The doctrine of ancillary restrictions as a delimitation tool and an absorption principle twin notions but not identical twins /
Contrary to the general view, ‘ancillary restrictions’ designate two separate conceptions, which should be treated as separate doctrines. As a ‘delimitation tool’, ancillarity separates ‘naked’ and ‘ancillary’ restrictions based on ‘reasonable necessity’. As an ‘absorption principle’, ancillarity is...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Series: | JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAW AND PRACTICE
15 No. 5 |
| Subjects: | |
| doi: | 10.1093/jeclap/lpae036 |
| mtmt: | 35469503 |
| Online Access: | http://publicatio.bibl.u-szeged.hu/34974 |
| Summary: | Contrary to the general view, ‘ancillary restrictions’ designate two separate conceptions, which should be treated as separate doctrines. As a ‘delimitation tool’, ancillarity separates ‘naked’ and ‘ancillary’ restrictions based on ‘reasonable necessity’. As an ‘absorption principle’, ancillarity is a rule of thumb that screens out certain lawful agreements based on the idea that a lawful main transaction (or the legality of the main transaction) absorbs all objectively necessary (indispensable) restrictions. |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | 299-305 |
| ISSN: | 2041-7764 |