[1. Abel, Mateus. M. “Predatory pricing: a proposed structured rule of reason.” European Competition Journal Vol. 7, No. 2 (2011): 243–267.10.5235/174410511797248261]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Ahlborn, Christian, and Bill Allan. “The Napp Case: A study of predation?” World Competition Vol. 26(2) (2003): 233–262.10.54648/WOCO2003012]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Akman, Pinar. “'Consumer Welfare' and Article 82EC: Practice and Rhetoric.” CCP Working Paper No. 08-25 (July 31, 2008) // https://ssrn.com/abstract=1210802.10.2139/ssrn.1210802]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Andrews, Paul. “Is meeting competition a defence to predatory pricing? The Irish Sugar decision suggests a new approach.” European Competition Law Review, Vol. 19(1), (1998): 49–57.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Areeda, Phillip, and Donald F. Turner. “Predatory Pricing and Related Practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” Harvard Law Review Vol. 88, No. 4 (1975): 697-733.10.2307/1340237]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[6. Baumol, William J. “Predation and the Logic of the Average Variable Cost Test.” Journal of Law and Economics Vol. 39, No. 1, (1996): 49-72.10.1086/467343]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Bavasso, Antonio. “The role of intent under article 82 EC: from ‘flushing the turkeys’ to spotting lionesses in Regent’s park.” European Competition Law Review Vol. 26(11), (2005): 616–623.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Bolton, Patrick, Joseph F. Brodley, and Michael H. Riordan. “Predatory Pricing: Strategy Theory and Legal Policy.” Georgetown Law Journal Vol. 88 (2000): 2239–2330.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Buttigieg, Eugene. “Consumer Interests and the Antitrust Approach to Abusive Practices by Dominant Firms.” European Business Law Review Vol. 16, No. 5 (2005): 1191–1285.10.54648/EULR2005056]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Chang, Howard H., David S. Evans, and Richard Schmalensee. “Has the Consumer Harm Standard Lost Its Teeth?” AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper; MIT Sloan Working Paper No. 4263-02 (August 13, 2002) // https://ssrn.com/abstract=332021.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. “Comments of Professor Elhauge on DG Competition Discussion Paper on Exclusionary Abuses” // http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/art82/contributions.html.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. “Commission Press Release on Digital Undertakings.” IP/97/868 (October 10, 1997).]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Cseres, Kati. “The Controversies of the Consumer Welfare Standard.” The Competition Law Review No. 2, (2007): 121–173.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Cyrus, Austin. Price discrimination and related problems under the Robinson-Patman act. Revised edition. Committee on Continuing Legal Education, 1954.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. De la Mano, Miguel, and Benoît Durand. “A Three-Step Structured Rule of Reason to Assess Predation under Article 82.” Office of the Chief Economist Discussion Paper (December 12, 2005): 1–48 // http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/economist/pred_art82.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Durrance, Christine Piette. “Proposed standards for identifying predation: Williamson’s perspective and the Court.” The Antitrust Bulletin Vol. 55, No. 3 (2010): 663–678.10.1177/0003603X1005500306]Search in Google Scholar
[17. EAGCP. “An economic approach to Article 82” (July 2005) [interactive] // http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/publications/studies/eagcp_july_21_05.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Eilmansberger, Thomas. “How to distinguish good from bad competition under article 82 EC: In search of clearer and more coherent standards for anti-competitive abuses.” Common Market Law Review No. 42 (2005): 129–177.10.54648/COLA2004082]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Elhauge, Einer R. “Defining Better Monopolization Standards.” Stanford Law Review (2003): 253–344.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. European Commission, DG Competition. “DG Competition discussion paper on the application of Article 82 of the Treaty to exclusionary abuses” (December 2005) // http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/art82/discpaper2005.