Suchergebnisse

The Preliminary Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) calls for data protection rights to be integrated in the enforcement of competition law in the EU. The EDPS proposes that the Commission should use its discretion to broaden the notion of consumer welfare to include those rights and apply competition rules based on consumer harm. Nevertheless, even though the Commission can prioritise consumer welfare, it cannot re-interpret this notion nor rely on consumer harm beyond limited situations. The EDPS nonetheless also proposes to safeguard competition on privacy (or data conditions) which, although not completely overlapping with data protection rights, allows the Commission to use its discretion to address many of the EDPS' concerns. Notably, the Commission can prioritise exploitation in digital markets and shape them through competition remedies. It is still unclear whether the Commission will do so, but the German Bundeskartellamt has recently announced an investigation along these lines.

Whether to continue relying on existing competition rules in the digital sector, or instead seek new competences and dedicated legislation, is the question for competition authorities in Europe. Several prominent reports (some at the request of those authorities) have posited this as the natural "evolution" of competition law. At this point, it may therefore be tempting to prepare for regulation and shuffle off the uncertainty that currently surrounds competition enforcement. This paper nevertheless asks if we should pause before overhauling a system that has served the EU well for many decades—even if only for the digital sector. Theory holds that principle-based rules are best suited to face novel situations, and that characterisation fits the open-ended prohibitions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and merger control's standard of "significant impediment to effective competition". The current discussion therefore shows a lack of trust in principle-based rules rather than a proved substantive gap. We suggest this is due to two factors: stepping outside the comfort of the Commission guidance, which has for long specified those principles to some degree, and the relatively early stage of the process of administrative and case law refinement of such principles to the digital context. The paper will show that, despite promising signs, it will take some time until competition principles are fleshed out for the digital sector. This path is more uncertain than regulation, and particularly dependent on the outcome of the judicial review of Commission decisions. It does, however, have the advantage of a tried-and-tested method to achieve administrative and judicial coherence. Importantly, our purpose is not to reject regulation that could complement this enforcement, in particular when it would serve public interests like the creation of a levelplaying field or the protection of plurality and diversity. By analysing the role of as-efficient competitors and innovation competition, we show how proactive competition enforcement can capture the specificities of digital markets.

Personal data is a valuable commodity in the digital economy, and companies compete to acquire and process this data. This rivalry is subject to the application of competition law. However, personal data also has a dignitary dimension which is protected through data protection law and EU Charter rights to data protection and privacy. This paper maps the relationship between these legal frameworks. It identifies the commonalities that facilitate their intersection, whilst acknowledging their distinct methods and aims. It argues that when the material scope of these legal frameworks overlap, competition law can incorporate data protection law as a normative yardstick when assessing non-price competition; data protection can thus act as an internal constraint on competition law. In addition, it advocates that following the Lisbon Treaty, data protection and other fundamental rights also exercise an external constraint on competition law and, in certain circumstances, can prevent or shape its application. As national and supranational regulators grapple with the challenge of facilitating a dynamic information economy that respects fundamental rights, recognition of these constraints would pave the way for a more coherent EU law approach to the digital society.

Although models of high‐quality family planning services for men exist in Latin America, few if any have been organized within the complex and resource‐constrained national public health systems. This study provides evidence from the Santa Barbara project in southern Brazil showing how vasectomy was introduced into the municipal health system. It demonstrates that once the necessary operational and quality‐of‐care improvements were in place, and sufficient political and technical support existed to proceed, it was possible to establish low‐cost, well‐used, and sustainable vasectomy services free of charge. The findings show that careful attention to the development of strong technical competence and an informed choice process resulted in high user satisfaction. Focus‐group discussions with men who underwent vasectomy indicate that they had no objection to being served in the context of a women's health center and that they act as opinion leaders who draw an increasing clientele to the service.