Reference health
Intel and the Rebirth of the Economic Approach to EU Competition Law
16/16 checkable references clean · checked 2026-09-02
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
16 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 16 checked references that resolve
resolves10.54648/WOCO2017016
The Opinion of AG Wahl in the Intel Rebates Case: A Triumph of Substance over Form?
resolves10.1093/jeclap/lpw059
The As-Efficient-Competitor Test: Necessary or Sufficient to Establish an Abuse of Dominant Position?: Table 1:
resolves10.2139/ssrn.2851419
On the Use of Price-Cost Tests in Loyalty Discounts and Exclusive Dealing Arrangements: Which Implications from Economic Theory?
resolves10.2139/ssrn.2755656
Beyond the 'More Economics-Based Approach': A Legal Perspective on Article 102 TFEU Case Law
resolves10.1080/17441056.2017.1289706
Should the rejection of the “as efficient competitor” test in the <i>Intel</i> and <i>Post Danmark II</i> judgements lead to dismissal of the effect-based approach?
resolves10.1007/s40319-015-0307-2
Conditional Rebate Schemes and the More Economic Approach: Back to the Future?
resolves10.1093/jeclap/lpu088
The Ruling of the General Court in Intel: Towards the End of an Effect-based Approach in European Competition Law?
resolves10.2139/ssrn.3086402
The Judgment of the EU Court of Justice in Intel and the Rule of Reason in Abuse of Dominance Cases
resolves10.2139/ssrn.2817942
The Raising Rivals’ Cost Foreclosure Paradigm, Conditional Pricing Practices and the Flawed Incremental Price-Cost Test
resolves10.1080/17441056.2017.1382249
The judgment of the European Court of Justice in <i>Intel v Commission</i>: a procedural answer to a substantive question?
resolves10.5235/17441056.10.2.203
Case T-286/09 <i>Intel v Commission</i>—The Judgment of the General Court: All Steps Backward and No Steps Forward
resolves10.54648/WOCO2014042
The Judgment of the EU General Court in <i>Intel</i> and the So-Called More Economic Approach to Abuse of Dominance
The 16 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedref1
no DOI — not checkedref2
no DOI — not checkedref3
no DOI — not checkedref4
no DOI — not checkedref5
no DOI — not checkedref6
no DOI — not checkedref7
no DOI — not checkedJoined Cases C-241 and 242/91 P RTE and ITP v
no DOI — not checkedref9
no DOI — not checkedref11
no DOI — not checkedref12
no DOI — not checkedSee also, more in general
no DOI — not checkedref18
no DOI — not checkedref20
no DOI — not checkedConditional pricing: Why the General Court is wrong in Intel and what the Court of Justice can do to rebalance the assessment of rebates
no DOI — not checkedref32
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-09-02 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.3104850"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.3104850/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.3104850)