Table 2a: Scoring taking into account analysis under Article 101(3) (140 decisions) | |||||||
The highest level of economic analysis present in the decision | Total | ||||||
| A | B | C1 | C2 | C3 | D | ||
| Total number of decisions | 5 | 86 | 33 | 11 | 2 | 33 | 170 |
| Number of decisions without gaps | 5 | 86 | 32 | 8 | 0 | 9 | 140 |
| Number of decisions with gaps | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 24 | 30 |
| % of decisions with gaps | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 27.3 | 100.0 | 72.7 | 17.6 |
Table 2b: Scoring without taking into account analysis under Article 101(3) (160 decisions) | |||||||
The highest level of economic analysis present in the decision | Total | ||||||
| A | B | C1 | C2 | C3 | D | ||
| Total number of decisions | 6 | 96 | 41 | 16 | 1 | 10 | 170 |
| Number of decisions without gaps | 6 | 96 | 40 | 13 | 1 | 4 | 160 |
| Number of decisions with gaps | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 10 |
| % of decisions with gaps | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 18.8 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 5.9 |
Table 2a: Scoring taking into account analysis under Article 101(3) (140 decisions) | |||||||
The highest level of economic analysis present in the decision | Total | ||||||
| A | B | C1 | C2 | C3 | D | ||
| Total number of decisions | 5 | 86 | 33 | 11 | 2 | 33 | 170 |
| Number of decisions without gaps | 5 | 86 | 32 | 8 | 0 | 9 | 140 |
| Number of decisions with gaps | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 24 | 30 |
| % of decisions with gaps | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 27.3 | 100.0 | 72.7 | 17.6 |
Table 2b: Scoring without taking into account analysis under Article 101(3) (160 decisions) | |||||||
The highest level of economic analysis present in the decision | Total | ||||||
| A | B | C1 | C2 | C3 | D | ||
| Total number of decisions | 6 | 96 | 41 | 16 | 1 | 10 | 170 |
| Number of decisions without gaps | 6 | 96 | 40 | 13 | 1 | 4 | 160 |
| Number of decisions with gaps | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 10 |
| % of decisions with gaps | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 18.8 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 5.9 |
Table 2a: Scoring taking into account analysis under Article 101(3) (140 decisions) | |||||||
The highest level of economic analysis present in the decision | Total | ||||||
| A | B | C1 | C2 | C3 | D | ||
| Total number of decisions | 5 | 86 | 33 | 11 | 2 | 33 | 170 |
| Number of decisions without gaps | 5 | 86 | 32 | 8 | 0 | 9 | 140 |
| Number of decisions with gaps | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 24 | 30 |
| % of decisions with gaps | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 27.3 | 100.0 | 72.7 | 17.6 |
Table 2b: Scoring without taking into account analysis under Article 101(3) (160 decisions) | |||||||
The highest level of economic analysis present in the decision | Total | ||||||
| A | B | C1 | C2 | C3 | D | ||
| Total number of decisions | 6 | 96 | 41 | 16 | 1 | 10 | 170 |
| Number of decisions without gaps | 6 | 96 | 40 | 13 | 1 | 4 | 160 |
| Number of decisions with gaps | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 10 |
| % of decisions with gaps | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 18.8 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 5.9 |
Table 2a: Scoring taking into account analysis under Article 101(3) (140 decisions) | |||||||
The highest level of economic analysis present in the decision | Total | ||||||
| A | B | C1 | C2 | C3 | D | ||
| Total number of decisions | 5 | 86 | 33 | 11 | 2 | 33 | 170 |
| Number of decisions without gaps | 5 | 86 | 32 | 8 | 0 | 9 | 140 |
| Number of decisions with gaps | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 24 | 30 |
| % of decisions with gaps | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 27.3 | 100.0 | 72.7 | 17.6 |
Table 2b: Scoring without taking into account analysis under Article 101(3) (160 decisions) | |||||||
The highest level of economic analysis present in the decision | Total | ||||||
| A | B | C1 | C2 | C3 | D | ||
| Total number of decisions | 6 | 96 | 41 | 16 | 1 | 10 | 170 |
| Number of decisions without gaps | 6 | 96 | 40 | 13 | 1 | 4 | 160 |
| Number of decisions with gaps | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 10 |
| % of decisions with gaps | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 18.8 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 5.9 |
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