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Gal, Michal. S. “Below-cost price alignment: meeting or beating competition? The France Telecom case.” European Competition Law Review Vol. 28(6), (2007): 382–391.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Geradin, Damien, and O’Donoghue Robert. “The Concurrent Application of Competition Law and Regulation: The Case of Margin Squeeze Abuses in the Telecommunications Sector.” Journal of Competition Law and Economics (2005): 355–425.10.1093/joclec/nhi009]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Gyselen, Luc. “Rebates: Competition on the merits or exclusionary practice?”: 267–290. In: Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Isabela Atanasiu, eds. European Competition Law Annual 2003 What is an Abuse of a Dominant Position? Hart Publishing, 2006.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Gravengaard, Martin Andreas. “The meeting competition defence principle – a defence for price discrimination and predatory pricing.” European Competition Law Review Vol. 27(12) (2006): 658–677.]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Grout, Paul A. “Recent Developments in Definitions of Abusive Pricing in European Competition Policy.” CMPO Working Paper Series No. 00/23 (2000) (University of Bristol).]Search in Google Scholar
[26. “Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf Provisionally Confirms the Prohibition of Lufthansa’s Abusive Pricing Strategy.” FCO Press Release (April 10, 2002) // www.bundeskartellamt.de/wEnglisch/News/Archiv/ArchivNews2002/2002_04_10.shtml.10.2118/0402-0010-JPT]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Fox, Eleanor M. “Monopolization and dominance in the United States and the European Community: Efficiency, opportunity, and fairness.” Notre Dame Law Review No. 981 (1986): 983–1018.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Hills, Carla A. Antitrust Advisor. New York, 1978.]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Hurwitz, James, and William Kovacic. “Judicial analysis of predation: the emerging trends.” Vanderbilt Law Review Vol. 35 (1982): 63–157.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. International Competition Network, “Report on Predatory Pricing”: 1–43 // http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc354.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Jones, Paul. “Analyzing Refusal-to-Deal Cases Under Brooke Group's Predatory Pricing Test: The Tenth Circuit Misses the Mark in Christy Sports, LLC v. Deer Valley Resort Co.” Brigham Young University Law Review No. 1, (2010): 135–148.]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Joskow, Paul, and Alvin A. Klevorick. “A Framework for Analyzing Predatory Pricing Policy.” Yale Law Journal Vol. 89, No. 2 (1979): 213–270.10.2307/795837]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Koller, Richard H. “The Myth of Predatory Pricing: An Empirical Study.” Antitrust Law and Economic Review Vol. 4 (1971): 105–124.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Koller, Richard H. Predatory Pricing in a Market Economy. New York: Arno Press, 1978.]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Kon, Stephen, and Turnbull Sarah. “Pricing and the Dominant Firm: Implications of the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal’s Judgment in the NAPP Case.” European Competition Law Review (2003): 70–86.]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Korah, Valentine. An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practice. Hart Publishing, 2000.]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Kreps, David, and Wilson Robert. “Reputation and Imperfect Information.” Journal of Economic Theory Vol. 27 (1982): 253-279.10.1016/0022-0531(82)90030-8]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Kroes, Neelie (European Commissioner for Competition Policy). “Preliminary Thoughts on Policy Review of Article 82.” Speech at the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, New York (September 23, 2005) // http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-05-537_en.htm?locale=en.]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Lang, Temple. “European Community Antitrust Law: innovation markets and high technology industries.” Fordham International Law Journal Vol. 20 (1996): 717–818.]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Leslie, Christopher R. “Predatory pricing and recoupment.” Columbia Law Review Vol. 113, No. 7 (2013): 1695–1772.]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Liebeler, Wesley J. “Whither predatory pricing? From Areeda and Turner to Matsushita.” Notre Dame Law Review (1986): 1052–1098.]