The EU essential facilities doctrine. Research Papers in Law, 6/2006

Introduction. The essential facilities doctrine may be seen as the ‘extra weight’ which is put onto the balance, in order to give precedence to the maintenance of competition over the complete contractual freedom of undertakings controlling an important and unique facility. The main purpose of the doctrine is to impose upon such ‘dominant’ undertakings the duty to negotiate and/or give access to the facility, against a reasonable fee, to other undertakings, which cannot pursue their own activity (and therefore will perish) without access to such a facility. This very simple description of the content of the doctrine underlines its limitations: through the imposition of a duty to negotiate or contractual obligations, the rule tends to compensate for the weaknesses of the competitive structure of a market, which are due to the existence of some essential facility. In other words, the doctrine does not by itself provide a definitive solution to the lack of competition, but tends to contractually maintain or even create some competition.1 The doctrine of essential facilities originates in the US antitrust case law of the Circuit and District Courts, but has never been officially acknowledged by the Supreme Court. It has been further developed and hotly debated by scholars in the US, both from a legal and from an economic viewpoint. In the EU, the essential facilities doctrine was openly introduced by the Commission during the early 1990s, but has received only limited and indirect support by the Court of First Instance (the CFI) and the European Court of Justice (the ECJ). It also indirectly inspired the legislation concerning the deregulation of traditional ‘natural’ monopolies. The judicial origin of the doctrine, combined with the hesitant application by the appeal courts, both in the US and the EU, cast uncertainty not only on the precise scope of the doctrine, but also on the issue of its very existence. These questions receive a particular light within the EU context, where the doctrine is called upon to play a different role from its US counterpart. In order to address the above issues, we will first pretend that an EU essential facility doctrine does indeed exist and we shall try to identify the scope and content thereof, through its main applications (Section 1). Subsequently, we will try to answer the question whether such a doctrine should exist at all in the EU (Section 2).

Rules of practice for the courts of equity of the United States /

Mode of access: Internet.

Revised rules adopted April 12, 1954, effective July 1, 1954.

Cover title.

The constitution, congress, and the courts : speech of Hon. David J. Lewis, of Maryland, in the House of Representatives, Monday, March 8, 1937.

"(Not printed at government expense.)"

Rules of civil procedure for the United States District Courts. : Hearing[s] Seventy-fifth Congress, third session, on S.J. Res. 281, a joint resolution to postpone the effective date of the Rules of civil procedure.

[pt.1] Hearing, April 18, 1938.--pt.2. Hearing, May 19, 1938.

Revised rules, adopted February 13, 1939, effective February 27, 1939, amended March 25, 1940, October 21, 1940, and May 26, 1941 [and] later amendments.

Appendix (13 pages at end): Act of February 13, 1925, chapter 229, 43 Stat. 936 (amendments to May 22, 1939, included).

Amended rules of practice for the courts of equity of the United States /

Mode of access: Internet.

The Philadelphia Transportation Company case re: income interest on bonds.

"The two volumes ... consist of a brief factual résumé of the court case with no editorial comment, followed by the record of the case in the lower court as submitted to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on appeal, the principal briefs, and the order of the Supreme Court."

In defense of the independence of the judiciary : speech of Hon. Josiah W. Bailey of North Carolina in the Senate of the United States, July 12 and 13, 1937.

"Not printed at government expense."

The Weekly notes

Editor: 1895-1935, Sir Frederick Pollock, bart

The South African law reports.

Editors: 1911-1912, Percival Frere Smith; 1913-1924, Gey van Pittius; 1925-1946, R.P.B. Davis.

The New Zealand law reports.

Vols. for 1933-1936 include "The Law journal supplement to the New Zealand law reports."

The American Print Works vs. Cornelius W. Lawrence.

"Action [was] brought...to recover damages for the destruction of goods contained in two stores...in the city of New York. These buildings were destroyed on the morning of December 17, 1835, by gunpowder exploded therein by order of Cornelius W. Lawrence, then mayor of the city of New York, for the purpose of stopping the great conflagration then raging in that city.

The Law reports.

Edited by G.W. Hemming.

Annual report of the chief justice

Report for 1854 lacks t.-p