Résultats 2 ressources
-
Generative AI is transforming industries by providing sophisticated, automated responses to complex queries. Dominant firms are increasingly integrating across the generative AI value chain, controlling foundational models, compute infrastructure, and access to critical data, raising concerns about abuses of market power and barriers to entry and expansion for smaller competitors. Against this background, this paper examines whether existing EU competition rules, particularly Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the European Merger Control Regulation, are sufficient to address anti-competitive conduct in generative AI markets. While these frameworks offer a robust foundation for scrutinising exclusionary practices and abuse of dominance, their effective application remains questionable, given the difficulty of defining relevant markets in fast-evolving AI ecosystems, addressing competition concerns promptly, and capturing mergers that fall below notification thresholds. Drawing lessons from digital platform regulation, the paper advocates a coordinated, multi-agency approach involving the European Commission, the European Data Protection Board, and the European AI Office, and a participatory regulatory framework engaging businesses, civil society, and other stakeholders to balance innovation, accountability, and fair competition.
-
En Afrique de l’Ouest, le droit des pratiques anticoncurrentielles s’est principalement structuré autour de la répression publique des comportements restrictifs de concurrence, assurée par les autorités nationales et par les autorités régionales de la CEDEAO et de l’UEMOA. En revanche, la réparation des préjudices subis par les victimes demeure quasi inexistante et juridiquement inachevée, soulevant la question de l’effectivité du droit des pratiques anticoncurrentielles en l’absence d’un cadre régional harmonisé de private enforcement. À partir d’une analyse normative et comparative, l’article confronte les cadres ouest-africains à l’expérience européenne, notamment celle issue de la directive 2014/104/UE sur les actions en dommages et intérêts. Il souligne les limites du recours au droit commun de la responsabilité civile pour assurer l’accès aux preuves et à la réparation effective des préjudices anticoncurrentiels. L’étude plaide pour une harmonisation régionale des actions en réparation afin de renforcer l’effectivité du droit et l’accès à la justice des victimes, consolidant ainsi la cohérence du marché régional. In West Africa, antitrust law is largely built on public enforcement of restrictive business practices, managed by regional and national authorities within ECOWAS and UEMOA. Compensation for victims, however, remains minimal and legally fragmented, raising questions about the law’s overall effectiveness without a harmonized framework for private enforcement. This article adopts a normative and comparative approach, examining West African frameworks alongside the European experience, particularly Directive 2014/104/EU on damages actions. It demonstrates that reliance on general civil liability fails to secure access to evidence or ensure effective redress for anticompetitive harm. The study argues that regional harmonization of private enforcement is essential to strengthen legal effectiveness, improve victims’ access to justice, and enhance the coherence and credibility of the West African market.