Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, April 12, 2010

The Monopolist as Victim: Constitutional Law in Antitrust - Part I

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Adi Ayal (Bar Ilan - Law) explains The Monopolist as Victim: Constitutional Law in Antitrust - Part I.

ABSTRACT: Constitutional law dictates that when one person's use of property infringes upon another's, a balancing test be administered to examine whether state action is justified. The case at point here is that of a monopolist arguing for freedom of trade and right to property infringed upon by state action purporting to protect consumers. The question addressed is whether a monopolist as such is to be deprived such consideration, and what arguments such a monopolist might bring forth.

The setting is Israeli constitutional law, specifically two relatively new Basic Laws expressly guaranteeing the right to free determination of property and the right to freedom of occupation. I show that a monopolist would have firm ground on which to stand when arguing the Restrictive Trade Practices Law may violate constitutional standards and subsequently should be constrained by expressly allowed judicial review.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2010/04/the-monopolist-as-victim-constitutional-law-in-antitrust-part-i-.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0133ec608cb9970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Monopolist as Victim: Constitutional Law in Antitrust - Part I :

Comments

Post a comment