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Lorenz, Moritz, Lübbig Maike, and Russel Alexia. “Price Discrimination, a Tender Story.” European Competition Law Review (2005): 352–386.]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Lowe, Phillip (Director General, EC Commission Directorate-General for Competition). “Consumer Welfare and Efficiency – New Guiding Principles of Competition Policy?” 13th International Conference on Competition and 14th European Competition Day, Munich (March 27, 2007).]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Lowe, Phillip. “DG Competition's Review of the Policy on Abuse of Dominance.” Fordham Competition Law Institute (2004).]Search in Google Scholar
[45. Lowe, Phillip. “EU competition practice on predatory pricing.” Introductory address to the Seminar ‘Pros and Cons of Low Prices’. Stockholm (December 5, 2003) // http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/speeches/text/sp2003_066_en.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Lowe, Phillip. “Monopolization versus abuse of dominant position.” Panel discussion statement, Fordham Competition Law Institute (2004).]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Mastromanolis, Emmanuel. “Predatory Pricing Strategies in the European Union: A Case for Legal Reform.” European Competition Law Review Vol. 19 (1998): 211–224.]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Milgrom, Paul, and Roberts John. “Predation, Reputation and Entry Deterrence.” Journal of Economic Theory Vol. 27, No. 2 (1982): 280–312.10.1016/0022-0531(82)90031-X]Search in Google Scholar
[49. Moisejevas Raimundas, “The importance of the intent in predatory pricing cases” Jurisprudencija. No. 4(122) (2010): 319-334.]Search in Google Scholar
[50. Moisejevas Raimundas, “Recoupment of losses by the dominant undertaking, which allegedly have used predatory pricing and legality of actions,” Jurisprudencija. No. 2(120) (2010): 289-303.]Search in Google Scholar
[51. Moisejevas Raimundas, “Objective justification in predatory pricing,” Jurisprudencija. No. 18(1) (2011): 213-232.]Search in Google Scholar
[52. Moisejevas Raimundas, Novosad Ana, Bitė Virginijus. “Cost benchmarks as criterion for evaluation of predatory pricing.” Jurisprudencija. No. 19(2) (2012): 585-603.]Search in Google Scholar
[53. Moisejevas, Raimundas, and Novosad Ana. “Some thoughts concerning the main goals of competition law.” Jurisprudencija. No. 20(2) (2013): 627–642.10.13165/JUR-13-20-2-14]Search in Google Scholar
[54. Nagarajan, Vijaya. “Predatory pricing: A search for a regulatory standard.” Working paper series No. 31 (1987) (Kingswood, N.S.W., Nepean College of Advanced Education, School of Business).]Search in Google Scholar
[155. Newton, Carl. “Do predators need to be dominant?” European Competition Law Review Vol. 20 (1999): 121–143.]Search in Google Scholar
[56. O’Donoghue, Robert. “Over-Regulating Lower Prices: Time for a Rethink on Pricing Abuses under Article 82 EC”: 371–427. In: Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Isabela Atanasiu, eds. European Competition Law Annual 2003: What is an abuse of a dominant position? Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2006.]Search in Google Scholar
[57. O’Donoghue, Robert, Padilla Jorge. The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006.]Search in Google Scholar
[58. Ordover, Janusz, and Willig Robert. “An Economic Definition of Predation: Pricing and Product Innovation.” Yale Law Journal Vol. 91, No. 1 (1981): 8–53.10.2307/795848]Search in Google Scholar
[59. Pettersson, Tommy, and Stefan Perván Lindeborg. “Comments on a Swedish case on predatory pricing – particularly on recoupment.” European Competition Law Review Vol. 22 (2001): 55–83.]Search in Google Scholar
[60. Posner, Richard. Antitrust Law. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, 2001.]Search in Google Scholar
[61. Posner, Richard. Antitrust Law. An economic Perspective. University of Chicago Press, 1976.]Search in Google Scholar
[62. Ratliff, John. “Abuse of Dominant Position and Pricing Practices: A Practitioner’s Viewpoint”: 427–441. In: Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Isabela Atanasiu, eds. European Competition Law Annual 2003: What is an abuse of a dominant position? Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2006.]Search in Google Scholar
[63. Ridyard, Derek. “Exclusionary pricing and price discrimination abuses under Article 82: An economic analysis.” European Competition Law Review Vol. 23 (2002): 286–310.]Search in Google Scholar
