1.Anti-competitive inthe European Union, especially that corporations will not

1.Anti-competitive agreements at this moment are the most serious violation of theantimonopoly law. Most often, they find expression in the form of anticompetitiveagreements. These relationships are regulated by such law as an anti-competitive law.In the given situation, the legislation on economic competition is violated.In the principles of entrepreneurial law and on the real practice, a lot of attention is paid tothe features of the legal regime of economic entities that occupy a dominant position in themarket of one or another commodity, since this provision allows them to carry outmonopolistic activities on the market in both ways, individually and in association with othereconomic entities.The position of the economic entity in the market, in which it acquires independence fromother economic entities, and the possibility of unilaterally determining the general conditionsfor the circulation of goods, is called dominant in the anti-monopoly law.The cartel is one of the forms of monopoly – the unification of large enterprises of the sameor different branches, that maintain commercial and production autonomy, and are organizedfor the purpose of regulating production, ensuring market dominance, controlling prices andmaking profits because of the monopoly 1.It is possible to recognize a cartel in the given situation, as the company gave somerequirements to its distributor's companies: the prohibition to give discounts on selling anygoods, a boycott of one of the distributors for his disobedience to act according to the wishesof a company. In addition, they should refuse any trade deals with this distributor. Most ofthem have accepted these conditions and, and it means that a cartel agreement was formed.The formation of cartels restricts competition and turns economic development into a slowerprocess. The public danger of cartels consists in limiting competition by concluding secretand unlawful agreements between competitors aimed at infringing consumer interests andextracting excess profits from this.Competition law of the European Union concerns the regulation of competitive markets inthe European Union, especially that corporations will not create cartels and monopolies thatwould or could damage the economic interests of the community. The history of this branchof law is traced to prohibitions on the restriction of freedom of trade in Anglo-Saxon law. Itwas also formed under the influence of the United States experience (Sherman's act andClayton's law). Nowadays, the European Union's competitive law is based on the Articles101 – 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as a number ofregulations and directives.”Article 82 of the Treaty establishing the European Community ("Article 82") prohibitsabuse of a dominant position. According to the case law, it is not illegal for the company tobe dominant, and such a dominant company still has the right to compete on the market.However, this company has a particular responsibility to prevent and not to allow a violationgenuine undistorted competition in the common market by its behavior. “Article 82″ is thelegal basis for the most important component of competition policy, and its effectiveprovision helps the markets to work better for the benefit of companies, economies, andconsumers. This is particularly important in the context of achieving an integrated internalmarket.” 2″Article 82″ applies to enterprises that occupy a dominant position in one or more relevantmarkets. Such position can be carried out by one enterprise (sole domination) or by two ormore enterprises (collective domination). This document concerns only abuses committed bya single-dominant enterprise.Examining the European Union's anti-competitive acts and cartels, we have to distinguish theprovisions of Article 102 of the TFEU (ex Article 82 EC, ex Article 86 EC), especially:"Any abuse by one or more dominant company within the internal market or in a substantialpart of it should be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market, as this may affecttrade between the Member States.Such abuse may consist of:(a) directly or indirectly impose unfair purchase or sale prices, or unfair trading conditions;(b) limiting the production, limiting markets or technical development to the damage of theconsumer;(c) the application of various conditions for equivalent transactions with other parties, therebyplacing them at the disadvantage;(d) the conclusion of contracts containing an obligatory condition for the acceptance by theother parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or in accordance withcommercial use, are not related to the subject of such contracts. "So, it is obvious that the actions of the company are the same as it is described in theprovisions of paragraphs c and d, and the court may appeal to this article of the law in orderto recognize the company as an offender of anti-competitive legislation and the one that isdominant and is also abuses this position on the market 2.Each company or firm that is part of the cartel, preserves financial and productionindependence. The points of the cartel’s agreement can lead to: price fixing, spheres ofinfluence, terms and conditions of sale, use of patents, regulation of production volumes,agreement about equal conditions for the sale of products, employment of workers. Usuallythese agreements are working within the framework of one industry. It can