
Abstract Remedies are central in contemporary EU antitrust enforcement. However, they remain relatively misunderstood. Against this background, this article has three main objectives. It seeks, first, to shed light on the nature and purpose of remedial action under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, with a focus on the European Commission’s activity. The point of intervention, the case law shows, is to bring an infringement effectively to an end. As a matter of positive law, it is unclear that there is room for restorative remedies (that is, remedies that seek to recreate the conditions of competition as they would have existed in the absence of the practice). Second, the article takes a critical perspective on the practice of the past decade. It appears, in particular, that a ‘principles-based approach’ to the administration of remedies is likely to lead to suboptimal outcomes. Finally, some recommendations are outlined so that the letter of the law matches the demands and ambitions of the sort of regulatory-like intervention that is necessary in digital markets and other industries presenting similar features.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