[64. Ritter, Cyril. “Does the law on predatory pricing and cross-subsidization need a radical rethink?” World Competition Vol. 27, No. 4 (2004): 613–649.10.54648/WOCO2004032]Search in Google Scholar
[65. Sharpes, Dustin. “Reintroducing intent into predatory pricing law.” Emory Law Journal Vol. 61 (2012): 903–943.]Search in Google Scholar
[66. Slater, Donald, and Waelbroeck Denis. “Meeting Competition: Why it is not an Abuse under Article 82.” College of Europe Research Papers in Law (3/2004).]Search in Google Scholar
[67. Springer Ulrich. “Meeting Competition: Justification of Price Discrimination Under EC and US Antitrust Law.” European Competition Law Review (1997): 225–257.]Search in Google Scholar
[68. Steizer, Irwin M. “Changing Antitrust Standard.” Remarks before the Workshop on Antitrust Issues in Today's Economy, the Conference Board, New York (March 5, 1987).]Search in Google Scholar
[69. Vickers, John. “Abuse of Market Power.” Economic Journal Vol. 115, No. 504 (2005): 244–261.10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.01004.x]Search in Google Scholar
[70. Waelbroeck, Denis. “Exclusionary Pricing and Price Discrimination under EC Competition Law”: 234–257. In: Mads Andenas, Michael Hutchings, and Philip Marsden, eds. Current Competition Law, Vol. III. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2005.]Search in Google Scholar
[71. Waelbroeck, Michael. “Meeting Competition: Is This a Valid Defence for a Firm in a Dominant Position?”: 481–490. In: A. Guiffrè, ed. Divenire sociale e adeguamento del diritto: Studi in honore di Francesco Capotorti. 1999.]Search in Google Scholar
[1. Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reiseburo GmbH v. Zentrale zur Bekdmpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e. v. Case C-66/68 [1989].]Search in Google Scholar
[2. AKZO Chemie BV v. EU Commission. Case C – 62/86 [1991]]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Antitrust: Consumer Welfare at Heart of Commission Fight Against Abuses by Dominant Undertakings. Brussels: 3rd December 2008, IP/08/1877.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. A. Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc. 881 F.2d 1396, 1401-02 (7th Cir. 1989) (Easterbrook, J.).]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Aspen Skiing Co. v Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. 472 U.S. 585, 603, 86 L. Ed. 2d 467, 105 S. Ct. 2847 (1985).]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Boeing / Lockheed Martin / United Launch Alliance JV Case No. IV/M.3856. European Commission decision delivered on August 9, 2005, recognizing that concentration is compatible with common market on the basis of Council Regulation No. 4064/89.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. BPB Industries and British Gypsum. Case T-65/89 [1993].]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 509 US 209, 222–24 (1993).]Search in Google Scholar
[9. British Airways plc v. Commission of the European Communities. Case T-219/99 [2003].]Search in Google Scholar
[10. British Airways v. plc Commission of the European Communities. Case C-95/04 [2007].]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Commissioner of Competition v. Air Canada. Canadian Competition Tribunal (2003), 26 C.P.R. (4th) 476 [2003] C.C.T.D. No. 9.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Commission Communication – Notice – Guidelines on the application of Article 81 (3) of the Treaty. OJ 101, 27.4.2004.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Communication from the Commission – Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. 2009/C 45/02.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Compagnie Maritime Belge SA (C-395/96 P) and Dafra-Lines A/S (C-396/96 P) v. EU Commission. [2000].]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Compagnie Maritime Belge SA (C-395/96 P) and Dafra-Lines v. Commission. Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly delivered on October 29, 1998, Joined cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Deutsche Post AG. Decision of the European Commission of March 20, 2001, OJ L 125/27.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Decision of 18 February 2002, Case B-9-144/01. Federal Cartel Office.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. ECS v. AKZO-temporary measures. Decision of the European Commission on 29th of July 1983, case COMP/30.698 [1983] O.J. L252/13.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Europemballage Corpn and Continental Can v. Commission of the European Communities. Case C-6/72 [1973].]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Eurofix-Bauco v Hilti. Decision of Commission of December 22, 1987, case COMP/30.787 [1988] O.J. L 65/19.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. France Telecom SA v. Commission. Case C – 202/07.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. France Télécom v. Commission. Case T – 340/03.]Search in Google Scholar
