Examples of using Foreclosure effect in English and their translations into Hungarian
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Computer
Whether there are foreclosure effects in the secondary market.
In general, the longer the duration of the obligation, the greater the likely foreclosure effect.
At the retail level, a cumulative foreclosure effect may also arise.
The foreclosure effect depends on the tied percentage of total sales on the market of the tied product.
Fourth, the Commission examined the existence of foreclosure effects on the market.
It should also be observed however, that anticompetitive foreclosure effects may equally stem from other practices aimed at sheltering authorised repairers from competition by independent repairers.
Similarly, power purchaseagreements in the electricity sector can have foreclosure effects.
Below the level of dominance an anticompetitive foreclosure effect may however arise in a cumulative effect situation.
If, however, it can be established that a standardised volume threshold approximates the requirements of an appreciable proportion of customers, the Commission is likely to consider that such a standardisedsystem of rebates may produce anticompetitive foreclosure effects.
In such a case,upfront access payments may have the same downstream foreclosure effect as an exclusive supply type of obligation.
Thus, first, as regards the existence of a foreclosure effect, the Commission fails to see at the outset how a difference from certain earlier cases to which Microsoft refers supports its claim that a new theory was applied in the present case.
Outside the scope of the block exemption the question whether the restriction has foreclosure effects must therefore be considered.
Where the market share of the buyer on the upstream market does not exceed 30%, significant foreclosure effects may still result, especially when the market share of the buyer on its downstream market exceeds 30% and the exclusive supply relates to a particular use of the contract products.
Where not all companies have market shares below the threshold of the Block Exemption Regulation but none is dominant,a cumulative anticompetitive foreclosure effect is unlikely if the total tied market share is below 30%.
Where all suppliers have market shares below 30%,a cumulative anticompetitive foreclosure effect is unlikely if the total tied market share is less than 40% and withdrawal of the block exemption is therefore unlikely.
The foreclosure effect feared by the applicants therefore depends on a series of factors in relation to which it is not certain that they might all occur in a sufficiently near future, such as is necessary in order for the prospective analysis of the effects of the concentration not to become purely speculative(see paragraph 116 above).
Put differently, the fact that alower price is in fact taken into account makes a foreclosure effect possible, but, on the other hand, it does not rule out the contrary either.
For the purposes of applying Article 82 EC to bundling, although the Commission may examine the actual effects which tying has had on the market and the way in which that market is likely to evolve, rather than merely considering- as it normally does in cases of abusive tying-that the tying has by its nature a foreclosure effect, does not mean that it adopted a new legal theory.
Although the following three subsections refer specifically to selective distribution,the same anti-competitive foreclosure effects could stem from other types of vertical agreements that limit, directly or indirectly, the number of service partners contractually linked to a motor vehicle manufacturer.
As already observed at paragraph 868 above, the fact that the Commission examined the actual effects which the bundling had already had on the market and the way in which that market was likely to evolve, rather than merely considering- as it normally does in cases of abusive tying-that the tying has by its nature a foreclosure effect, does not mean that it adopted a new legal theory.
It observes, in particular,that in classical tying cases both it and the Community Courts‘considered the foreclosure effect for competing vendors to be demonstrated by the bundling of a separate product with the dominant product'(recital 841 to the contested decision).
As regards the alleged deterrent effect of the RES vis-à-vis potential new entrants, the applicants themselves acknowledge that the temporary exemption from the application of the RES during a PMI insurer's first three years of activity on the Irish PMI market,which had the specific aim of avoiding any possible foreclosure effect on that market and of not deterring operators from entering it, is apt to lower the alleged barrier to entry.
(30) An R& Dcooperation between non-competitors can however produce foreclosure effects under Article 81(1) if it relates to an exclusive exploitation of results and if it is concluded between firms, one of which has significant market power with respect to key technology.
However, such rebates- when granted by a dominant undertaking-can also have actual or potential foreclosure effects similar to exclusive purchasing obligations.
(87) R&D co-operation between non-competitors can, however, produce foreclosure effects under Article 101(1) if it relates to an exclusive exploitation of results and if it is concluded between companies, one of which has a significant degree of market power(which does not necessarily amount to dominance) with respect to a key technology.
As stated at recital 841 to the Decision, in classical tying cases,the Commission and the Courts consider the foreclosure effects for competing vendors to be demonstrated by the bundling of a separate product.
Exclusive supply agreements shorter than five years entered into by non-dominant companies usually require a balancing of pro- and anti-competitive effects, while agreements lasting longer than five years are for most types of investments not considered necessary to achieve the claimed efficiencies orthe efficiencies are not sufficient to outweigh the foreclosure effect of such long-term exclusive supply agreements.
The Commission finds it surprising that Microsoft should criticise it for having taken the trouble to examine the real foreclosure effect created by the tying at issue andcontends that the fact that it demonstrated such a foreclosure effect in a case where it is normally presumed does not mean that it applied a new legal theory.
In ascertaining whether that fourth condition was satisfied, the Commission pointed out that in classical tying cases the Commission andthe Community judicature‘considered the foreclosure effect for competing vendors to be demonstrated by the bundling of a separate product with the dominant product'(recital 841).
At the same time the Court is requested to clarify what relevance the characteristics of the market have in this connection,including whether the characteristics of the market can justify the foreclosure effect being demonstrated by examinations and analyses other than an‘as-efficient competitor' test(see, in that regard, paragraph 24 of the Commission's communication on the application of Article 82 EC).