The influence of EU's constitutional and institutional peculiarities on the interpretation of abuse of dominance under Article 102 TFEU

This thesis examines the implications of EU’s constitutional and institutional peculiarities for the interpretation of abuse of dominance under Article 102 TFEU. The purpose is to shed light on the limitations to the interpretation of Article 102, which stem from EU’s constitutional and institutional framework. These limitations impact on both the substance and the form of the designed legal tests for Article 102 and dictate the proper role of economics in interpreting the concept of abuse of dominance. In constitutional terms, the thesis finds that the EU Treaties mandate a multi-goal and holistic approach to Article 102, meaning that there are multiple objectives and values external to market competition that are relevant to the interpretation of Article 102. The discussion of the relevant case law documents that the designed legal rules successfully reconcile the market-oriented objectives of Article 102 with policies of social nature, thereby allowing the provision to operate according to the constitutional role imposed on it by the Treaties. From an institutional perspective, the thesis maps out the complex institutional framework for the decentralised enforcement of Article 102. This unveils the mismatch between the complicated institutional setting and the necessity of ensuring effective enforcement and uniform interpretation of Article 102. The thesis argues that in this constitutional and institutional context the employed tests must remain clear so as to permit Article 102 to effectively and consistently pursue its objectives across the EU. In this regard, any economic statement or theory must be compatible with both the constitutional foundations of Article 102 and the institutional setting within which it must be enforced. More economic analysis may thus be injected into the interpretation of abuse of dominance only if it can be translated into clear and workable legal rules that are compatible with EU’s constitutional foundations and institutional realities.