[23. France Telecom SA v. Commission. Case C-202/07. Opinion of Advocate General Mazák delivered on September 25, 2008.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. First Edinburgh / Lothian. Decision of the Office of Fair Trading (now CMA), No. CA98/05/2004 (April 29, 2004) (Case CP/0361-01).]Search in Google Scholar
[25. GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v. Commission of the European Communities. Case T-168/01 [2006].]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Guidelines on Vertical Restraints. OJ, 2000, C 291/1.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Hanson v. Shell Oil Co. 541 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1074 (1977).]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Hoffman-La Roche v. Commission. Case C – 85/76 [1979].]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Hilti v. Commission. Case T-30/89 [1991].]Search in Google Scholar
[30. IMS Health Inc., v. Commission of the European Communities. T-184/01 R, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance [2001].]Search in Google Scholar
[31. International Air Indus. v. American Excelsior Co. 517 F.2d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 943 (1976).]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Irish Sugar v. Commission. Case T-228/97 [1999].]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Lufthansa case, decision 2002-02-18, B9-144/01. German Bundeskartellamt.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Michelin v. Commission of the European Communities. Case T-203/01 [2003].]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Microsoft Corp v. Commission of the European Communities. Case T-201/04 [2007].]Search in Google Scholar
[36. NDC Health GmbH & Co KG and NDC Health Corporation v. Commission of the European Communities. C-481/01, Order of the President of the Court [2002].]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Northeastern Tel. Co. v. AT&T Co. 651 F.2d 76, 88 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 (1982).]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Notice on the application of the competition rules to access agreements in the telecommunications sector. European Commission, OJ C 265/2 [1998].]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Notice on the application of the competition rules to the postal sector and on the assessment of certain State measures relating to postal services. European Commission, OJ C 39, 06.02.1998.]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Notice on the application of competition rules to access agreements in the telecommunications sector – framework, relevant markets and principles. OJ C 265, 22.08.1998.]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Österreichische Postsparkasse AG and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG v. Commission of the European Communities. Joined cases T-231/01 and T-214/01 [2006].]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet. Case C-209/10 [2012].]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Predation by Aberdeen Journals Limited. Case No. CA98/14/2002, September 16, 2002, Decision of the Director General of Fair Trading.]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. U.S. 221 U.S. 1 (1911).]Search in Google Scholar
[45. Tetra Pak v. Commission. Case T-51/89 [1990].]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Tetra Pak International SA v. EU Commission. Case C – 333/94 [1996].]Search in Google Scholar
[47. United Brands v. Commission. Case C - 27/76 [1978].]Search in Google Scholar
[48. United States v. Grinnell Corporation. 384 U.S. 563, 570 (1966).]Search in Google Scholar
[49. United States v. Microsoft Corporation. 253 F3d 34, 54 (D.C. Circ.) (2001).]Search in Google Scholar
[50. United States v. Am. Tobacco Co. 221 U.S. 106 (1991).10.1215/01636545-1991-50-221]Search in Google Scholar
[51. United States v. AMR Corp. 335 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2003).]Search in Google Scholar
[52. Wanadoo case. European Commission decision delivered on July 16, 2003, No. COMP 38.233, Commission press release lP/03/1025.]Search in Google Scholar
