Israel Democracy Institue Policy Paper No. 47
37 Pages Posted: 3 Mar 2010 Last revised: 17 May 2010
Date Written: March 2, 2010
Constitutional law dictates that when one person's use of property infringes upon another's, a balancing test be administered to examine whether state action is justified. The case at point here is that of a monopolist arguing for freedom of trade and right to property infringed upon by state action purporting to protect consumers. The question addressed is whether a monopolist as such is to be deprived such consideration, and what arguments such a monopolist might bring forth.
The setting is Israeli constitutional law, specifically two relatively new Basic Laws expressly guaranteeing the right to free determination of property and the right to freedom of occupation. I show that a monopolist would have firm ground on which to stand when arguing the Restrictive Trade Practices Law may violate constitutional standards and subsequently should be constrained by expressly allowed judicial review.
Notes: Downloadable document is in Hebrew
Keywords: Antitrust, Constitutional Law
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Ayal, Adi, The Monopolist as Victim: Constitutional Law in Antitrust - Part I (Hebrew) (March 2, 2010). Israel Democracy Institue Policy Paper No. 47; Bar Ilan Univ. Pub Law Working Paper No. 07-10. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1562467