create somedifficulties for the normal functioning of the market mechanisms. In some countries (wherecartels are prohibited) it is a subject to anti-monopoly law; in other countries, the creation ofcartels is encouraged by the government for the purpose of restructuring the industry,standardizing materials and components, restricting competition between small firms, and ismade for economic growth of certain industries.2.The meaning of a dominant position is not defined in the EU memorandum. But thedefinition given by the EU Court in «27/76 United Brands v. Commission» 1978 case, isgiven in most decisions of the EU Commission and the EU Court of Justice, regarding theapplication of Art. 102 in TFEU: a provision that allows companies to use their economicpotential in order to prevent from effective competition in the market for the relevant goodsand services and to act independently from their competitors, customers, and consumers.The ability to act independently of competitors, customers and consumers is a characteristicfeature of this concept. In addition, the EU Commission, the EU Court, for the determiningthe dominant position, pay particular attention to how effectively certain company preventsentry into the market of new competitors, the market share of that company, the economicpotential and the access to the market capital.To determine whether the company takes a dominant position, it is necessary to perform fourconsecutive observations and analysis:- establish an appropriate market (goods and services, geographical location);- establish whether this company permanently owns a major share on this market;- to establish is there a small chance that the existing or potential competitors will be able toovertake current position of the company;- to establish that the dominant position exists within the general market or its essential part.Under the relevant market is understood certain products or services, the production ordistribution of which provides the company with a dominant position. The main criteria forthe determining the relevant market are the so-called ;interchangeability; test, and courtsdetermine the level to which goods or services can be replaced by other goods or services,taking into account their characteristics, prices, and reasons of usage, based on this test.A market where there is a dominant company is often an oligopoly because there is a smallnumber of firms. However, this is an asymmetric oligopoly, because companies are ofdifferent sizes. Usually, the dominant company faces a huge number of small competitors, aso-called competitive environment. Usually, it happens that in a competitive environment,potential future competitors are present. In such case, this dominant company can be amonopolist facing potential dominants.The dominant company, as a monopolist of the market, usually face a demand curve.However, unlike a monopolist, this dominant company must take into account competing forother smaller firms in price and output decisions. The company has some competitiveadvantages (for example, lower costs) in comparison with other representatives of thecompetitive environment.3.For understanding how to replace smartphone on the market, you need to have economicseeing of this market.Agreement on the exclusion of sales refers to the agreement that the manufacturer provides aspecific dealer only the right to sell the product in a certain area. In an exclusive purchaseagreement, the buyer undertakes to buy a particular product from only one specific dealer.The General idea in various exclusive agreements is to create obligations or incentives, withthe result that the buyer makes all purchases on a particular market from only one dealer. Forthe enterprise occupying a dominant position, such mechanisms often have an impact that isharmful to competition, particularly in situations where de facto and potential competitors areunable to fairly compete for the entire demand of an individual customer. The need of thedominant undertaking as an obligatory trading partner may be due to, for example, thepreferences of the end users or the bandwidth limitation of other vendors.That is, the exclusive agreement with the dominant company (in this case, the importer ofsmartphones) are not prohibited automatically and under all circumstances, but often it ishighly likely that they have the nature of abuse of dominant position, depending on thecontext in which they are applied.The notion of a dominant position in the EU constituent treaty has not been interpreted. Thedefinition given by the EU Court in case 27/76 United Brands v. Commission 1978, isgiven in most decisions of the Commission of the EU and the Court of Justice regarding theapplication of Art. 102 DFES: a provision that allows an enterprise to use its economicpotential in order to hinder effective competition in the market for the relevant goods andservices and to act largely independently of competitors, customers and, finally, consumers.Considering this situation on the market and the position of the firm, we can say thefollowing.The firm takes a dominant position if it has the ability to behave independently of itscompetitors, customers, suppliers and, ultimately, the final consumer.A dominant company, which owns such market power will have the opportunity to set pricesabove the competitive level to sell products of lower quality or to lower the rate of innovationbelow the level that would exist in a competitive market.According to EU competition