The Experts below are selected from a list of 54 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Francesca Pavoni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Lapsi Position Paper No. 2: The Exclusion of 'Public Undertakings' from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Marco Ricolfi, Josef Drexl, Manuel Fernandez Salmeron, Paolo Patrito, Mireille Van Eechoud, Cristiana Sappa, Prodromos Tsiavos, Julián Valero-torrijos, Francesca PavoniAbstract:Should Public undertakings be covered by the PSI Directive? The definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law, to which the PSI Directive applies, are currently taken from the Public procurement Directives and Public undertakings are not covered by these definitions. Should Public undertakings be considered as Public Sector bodies in the meaning of the Directive? Are there Public undertakings holding "interesting" PSI? Are there different definitions of national legislation leading to situations where bodies holding similar (Public Sector) data are in some Member States considered as Public Sector bodies falling under the PSI Directive and in other Member States considered as Public undertakings? If Public undertakings were to be covered by the PSI Directive, how should the definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law be amended? Should the definitions be detached from the Public procurement definitions? Could data be considered as PSI if it was held by a privatised former Public Sector Body?Position Paper no. 2, The Exclusion of "Public Undertakings" from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime, WG1 - Subgroup competition of the European Thematic Network LAPSI (Legal Aspects of Public Sector Information).
-
The Exclusion of Public Undertakings from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime
2011Co-Authors: Josef Drexl, Marco Ricolfi, Mireille Van Eechhoud, Manuel Fernandez Salmeron, Prodromos Tziavos, Julian Valero, Francesca Pavoni, Paolo PatritoAbstract:Should Public undertakings be covered by the PSI Directive? The definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law, to which the PSI Directive applies, are currently taken from the Public procurement Directives and Public undertakings are not covered by these definitions. Should Public undertakings be considered as Public Sector bodies in the meaning of the Directive? Are there Public undertakings holding "interesting" PSI? Are there different definitions of national legislation leading to situations where bodies holding similar (Public Sector) data are in some Member States considered as Public Sector bodies falling under the PSI Directive and in other Member States considered as Public undertakings? If Public undertakings were to be covered by the PSI Directive, how should the definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law be amended? Should the definitions be detached from the Public procurement definitions? Could data be considered as PSI if it was held by a privatised former Public Sector Body? Position Paper no. 2, The Exclusion of "Public Undertakings" from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime, WG1 - Subgroup competition of the European Thematic Network LAPSI (Legal Aspects of Public Sector Information).
Björn Lundqvist - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
“Turning Government Data Into Gold”: The Interface Between EU Competition Law and the Public Sector Information Directive—With Some Comments on the Compass Case
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013Co-Authors: Björn LundqvistAbstract:This short article was triggered by the recently delivered preliminary ruling by the CJEU in the Compass case. The case is important since it raises difficult questions regarding when a Public Sector Body should benefit from the application of EU competition law in general and is especially interesting for those Public Sector bodies that create the essential information needed for the growing Public Sector information industry. The main issue discussed in the article is when Public Sector bodies should be considered “undertakings” under EU competition law. The substantive issue of the case is whether the specific conduct under scrutiny, i.e. the distribution of Public Sector information for remuneration, is an economic activity or not. In light of the Compass case, the author argues that the underlying doctrine, derived from quite a number of CJEU cases, needs to be narrowed down and tightened so that Public Sector bodies are only exempted and considered as not conducting economic activities when the scrutinized activity truly constitutes an essential function of the state. The CJEU should thereby refine the current case law regarding the dichotomy between undertakings, which benefit from the application of competition law, and Public or private bodies that perform acts of sovereign Public power and connected conduct, which do not. EU competition law should prevail if a Public Sector Body or a private Body conducts an activity that creates or is conducted on a market, irrespective of whether that Body simultaneously conducts a Public task, as long as it is not an exercise of Public power.
-
turning government data into gold the interface between eu competition law and the Public Sector information directive with some comments on the compass case
2012Co-Authors: Björn LundqvistAbstract:This short article was triggered by the recently delivered preliminary ruling by the CJEU in the Compass case. The case is important since it raises difficult questions regarding when a Public Sector Body should benefit from the application of EU competition law in general and is specifically interesting for those Public Sector bodies that create the essential information needed for the growing Public Sector Information industry. The main issue discussed in the article is when Public Sector bodies should be considered “undertakings”, under EU competition law. The substantive issue of the case being whether the specific conduct under scrutiny, i.e. the disbursement of Public Sector information for remuneration, is an economic activity or not. In light of the Compass case, the author argues that the underlying doctrine, derived from quite a number of CJEU cases, needs to be narrowed down and tightened so that Public Sector bodies are exempted as not conducting economic activities only when the scrutinized activity is truly indispensable for a specific exercise of Public power. The CJEU should thereby refine the current case law regarding the dichotomy between undertakings, which benefit from the application of competition law, and Public or private bodies, that perform acts of sovereign Public power and thereto connected conduct, which do not. EU competition law should prevail if a Public Sector Body or a private Body conduct an activity that creates or is conducted on a market, irrespective if that Body simultaneously conducts a Public task, as long as it is not a conduct of Public power.
