Avdasheva, S., Katsoulacos, Y., Golovanova, S., & Tsytsulina, D. (2015). Empirical evidence in competition enforcement in Russia: Based on the data of judicial review. In F. Jenny & Y. Katsoulacos (Eds.), Competition law enforcement in the BRICS and in developing countries (pp. 263–287). Berlin: Springer.
Baye, M. R., & Wright, J. D. (2011). Is antitrust too complicated for generalist judges? The impact of economic complexity and judicial training on appeals. The Journal of Law and Economics,
Blair, R. D., & Sokol, D. D. (2012). The rule of reason and the goals of antitrust: An economic approach. Antitrust Law Journal,
Blair, R. D., & Sokol, D. D. (2013). Welfare standards in US and EU antitrust enforcement. Fordham Law Review,
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). (2018). CMA impact assessment 2017/18. 24 July 2018, CMA91.
Coniglio, J. V. (2017). Rejecting the ordoliberal standard of consumer choice and making consumer welfare the hallmark of an antitrust atlanticism. CPI Antitrust Chronicle, 1(2), 65–70.
Deacon, D. (1999). Vertical restraints under EU competition law: New directions. In: Fordham Corporate Law Institute.
European Commission. (2005). DG competition discussion paper on the application of Art. 82 of the treaty to exclusionary abuses, Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/art82/discpaper2005.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
Faella, G. (2013). Vertical agreements. In I. Lianos & D. Geradin (Eds.), Handbook European competition law—Substantive aspects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fisher, F. M. (1989). Games economists play: A noncooperative view. The Rand Journal of Economics,
Forrester, I. (2011). A challenge for Europe’s judges: The review of fines in competition cases. Reprinted from European Law Review,
Gavil, A., Kovacic, W., & Baker, J. B. (2008). Antitrust law in perspective: Cases, concepts and problems in competition policy (p. 358). Eagan: West Academic Publishing.
Geradin, D. (2010). Is the guidance paper on the commission’s enforcement priorities in enforcing article 102 TFEU useful. In F. Etro & I. Kokkoris (Eds.), Competition law and the enforcement of article 102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geradin, D., & Petit, N. (2010). Judicial review in European union competition law: A quantitative and qualitative assessment. TILEC Discussion Paper 2011–008; Tilburg Law School Research Paper No. 01/2011. Retrieved from SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1698342 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1698342. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
Gifford, D. J., & Kudrle, R. T. (2015). The Atlantic divide in antitrust: An examination of US and EU competition policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gual, J., Hellwig, M., Perrot, A., Polo, M., Rey, P., Schmidt, K., & Stenbacka, R. (2005). An economic approach to Art. 82. Report from the Economic Advisory Group on Competition Policy. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/economist/eagcp_july_21_05.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
Gual, J., & Mas, N. (2011). Industry characteristics and anti-competitive behavior: Evidence from the European commission’s decisions. Review of Industrial Organization,
Hovenkamp, H. J. (2018). The rule of reason. Florida Law Review, 70(81), 81–167.
Jones, A., & Kovacic, W. (2017). Identifying anticompetitive agreements in the US and the EU: Developing a coherent antitrust analytical framework. Antitrust Bulletin,
Katsoulacos, Y. (2017). Judicial review, economic evidence and the choice of legal standards by utility maximizing competition authorities. Mimeo. Retrieved from http://www.cresse.info/default.aspx?articleID=3388. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
Katsoulacos, Y. (2018a). On the choice of legal standards: A positive theory for comparative analysis. Retrieved from http://www.cresse.info/default.aspx?articleID=3388. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
Katsoulacos, Y. (2018b). A Note on the concepts of legal standards and substantive standards (and how the latter influences the choice of the former). Retrieved from http://www.cresse.info/default.aspx?articleID=3388. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
Katsoulacos, Y., Avdasheva, S., & Golovanova, S. (2016a). Legal standards and the role of economics in competition law enforcement. The European Competition Journal,
Katsoulacos, Y., Metsiou, E., & Ulph, D. (2016b). Optimal substantive standards for competition authorities. Journal of Industry Competition and Trade,
Katsoulacos, Y., & Ulph, D. (2009). Optimal legal standards for competition policy. Journal of Industrial Economics,
Katsoulacos, Y., & Ulph, D. (2011). Optimal enforcement structures for competition policy: Implications of judicial reviews and of internal error correction mechanisms. European Competition Journal,
Katsoulacos, Y., & Ulph, D. (2015). Legal uncertainty, competition law enforcement procedures and optimal penalties. European Journal of Law and Economics,
Katsoulacos, Y., & Ulph, D. (2016). Regulatory decision errors, legal uncertainty and welfare: A general treatment. International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Korah, V. (2010). The reform of EC competition law: The challenge of an optimal enforcement system. In I. Lianos & I. Kokkoris (Eds.), The reform of EC competition law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Kovacic, W., & Shapiro, C. (2000). Antitrust policy: A century of economic and legal thinking. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Marsden, P. (2010). Some outstanding issues from the European commission’s guidance on article 102 TFEU: Not-so-faint echoes of ordoliberalism. In F. Etro & I. Kokkoris (Eds.), Competition and the enforcement of article 102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ortiz Blanco, L. (2013). EU competition procedure. Oxford University Press. ISBN-13: 978-0199641833.
Peeperkorn, L. (2015). Conditional pricing: Why the GC is wrong in intel and what the court of justice can do to rebalance the assessment of rebate. Concurrences Review No. 1-2015, Article No. 70835, pp. 43–63.
Rey, P., & Venit, J. S. (2015). An effects-based approach to article 102: A response to Wouter Wils. World Competition,
Sokol, D. (2017). Troubled waters between US and European antitrust. Michigan Law Review,
Wils, W. (2014). The judgment of the EU general court in intel and the so-called more economic approach to abuse of dominance. World Competition,
Wils, W. (2016). The use of leniency in EU cartel enforcement: An assessment after twenty years. World Competition,
Witt, A. C. (2016). The more economic approach to EU antitrust law. Hart studies in competition law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.