![handle is hein.journals/eurcompet8 and id is 1 raw text is: Euopean Co mpetition journal
THINKING OUTSIDE THE OBJECT BOX: AN EU AND
UK PERSPECTIVE
MUNESH ILAM MAHTANI*
A. INTRODUCTION
As our understanding of w hat constitutes an effect on competition has evolved,
the analytical rigour required under the effect aspect of Article 101(1) has been
placed under scrutiny. However, consideration of the object aspect of Article
101(1) has lagged behind, it receiving limited attention until recently. A number
of recent decisions and judgments, at EU and [UK level, have raised questions
over the application of the object aspect of Article 101(1), but these questions
have not been resolved and there remain uncertainties. This can readily be seen
from the way in which claims of breach by object are brought and defended.
It has been observed that there is an irritating slackness in the language used
in cases involving a breach of the object aspect of Article 101(l),*
This article first critically considers the case lawx and guidance that has
considered the meaning of the object aspect of Article 1011) (Section B). In
Section C, I examine the preponderant means of understanding object -as a
category of forms of coordination (the object box). Sections D and E contain
a review of case lawx against this understanding of object as a category In
Section F, I propose an alternative structured methodology for understanding
and applying object, in particular in light of the apparent broadening of the
object aspect of Article 101(1) of late.
B. WiiAT Do WE KNow ABOUT THE
OBJECT ASPECT OF ARTICLE 101(1)?
This section considers what we know about the object aspect of Article 101(1),
On closer inspection of decisions, judgments and guidelines, it is not clear how
nCompetition Counsel, Google Inc (Solicitor England and Wal, LLB, \AL. This article is
based on a dissertation written as part of a Master of Arts in European Competition Law,
completed at King's College London in 2010. Ihe views exprsd are h author's own and
canio be attribiuied to Googlc Th autho wouki li thank Prof eo r Richard Whish, Mark
jeph ott and Nelson Jung for their comments on an earir draft.
KPE La, k Receit Developmn ts in the Rule of R o a n iEC Antitrust Law [2008] Corn-
pIt La ounal 226.
April 2012
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/eurcompet8&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most