law, it is not illegal to occupy a dominant position, since adominant position can be achieved by legal means of competition, for example, by inventingand selling the best product. Instead of this, competition rules do not allow companies toabuse their dominant position 5.The dominant company is the company, which has a significant share of this market and ithas a significantly larger market share than its next largest competitor. Dominant firms tendto believe that the market share is 40% or more. Dominant firms can raise competitionproblems when they have the low to set prices on their own.Thus, on the one hand, in accordance with European norms, this firm does not have asufficient amount (40% of the national market), but on the other hand, it should be clearinformation about amount of percent, which other companies have, because exactly from thisfactor depends on recognition as a dominant company.4.In the practice of European countries, it is considered that companies based on freedom (andtheir agreements) can freely base their choice on their contracting partners and freely usetheir property. This may also imply the possibility of not entering into business relations withsome participants. The threshold for imposing a supply obligation is high, since imposing anobligation can weaken the incentives of both the dominant enterprise and competitors toinvest and innovate, which is detrimental to consumersThat is, it turns out, in the case of a dominant position, the refusal to supply products maytake the form of abuse of a dominant position.Refusal of supply usually limits competition in situations where the dominant enterprisecompetes with the buyer in the secondary market, the offer of which it does not accept.The criteria for a prohibited refusal of delivery can be met when the dominant enterpriseterminates deliveries to the client or refuses an agreement with the potential client. Therejection of a proposal may take the form of a direct refusal or an indirect refusal when suchrequirements are imposed on pricing or other terms that are already known that the otherparty cannot accept them.The termination of deliveries to old customers is more likely to be considered abuse in courtpractice than the denial of the opportunity for new distributors. In addition, the right to refuseto provide a new client is usually limited if the company sells the same product to otherparticipants, being in the same legal position.For such situations, it is typical that the dominant employee company in one way or anotherhinders competition, refusing to provide a resource to competitors that are extremely complexor uneconomical for the company's economic performance and which are necessary toprovide a particular product or service.In this case, the most likely solution to the situation may be the following. The courtconsiders it advisable to force the dominant company to offer competitors a resource ofnarrow services classified as a key product (in the above case, smartphones).However, this company even before the lawsuits has a chance to get out of the situation inthis way and then, even considering its dominant position, it will not be recognized as aconstraint to economic competition in this sector of the economy.It should also be noted that failure can eliminate or can eliminate all effective competitionwith the market. In this regard, it should be pointed out that it is not enough to identify theexistence of such competition, that competitors of the dominant enterprise remaininsignificant in the market in certain narrow segments of the market.5.The term ;competitive boundary; appeared in this case from the basic theory of dominantfirm pricing. It is usually believed that the dominant firm sets its price after attributing aportion of the market to the competitive boundary, which then accepts this price as indicated.As in the classical model of monopoly, the profit of the cartel is maximized with a decreasein the volume of sales from the equilibrium level. This volume is the coordinate of theintersection of the marginal revenue curves and marginal costs.The projection of this point on the price axis determines the optimal price of the cartel, whichis above the equilibrium price. As a result, the cartel agreement is optimal for the participantsof the cartel, but not optimal for the world economy.It should also be noted that in a number of cases the positive effects of the cartel may also behighlighted, however, the definition of this is the competence of the court. These effects areassociated with solving the problems of the restructuring of the industry, the standardizationof materials and components. In these cases, the creation of cartels can be encouraged.List of sources used1. “Antimonopoly regulation of anticompetitive agreements”2. Official Journal of the European Union, Communication from the Commission —Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treatyto abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (2009/C 45/02)http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52009XC0224%2801%293. EU Competition Law – Abuse of Dominance (Article 102 TFEU)http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUS5310/h12/undervisningsmateriale/abuse_-of_-dominance-_.pdf4. Summary of the Judgmenthttp://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUS5310/h12/undervisningsmateriale/abuse_-of_-dominance-_.pdf5. Abuse of a dominant position http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/abuse_en.html