Compulsory licensing of standard-essential patents and injunctive relief as abuse of dominant position in violation of Article 102 TFEU

When a dominant undertaking holding a standard-essential patent uses its exclusive right to the IP to seek injunctions against those wishing to produce either de jure or de facto standard compliant products, it creates a conflict between the exclusive right to the use of the IP on the one hand and the possible abuse of dominance due to the exclusionary conduct on the other. The aim of the thesis is to focus on the issues concerning abuse of dominance in violation of Article 102 TFEU when the holder of the standard-essential patent seeks an injunction against a would-be licensee. The thesis is mainly based on the most recent ECJ case law in Huawei and the Commission’s recent decisions in Samsung and Motorola. The case law in Europe prior to those decisions was mainly focused on the German case law from Orange Book Standard which provided IP holders great leverage due to the almost automatic granting of injunctions against infringers. The ECJ in Huawei set out the requirements for when a de jure standard-essential patent holder would not be violating Article 102 TFEU when seeking an injunction, requiring that negotiations in good faith must take place prior to the seeking of the injunction and that all offers must comply with FRAND terms, thus limiting the scope of case law derived from Orange Book Standard in Germany. The ECJ chose not to follow all of the reasoning the Commission had laid out in Samsung and Motorola which provided a more licensee-friendly approach on the matter, but rather chose a compromise between the IP holder friendly German case law and the Commission’s decisions. However, the ECJ did not disclose how FRAND terms themselves should be interpreted, but rather left it for the national courts to decide. Furthermore, the thesis strongly argues that Huawei did not change the fact that only vertically integrated IP holders who have made a FRAND declaration are subject to the terms laid out in Huawei, thus leaving non-practicing entities such as patent trolls and entities that have not made a FRAND declaration outside its scope. The resulting conclusion from the thesis is that while the ECJ in Huawei presented new exceptional circumstances for when an IP holder could be abusing its dominant position when it seeks an injunction, it still left many more questions answered, such as the meaning of FRAND and whether deception in giving a FRAND declaration is prohibited under Article 102 TFEU or not.

Abusing data dominance in the digital market. The application of merger control and article 102 TFEU to data-related conducts.

The internet and digital technologies revolutionized the economy. Regulating the digital market has become a priority for the European Union. While promoting innovation and development, EU institutions must assure that the digital market maintains a competitive structure. Among the numerous elements characterizing the digital sector, users’ data are particularly important. Digital services are centered around personal data, the accumulation of which contributed to the centralization of market power in the hands of a few large providers. As a result, data-driven mergers and data-related abuses gained a central role for the purposes of EU antitrust enforcement. In light of these considerations, this work aims at assessing whether EU competition law is well-suited to address data-driven mergers and data-related abuses of dominance. These conducts are of crucial importance to the maintenance of competition in the digital sector, insofar as the accumulation of users’ data constitutes a fundamental competitive advantage. To begin with, part 1 addresses the specific features of the digital market and their impact on the definition of the relevant market and the assessment of dominance by antitrust authorities. Secondly, part 2 analyzes the EU’s case law on data-driven mergers to verify if merger control is well-suited to address these concentrations. Thirdly, part 3 discusses abuses of dominance in the phase of data collection and the legal frameworks applicable to these conducts. Fourthly, part 4 focuses on access to “essential” datasets and the indirect effects of anticompetitive conducts on rivals’ ability to access users’ information. Finally, Part 5 discusses differential pricing practices implemented online and based on personal data. As it will be assessed, the combination of an efficient competition law enforcement and the auspicial adoption of a specific regulation seems to be the best solution to face the challenges raised by “data-related dominance”.

Auxílios de Estado sob a forma fiscal: O caso Açores - Proc. C-88/03

Mestrado em Fiscalidade

R&D&I Tax Incentives in the European Union and State Aid Rules

Although tax incentives are an effective tool for promoting R&D&I, depending on their design they may qualify as State aid (article 107(1) of the TFEU) unless exempted by the Commission (article 107(3)). This article discusses the role of State aid rules in respect of R&D&I incentives and the need to ensure R&D&I promotion policies in Europe are on equal footing with the rest of the world, thus ensuring a level playing field for European undertakings in global markets.

Il controllo sugli aiuti di Stato e i nuovi orizzonti della fiscalita europea

la tesi esamina l’applicazione del controllo sugli aiuti di Stato in materia fiscale tramite la disamina della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia. Il lavoro intende fornire una nuova prospettiva di analisi, valorizzando l’interazione tra la nozione di ‘aiuto fiscale’ ex art. 107(1) TFUE e le categorie tributarie nazionali, sottese all’applicazione del “test in tre fasi” coniato dalla Corte per identificare la presenza di un ‘vantaggio selettivo’. Facendo applicazione di tale prospettiva di analisi, la ricerca propone una nuova categorizzazione della ‘selettività fiscale’, tramite la quale vengono affrontate le tematiche più controverse legate all’applicazione dell’istituto. Infine, considerando i numerosi progetti di riforma della fiscalità diretta attualmente al vaglio delle Istituzioni europee, la tesi si confronta con il “futuro” del controllo sugli aiuti di Stato, identificato nella necessaria interazione con una cornice normativa armonizzata.

