ZWeR 2026, 180
Competition Law as a Discovery Process – How to Reconcile Accuracy and Administrability in the Enforcement of Art. 102 TFEU
Remarks on Heike Schweitzer’s views on “How To Fix A Failing Art. 102 TFEU” and recent jurisprudence
In one of her last academic contributions, Heike Schweitzer – together with Simon de Ridder – reflected on “How to Fix a Failing Art. 102 TFEU”.1
The – deliberately provocative – title echoes a diagnosis shared by many, i. e. that the cost/benefit ratio of proceedings under Art. 102 TFEU has been suboptimal in recent times.2 For Heike Schweitzer, this was not a reason for frustration, but a call to action. Her contribution challenges us all to reflect on concrete ways to improve the speed of enforcement and the coherence of the substantive interpretation of Art. 102 TFEU as well as of the evidentiary standards in competition proceedings before authorities and courts.
My presentation should be understood as a signal that Heike Schweitzer’s work continues to inspire forward thinking in the discovery process3 that the enforcement and interpretation of competition law in general, and of the concept of abuse of a dominant position in particular, have become under the EU treaties since their inception and more so in the last few decades.
Contents
- I. The more economic approach as guiding principle in the enforcement of Art. 102 TFEU and the call for its refinement
- II. The more economic approach as part of a wider effort of adjudicating social costs between accuracy and administrability
- III. Achievement and challenges
- IV. Factual inferences, legal and evidentiary presumptions as tools for a gradual “by effect” analysis
- V. “By object” under Art. 102 TFEU?
- VI. Conclusion: An enduring challenge
- *
- *)Judge at the General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg. All views expressed are personal. The author wishes to thank Dr James Kröger, Legal Secretary in his cabinet, for invaluable advice in preparing this text.
- 1
- 1)Schweitzer/de Ridder, How to Fix a Failing Art. 102 TFEU: Substantive Interpretation, Evidentiary Requirements, and the Commission’s Future Guidelines on Exclusionary Abuses, JECLP 2024, pp. 222 – 243.
- 2
- 2)Representative in this respect e. g. Kokott/Serafimova, Aktuelle Rechtsprechung der Unionsgerichte zum Missbrauchsverbot nach Art. 102 AEUV – hin zu einem Paradigmenwechsel, in: Becker (Hrsg.), Wettbewerb auf digitalen Märkten, Baden-Baden: 2025, pp.13 – 38 (31 – 38).
- 3
- 3)In analogy to Hayek, Der Wettbewerb als Entdeckungsverfahren, in: Hayek, Freiburger Studien, 1969, pp. 249 – 265.
Der Inhalt dieses Beitrags ist nicht frei verfügbar.
Für Abonnenten ist der Zugang zu Aufsätzen und Rechtsprechung frei.
Sollten Sie über kein Abonnement verfügen, können Sie den gewünschten Beitrag trotzdem kostenpflichtig erwerben:
Erwerben Sie den gewünschten Beitrag kostenpflichtig per Rechnung.
Erwerben Sie den gewünschten Beitrag kostenpflichtig mit PayPal.