What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim is to reflect on improving the enforcement and interpretation of Art. 102 TFEU.

June 14, 2026

Competition Law as a Discovery Process – How to Reconcile Accuracy and Administrability in the Enforcement of Art. 102 TFEU

Key Points

The aim is to reflect on improving the enforcement and interpretation of Art. 102 TFEU.
Review of Heike Schweitzer's contributions on competition law enforcement.
Discussion on evidentiary standards in competition proceedings.
Analysis of enforcement speed and coherence in interpretation.
Calls for improvements in the cost/benefit ratio of Art. 102 TFEU proceedings.
Encourages a reflective and forward-thinking approach in competition law.
Highlights the necessity for coherent substantive interpretations of competition law.

Abstract

Abstract In one of her last academic contributions, Heike Schweitzer – together with Simon de Ridder – reflected on “How to Fix a Failing Art. 102 TFEU”. The – deliberately provocative – title echoes a diagnosis shared by many, i. e. that the cost/benefit ratio of proceedings under Art. 102 TFEU has been suboptimal in recent times. For Heike Schweitzer, this was not a reason for frustration, but a call to action. Her contribution challenges us all to reflect on concrete ways to improve the speed of enforcement and the coherence of the substantive interpretation of Art. 102 TFEU as well as of the evidentiary standards in competition proceedings before authorities and courts. My presentation should be understood as a signal that Heike Schweitzer’s work continues to inspire forward thinking in the discovery process that the enforcement and interpretation of competition law in general, and of the concept of abuse of a dominant position in particular, have become under the EU treaties since their inception and more so in the last few decades.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay