and its interventions are ex-post nature, while the second organ is responsible for sectoral regulation of relevant markets with a view to deter anti competition acts and which interventions are ex-ante nature. In case when definition of relevant market is arguable between parties, they can use decisions of both organs for argumentation and/or proof of relevant market. Court is bound only with final decision of Slovenian Competition Protection Agency or final judgement of administrative court decision regarding unlawfull act. The question is wheather it is bound also with the definition of relevant market that has been defined in those decision or not. Main question regarding decisions of sectoral regulator is whether court should take those into consideration as a direct proof of definition of relevant market or should those decisions be deemed as argumentation of a party. If so, court can finally, by taking into account objections of other party, define relevant market for puropses of compensation dispute. Nature and purpose of decisions of both organs should be taken into consideration because sectoral regulator has broader and different goals with its ex-ante regulation as national competition organ with its ex-post intervention, although both use same competition law principles for relevant market definition.
Keywords:Competition Law, Abuse of dominant position, Compensation dispute, Relevant market, Proof, Slovenian Competition Protection Agency, Agency for Communication Networks and Services of the Republic of Slovenia, Decisions


Comments

Leave comment

You have to log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica