Distinguishing Legitimate Price Competition from Unlawful Exclusionary Behaviour: Reconciling and Rationalising the Case-Law
This paper analyses EU cases on abuse of a dominant position dealing with low cost pricing by a dominant firm to determine: (i) whether they are consistent with each other and the goals underpinning the EU competition laws: (ii) whether any evolution in the case-law can be detected and (iii) what changes can be anticipated in the future and would be desirable to ensure the law’s coherence. In particular, it considers the implications of the judgment of the General Court in Intel which has reignited the debate about the philosophical basis of EU competition law and the question of how ‘abusive’ conduct can or should be identified. The paper concludes that there is a need to rationalise the case law and for the EU Courts to explain more fully the policy underpinning the cases, when it is legitimate to rely on presumptions of illegality in the context of Article 102, how the various types of abuse relate to each other and how case-law under Article 101 can, or should, impact on the development of principles under Article 102. As the Court of Justice will have the opportunity to address many of these issues in the appeal from the General Court’s judgment in Intel, the paper examines some of the important issues which require assessment in that judgment.
The Judgment of the EU General Court in Intel and the So-Called 'More Economic Approach' to Abuse of Dominance
This article discusses the judgment of the EU General Court of 12 June 2014 in the Intel case. It argues that the EU case law on the use of exclusivity rebate systems by undertakings occupying a dominant position is economically sound, and that the criticism directed at this case law is ill-founded.
School Principals and Education Law: What do they know, what do they need to know?
Principals now work in complex and challenging environments where uncertainty and change are the hallmarks of their roles and responsibilities. As such, the knowledge and capability demands on principals have expanded, including those related to education law. While these matters attracted some research interest a number of years ago, there has been little recent work in the area of principals and education law. This article reports on an exploratory study into aspects of the legal knowledge held by Tasmanian government school principals, particularly concerning non-sexual physical contact between teachers and students. The research was undertaken using a small-scale, mixed-methods research design, which required principals to respond to various legal scenarios. Three key findings emerged from the study. First, principals used two different levels of working knowledge about education law  one related to legal problems, and the other to legally-related routine activities. Second, on the particular topic of physical contact, some knowledge held by principals was not legally accurate. Third, for major legal issues, participants indicated that they acquired access to information from legal experts. The situation for routine legal matters was less clear, although in-service training and practical experience were identified as potential sources of knowledge. Participants recognised the importance of a sound knowledge of education law, especially for dealing with security and safety issues and preferred to access further information through in-service training. Notably, the findings of the study are broadly consistent with those from earlier Australian and international research, suggesting that much remains to be done in the area of principals’ education law knowledge.