Towards a Higher Standard of Proof and a More Interventionist Judicial Review in Antitrust Cases Involving Complex (Economic) Assessments Following <i>CK Telecoms</i>?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of the recent CK Telecoms judgment of the General Court, this article advocates for more clarity and a higher standard of proof and standard of review in antitrust, and in particular abuse of dominance, cases. Some legal concepts are like fashion: they come back in the spotlight every 20 years. This is the case for the standard of proof and standard of review which have fuelled debates among competition law fashionistas almost 20 years ago in the wake of the Tetra Laval,1 Schneider,2 and Airtours3 judgments of the then Court of First Instance of the European Union4—the first judgments to have annulled Commission merger prohibition decisions—and are now found to be trendy again, both from an antitrust and a merger control perspective. On the antitrust front, this renewed interest for the standard of proof and standard of review is due to the reflection around envisaged changes to the Commission’s enforcement powers set out in Regulation 1/20035 (so-called ‘Regulation 2’) as well as recent proposals by the Commission to gain more powers to conduct market investigations and impose remedies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".