Multilingualism in the EU: a Necessary Evil?

Aquest treball té com a objectiu analitzar el multilingüisme a la Unió europea des d’una perspectiva interdisciplinària entre traducció i dret de la Unió europea. Aquest article estudia la Unió com a un sistema multilingüe, amb especial èmfasi en les raons jurídiques i polítiques darrera l’actual règim lingüístic. També s’intentarà examinar els efectes que la diversitat lingüística té en la interpretació de la legislació europea. Hi han vint i tres llengües oficials i els textos publicats en les diferents llengües son igualment autèntics (Article 55 TFUE). Però les regles poden tenir la mateixa implicació jurídica en mes d’una llengua?

Redefining the outer boundaries of EU Law: the Zambrano, McCarthy and Dereci trilogy

In its three recent rulings in the cases of Zambrano, McCarthy, and Dereci, the Court appears to have been determined to redefine the external boundaries of EU law, in cases involving the family reunification rights of Union citizens.These three judgments can be read as an indication that for Article 20 TFEU to apply, there is no longer a requirement of a cross-border element on the facts of the case, and that it is sufficient if the contested national measure has the effect of ‘depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance’ of their rights (the ‘Zambrano principle’).The cases can, at the same time, also be read as a confirmation that the free movement provisions do – still – require a cross-border element and, in particular, the exercise of inter-State movement, in order to apply. Though the result in these cases has not been entirely unexpected, especially in the aftermath of the Rottmann ruling, it is rather problematic in that, although it is obvious that the Court wishes to redraw the line dividing the national and EU spheres of competence, it does not make it entirely clear where this line now lies and leaves many essential questions unanswered, which will obviously require some time to be resolved. EU lawyers are consequently, once more, left with having to decipher as best as they can the real intentions of the Court in this new line of case-law, which has been further complicated by the fact that what the Court seems to have given with one hand in Zambrano (and before that in Rottmann), has taken it back to a large extent through its rulings in McCarthy and Dereci, which appear to confine the former two cases to their own exceptional facts.6 Moreover, the ‘reverse discrimination Pandora’s box’, the opening of which appears to have been the real target of these references, remains untouched: instead of providing a direct solution to this problem, the Court has chosen to – once again – broaden the scope of the Treaty provisions in order to include within it as many situations as possible and, thus, prevent the emergence of this type of differential treatment on a case-by-case basis.As will be explained, nonetheless, this is by no means an appropriate solution to the reverse discrimination conundrum.

Il diritto alla detrazione e le frodi Iva

Il presente lavoro parte dalla constatazione che l’Imposta sul valore aggiunto è stata introdotta con lo scopo specifico di tassare il consumo in modo uniforme a livello europeo. La globalizzazione dell’economia con l’abolizione delle frontiere ha tuttavia favorito la nascita non solo di un mercato unico europeo, ma anche di “un mercato unico delle frodi”. L’esistenza di abusi e frodi in ambito Iva risulta doppiamente dannosa per l’Unione europea: tali condotte incidono quantitativamente sull'ammontare delle risorse proprie dell’Unione e sulle entrate fiscali dei singoli Stati membri nonché violano il principio di concorrenza e producono distorsioni nel mercato unico. È in questo contesto che intervengono i giudici nazionali e la Corte di Giustizia, al fine di porre un freno a tali fenomeni patologici. Quest’ultima, chiamata a far rispettare il diritto comunitario, ha sviluppato una misura antifrode e antiabuso consistente nel diniego del diritto alla detrazione qualora lo stesso venga invocato dal soggetto passivo abusivamente o fraudolentemente. Vedremo però che il problema non può essere facilmente ridotto a formule operative: al di là dello schema, fin troppo scontato, dell’operatore apertamente disonesto e degli operatori con esso dichiaratamente correi, rimane il territorio grigio dei soggetti coinvolti, qualche volta inconsapevolmente qualche volta consapevolmente, ma senza concreta partecipazione nella frode da altri orchestrata. Permane a questo punto la domanda se sia coerente - in un sistema impositivo che privilegia i profili oggettivi, prescindendo, salvo gli aspetti sanzionatori, da quelli soggettivi- negare il diritto alla detrazione Iva per asserita consapevolezza di comportamenti fraudolenti altrui o se non vi siano regole più adatte al fine di porre un freno alle frodi e dunque più conformi al principio di proporzionalità.

