Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Strengthening Interim Measures in EU Competition Law

View through CrossRef
This research project was conducted between December 2020 and April 2025, with funding provided by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (DOI 10.54499/2020.08417.BD). It examines the powers available to the European Commission to enforce the competition rules applicable to undertakings in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, especially in the context of digital markets. More specifically, it focuses on the Commission’s power under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 to order interim measures in urgent situations while an investigation is still ongoing. The scope and overall objective of the research project is to answer the following overarching Research Question: To what extent can the Commission’s power to order interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 contribute to enhancing the effective enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, especially in the context of digital markets? This central research question is broken down in the following four Sub-Questions, each examined in a separate academic article: (A) What are the key characteristics of the Commission’s power to order interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003, and how do these features define its role, guide its exercise, and shape the permissible scope of interim intervention? (B) Can the Commission order interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 in cases involving novel or complex legal or factual issues, as frequently encountered in investigations concerning digital markets, or are such measures reserved for more straightforward situations? (C) What synergies can be identified between Regulation 1/2003 and the DMA regarding the Commission’s powers to order interim measures in digital markets, as established respectively in Articles 8 and 24 of those Regulations? (D) Do the procedural requirements for ordering interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 strike an appropriate balance between the rights of the undertakings being investigated and the urgency that justifies interim intervention? If not, what reforms could better reconcile these competing interests? Provided that certain recommendations and safeguards outlined are implemented, the analysis supports a positive answer to the overarching Research Question: the Commission’s power to order interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 can significantly contribute to enhancing the effective enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, particularly in the fast-moving context of digital markets, where urgency is often a hallmark of timely and meaningful competition law intervention.
Utrecht University Library
Title: Strengthening Interim Measures in EU Competition Law
Description:
This research project was conducted between December 2020 and April 2025, with funding provided by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (DOI 10.
54499/2020.
08417.
BD).
It examines the powers available to the European Commission to enforce the competition rules applicable to undertakings in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, especially in the context of digital markets.
More specifically, it focuses on the Commission’s power under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 to order interim measures in urgent situations while an investigation is still ongoing.
The scope and overall objective of the research project is to answer the following overarching Research Question: To what extent can the Commission’s power to order interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 contribute to enhancing the effective enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, especially in the context of digital markets? This central research question is broken down in the following four Sub-Questions, each examined in a separate academic article: (A) What are the key characteristics of the Commission’s power to order interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003, and how do these features define its role, guide its exercise, and shape the permissible scope of interim intervention? (B) Can the Commission order interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 in cases involving novel or complex legal or factual issues, as frequently encountered in investigations concerning digital markets, or are such measures reserved for more straightforward situations? (C) What synergies can be identified between Regulation 1/2003 and the DMA regarding the Commission’s powers to order interim measures in digital markets, as established respectively in Articles 8 and 24 of those Regulations? (D) Do the procedural requirements for ordering interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 strike an appropriate balance between the rights of the undertakings being investigated and the urgency that justifies interim intervention? If not, what reforms could better reconcile these competing interests? Provided that certain recommendations and safeguards outlined are implemented, the analysis supports a positive answer to the overarching Research Question: the Commission’s power to order interim measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 can significantly contribute to enhancing the effective enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, particularly in the fast-moving context of digital markets, where urgency is often a hallmark of timely and meaningful competition law intervention.

Related Results

Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Photo ID 123697425 © Alexandersikov | Dreamstime.com Abstract Originalism is an increasingly prevalent method for interpreting provisions of the US Constitution. It requires strict...
Atypical business law provisions
Atypical business law provisions
The article is devoted to the vision of atypical business law provisions. It was found that the state of scientific opinion regarding atypical business law provisions is irrelevant...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash Abstract This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Interim Anti-Suit Injunctions
Interim Anti-Suit Injunctions
Abstract This chapter examines interim anti-suit injunctions. Most anti-suit injunctions are sought and granted on an interim basis. The need to pre-empt hearings in...
On the Status of Rights
On the Status of Rights
Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash ABSTRACT In cases where the law conflicts with bioethics, the status of rights must be determined to resolve some of the tensions. ...
ANKSI KEBIRI KIMIA BSAGI PELAKU KEJAHATAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP ANAK
ANKSI KEBIRI KIMIA BSAGI PELAKU KEJAHATAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP ANAK
Sexual crime case against children’s in Indonesia are increasing rapidly from time to time. The more tragic fact is that most of the suspect origins from their own kin or around ...
The Urgency of Establishing a Business Competition Court in Indonesia
The Urgency of Establishing a Business Competition Court in Indonesia
Fair law enforcement in handling the business competition complications in Indonesia is essential to promote a conducive business competition climate and to ensure the enforcement ...
The scope of competition law in the digital economy
The scope of competition law in the digital economy
The article reveals new problems arising in the digital economy and the need for antimonopoly regulation. It also analyzes the legal remedies and procedures for competition law in ...

Back to Top