Výzkum doktrinálního základu antitrustu EU se v současnosti těší zvýšené pozornosti. Je to vyvoláno posuny v chápání a zacílení ochrany soutěže, které přinesla Lisabonská smlouva, ale také proces globalizace a nynější hospodářská krize. Ta je dle mnohých zároveň hlubokou krizí dnešního modelu kapitalismu. EU je tak opět v procesu hledání těch správných cílů ochrany hospodářské soutěže, do něhož se vrátila po období tzv. modernizace, které mělo vést ke konvergenci antitrustu EU a USA na společném základu zformovaném na učení neoliberální chicagské školy. Z pohledu historie nejde o neznámý vývoj, neboť soutěžní politika a právo EU tradičně sledovaly širší paletu ne vždy souladných cílů, jak je též ukázáno
v této studii.Otázkou dne je, zda po odeznění hospodářské krize se antitrust EU vrátí k tomuto tradičnímu pojetí, nebo se pokusí navázat na svou neoliberální modernizaci s důsledným zacílením na blahobyt spotřebitele, či zda bude hledat nový standard, který smíří jeho akumulovanou zkušenost a konstantní judikaturu s realitou globální soutěže na světově propojených trzích. Studie se nejprve věnuje otázce, jak přímo a do jaké hloubky mohou doktríny antitrustu ovlivnit soutěžní politiku a právo EU.Následně analyzuje
vývoj antitrustu EU z hlediska jeho ovlivnění určitou doktrínou antitrustu či diskursem hospodářské politiky. Závěrečná část je věnována nynějšímu přístupu Evropské komise a Soudního dvora EU k otázce cílů, které by aktuálně měl antitrust EU sledovat. and Research on ideological foundations of antitrust has been enjoying an increased attention in recent times. This is due to the shift in understanding of the meaning and focus of protection of competition brought about by the Lisbon Treaty, but also due to the processes of globalization and the current economic crisis, which, according to many, is also the crisis of the current model of capitalism. The EU is once more is search for proper goals of competition protection after a period of modernization that should have aligned its antitrust with the US one, on the common ground formed by the Chicago neoliberal school. In a historical perspective the current situation is not new for the EU as its competition policy has often been pursuing a variety of goals, as it is demonstrated in an overview provided by the paper. The question of the day is whether after the current crisis is over the EU
antitrust would shift back to its traditional multi-purpose approach, or will resume its neoliberal modernization endeavor, or would it rather look for a new standard that could unite its past experience and case law with the reality of the global competition in globalized markets. The paper deals
firstly with the question of how deeply any doctrine of antitrust can ever affect the EU competition policy and law. Subsequently, it analyzes the development of the EU antitrust through its historical meetings with different doctrines and discourses of competition protection and regulation. The final
sections focuses on the current position of the Commission and the Court of Justice of the EU, as well as on the debate about what should be the goal of antitrust today and in the post-crisis period.
Since 1990s when liberalization and deregulation processes first opened the social security field to market forces, the EU competition law has had to cope with the situations of clash between values of social welfare and free competition. In the post-crisis period the European Union wants and needs to be more socially responsive, as the strengthening of social justice and social rights, the fight against poverty and social exclusion has become the key to political legitimacy of the European integration as well as of its Member States. A question hence arises how the call for a more social EU would cohabit with the free and undistorted competition. The paper tries to remedy on the fact that the EU so far has no accepted methodology of how to integrate public policy considerations in competition decisions. After sketching out such a methodology based on the CJEU’s pre-Lisbon case law, the present analysis deals with the post-Lisbon developments inquiring whether the CJEU is paying now more consideration to social security measures.