A admissibilidade e a conveniência da exclusão do controlador em S.A.

O estudo refere-se à verificação da admissibilidade e da conveniência da exclusão facultativa de acionista controlador em sociedade anônima. O tema não é propriamente novo no Brasil. Intenciona-se, no entanto, construir a hipótese a partir de fundamento legal diferente. A Lei 6.404/76 (LSA) apenas destina a exclusão para casos de acionista remisso (artigo 107, II), permanecendo silente com relação ao inadimplemento de deveres de colaboração e lealdade (em conjunto, deveres de cooperação). Nesse contexto, a doutrina e a jurisprudência brasileiras tendem a admitir a hipótese de exclusão em tais casos por aplicação do artigo 1.030 do Código Civil, destinado a regular a matéria no âmbito das sociedades simples. Para tanto, aproximam a companhia fechada das sociedades de pessoas a fim de justificar, dada a alegada omissão da lei especial a esse respeito, o tratamento por analogia. A partir do estudo sistemático da LSA, que compreende, entre outros, o entendimento do princípio da circulação de ações e da extensão dos deveres de boa-fé entre os sócios, pretende-se admitir a hipótese com base na própria lógica acionária, em razão da eventual relevância do relacionamento societário para a consecução do fim social. Em tais companhias, o adimplemento dos deveres de cooperação torna-se tão imprescindível quanto o adimplemento do dever de conferimento para o alcance do escopo comum. Em decorrência desse raciocínio, a exclusão torna-se admissível na ocorrência de inadimplemento de qualquer dever social que inviabilize, real ou potencialmente, o preenchimento do fim social. A identificação de eventual affectio societatis entre os acionistas, portanto, passa a ser irrelevante. Admitir a hipótese no que se refere a acionista controlador se revela ainda importante instrumento de limitação do exercício ilegítimo do poder de controle e não se confunde com a sanção de perdas e danos prevista na LSA por abuso de poder de controle. Por fim, será analisada a conveniência da exclusão do controlador, em razão de sua relevância pessoal para a consecução da atividade, a participação societária por ele detida e da possibilidade de dissolver-se parcialmente a sociedade, com a saída do acionista minoritário descontente.

The concept of 'economic activity' in the EU treaty: from ideological dead-ends to workable judicial concepts. Research Paper in Law 06/2011

[From the Introduction]. The economic rules, or put more ambitiously, the economic constitution of the Treaty,1 only apply to economic activities. This general principle remains valid, even if some authors strive to demonstrate that certain Treaty rules also apply in the absence of an economic activity,2 and despite the fact that non-economic (horizontal) Treaty provisions (e.g. principle of nondiscrimination, rules on citizenship) are also applicable in the absence of any economic activity.3 Indeed, the exercise of some economic activity transcends the concepts of ‘goods’ (having positive or negative market value),4 workers (even if admitted in an extensive manner),5 and services (offered for remuneration).6 It is also economic activity or ‘the activity of offering goods and services into the market’7 that characterises an ‘undertaking’ thus making the competition rules applicable. Further, it is for regulating economic activity that Article 115 TFEU, Article 106(3) TFEU and most other legal bases in the TFEU provide harmonisation powers in favour of the EU. Last but not least, Article 14 TFEU on the distinction between services of general economic interest (SGEIs) and non-economic services of general interest (NESGIs), as well as Protocol n. 26 on Services of General Interest (SGIs) confirm the constitutional significance of the distinction between economic and non-economic: a means of dividing competences between the EU and the member states. The distinction between economic and non-economic activities is fraught with legal and technical intricacies – the latter being generated by dynamic technological advances and regulatory experimentation. More importantly, however, the distinction is overcharged with political and ideological significations and misunderstandings and, even, terminological confusions.8

Políticas europeas para la competitividad, salarios mìnimos y tutela del poder adquisitivo de las retribuciones en Italia tras el acuerdo de noviembre de 2012 [European Policies for competitiveness, minimum wages and purchasing power protection in Italy after the November 2012 agreement]. WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.INT – 99/2013

On the floor of the Global Wage Report 2012/2013 by ILO, entitled Wages and equitable growth, the A. thinks that the wage regulation has to take into account competitiveness without compressing global aggregate demand. Therefore, International and European rules are necessary to avoid the spiral towards the wages dampen, which is bad for the economic development. The rules in action at the different levels are inadequate. The A. proposes an interpretation of Article 153 and Article 155 TFEU that is more suitable for a European regulation promoting better minimum wages and more coherent with the current legal framework of the right to pay, which can be considered, even if partially, as a social right.