Traduction de «mendel's law dominance » (Anglais → Français) :

(55) According to settled case law dominance is a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by affording it the power to act to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and ultimately of the consumers, see e.g. paragraph 38 of the judgment in Hoffmann-La Roche cited in footnote 9.

87. In the Access notice, the Commission had stated that, although at the time both its own practice and the case-law of the Court were still developing, it would consider two or more undertakings to be in a collective dominant position when they had substantially the same position vis-à-vis their customers and competitors as a single company has if it is in a dominant position, provided that no effective competition existed between them.

(17) A number of Member States are currently still maintaining exclusive rights with regard to the establishment and provision of telephone directory and enquiry services. These exclusive rights are generally granted either to organizations which are already enjoying a dominant position in providing voice telephony, or to one of their subsidiaries. In such a situation, these rights have the effect of extending the dominant position enjoyed by those organizations and therefore strengthening that position, which, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, constitutes an abuse of a dominant position contr ...[+++]ary to Article 86. The exclusive rights granted in the area of telephone directory services are consequently incompatible with Article 90 (1) of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 86.

1. Until the entry into force of a Council Directive on consolidated accounts, and without prejudice to the provisions of Directive 77/91/EEC, the Member States need not apply to the dominant companies of groups governed by their national laws the provisions of this Directive concerning the auditing and publication of the profit and loss accounts of such dominant companies where the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) this exemption must be published by the dominant company in accordance with Article 47 (1);

Constitutional law professor Errol Mendes testified that if Bill S-4 were passed, with fixed-term senators then appointed, and legislation subsequently passed by Parliament and these new senators, “there would be constitutional chaos” if Bill S-4 were then found to be unconstitutional.[73] The Government’s lawyer, Warren J. Newman, subsequently wrote to your Committee, seeking to distinguish the Supreme Court jurisprudence upon which Professor Mendes relied.

Constitutional law professor Errol Mendes testified that if Bill S-4 were passed, with fixed-term senators then appointed, and legislation subsequently passed by Parliament and these new senators, “there would be constitutional chaos” if Bill S-4 were then found to be unconstitutional.[73] The Government’s lawyer, Warren J. Newman, subsequently wrote to your Committee, seeking to distinguish the Supreme Court jurisprudence upon which Professor Mendes relied.