Marco Ricolfi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Lapsi Position Paper No. 2: The Exclusion of 'Public Undertakings' from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Marco Ricolfi, Josef Drexl, Manuel Fernandez Salmeron, Paolo Patrito, Mireille Van Eechoud, Cristiana Sappa, Prodromos Tsiavos, Julián Valero-torrijos, Francesca PavoniAbstract:Should Public undertakings be covered by the PSI Directive? The definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law, to which the PSI Directive applies, are currently taken from the Public procurement Directives and Public undertakings are not covered by these definitions. Should Public undertakings be considered as Public Sector bodies in the meaning of the Directive? Are there Public undertakings holding "interesting" PSI? Are there different definitions of national legislation leading to situations where bodies holding similar (Public Sector) data are in some Member States considered as Public Sector bodies falling under the PSI Directive and in other Member States considered as Public undertakings? If Public undertakings were to be covered by the PSI Directive, how should the definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law be amended? Should the definitions be detached from the Public procurement definitions? Could data be considered as PSI if it was held by a privatised former Public Sector Body?Position Paper no. 2, The Exclusion of "Public Undertakings" from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime, WG1 - Subgroup competition of the European Thematic Network LAPSI (Legal Aspects of Public Sector Information).
-
The Exclusion of Public Undertakings from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime
2011Co-Authors: Josef Drexl, Marco Ricolfi, Mireille Van Eechhoud, Manuel Fernandez Salmeron, Prodromos Tziavos, Julian Valero, Francesca Pavoni, Paolo PatritoAbstract:Should Public undertakings be covered by the PSI Directive? The definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law, to which the PSI Directive applies, are currently taken from the Public procurement Directives and Public undertakings are not covered by these definitions. Should Public undertakings be considered as Public Sector bodies in the meaning of the Directive? Are there Public undertakings holding "interesting" PSI? Are there different definitions of national legislation leading to situations where bodies holding similar (Public Sector) data are in some Member States considered as Public Sector bodies falling under the PSI Directive and in other Member States considered as Public undertakings? If Public undertakings were to be covered by the PSI Directive, how should the definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law be amended? Should the definitions be detached from the Public procurement definitions? Could data be considered as PSI if it was held by a privatised former Public Sector Body? Position Paper no. 2, The Exclusion of "Public Undertakings" from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime, WG1 - Subgroup competition of the European Thematic Network LAPSI (Legal Aspects of Public Sector Information).
Paolo Patrito - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Lapsi Position Paper No. 2: The Exclusion of 'Public Undertakings' from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Marco Ricolfi, Josef Drexl, Manuel Fernandez Salmeron, Paolo Patrito, Mireille Van Eechoud, Cristiana Sappa, Prodromos Tsiavos, Julián Valero-torrijos, Francesca PavoniAbstract:Should Public undertakings be covered by the PSI Directive? The definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law, to which the PSI Directive applies, are currently taken from the Public procurement Directives and Public undertakings are not covered by these definitions. Should Public undertakings be considered as Public Sector bodies in the meaning of the Directive? Are there Public undertakings holding "interesting" PSI? Are there different definitions of national legislation leading to situations where bodies holding similar (Public Sector) data are in some Member States considered as Public Sector bodies falling under the PSI Directive and in other Member States considered as Public undertakings? If Public undertakings were to be covered by the PSI Directive, how should the definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law be amended? Should the definitions be detached from the Public procurement definitions? Could data be considered as PSI if it was held by a privatised former Public Sector Body?Position Paper no. 2, The Exclusion of "Public Undertakings" from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime, WG1 - Subgroup competition of the European Thematic Network LAPSI (Legal Aspects of Public Sector Information).
-
The Exclusion of Public Undertakings from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime
2011Co-Authors: Josef Drexl, Marco Ricolfi, Mireille Van Eechhoud, Manuel Fernandez Salmeron, Prodromos Tziavos, Julian Valero, Francesca Pavoni, Paolo PatritoAbstract:Should Public undertakings be covered by the PSI Directive? The definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law, to which the PSI Directive applies, are currently taken from the Public procurement Directives and Public undertakings are not covered by these definitions. Should Public undertakings be considered as Public Sector bodies in the meaning of the Directive? Are there Public undertakings holding "interesting" PSI? Are there different definitions of national legislation leading to situations where bodies holding similar (Public Sector) data are in some Member States considered as Public Sector bodies falling under the PSI Directive and in other Member States considered as Public undertakings? If Public undertakings were to be covered by the PSI Directive, how should the definitions of Public Sector bodies and bodies governed by Public law be amended? Should the definitions be detached from the Public procurement definitions? Could data be considered as PSI if it was held by a privatised former Public Sector Body? Position Paper no. 2, The Exclusion of "Public Undertakings" from the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regime, WG1 - Subgroup competition of the European Thematic Network LAPSI (Legal Aspects of Public Sector Information).
John Lowerv - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Going one step further : The British Library joins the ranks of free Internet service providers (ISPS) : Electronic Commerce and Information Services
2000Co-Authors: John LowervAbstract:This paper is about the British Library's free Internet access service, British Library Net, launched in September 1999 as the first ISP by a Public Sector Body. The paper explores the rationale behind the development of the service, the work involved in both its creation and ongoing development and takes a look at future trends in the ISP market. The contents of this article had their genesis in a presentation given by Brian Kefford of the British Library at the Public Sector Online 2000 conference.
