Ewoud Sakkers | Johan Ysewyn
Friday 17 October 2014, Friday 24 October 2014, Friday 7 November 2014
Relaxing whilst doing Competition Law is not an Oxymoron
Registration for the 5th edition of the Brussels School of Competition’s specialized programme is now open.
Here’s the programme for the upcoming academic year:
Clinical Seminar 1: Competition Compliance
I realized yesterday that the slides used by all speakers at the Brussels School of Competition’s and Liège Competition and Innovation Institute’s very interesting conference on Commitment Decisions in EU Competition Policy are available here (the image above corresponds to one of mines; as an animated GIF it looked better in slidehow).
As for my presentation, I don’t think I said anything that was particularly original. I essentially did a 20 minutes quick overview and categorization of the commitment decisions adopted so far on the bases of (a) the (real) underlying reasons to resort to them, which may not always have to do with procedural economy considerations; (b) the sectors they affect (you can observe clear clusters that provide useful insights regarding enforcement priorities complementing regulatory initiatives -or lack thereof-); (c) the theories of harm at issue in each case and (d) the remedies made binding. This exercise made (even more) evident that both the theories of harm and the remedies that we see in these cases are nowhere to be found in Art. 7 infringement decisions. My purpose was merely to provide an objective account of these cases, so I left the discussion on the pros and cons of this approach to my fellow panelists.
Btw, the Liège Competition and Innovation Institute will also be holding other two interesting conferences in the coming days:
Intel v Commission: More eco or more ordo fiendly? next Monday 16 of June
Have a nice w-e!
Minutes after I published the post on endives’ right to be forgotten I received a call from the European Data Protection Supervisor’s office. At first I admit I thought it was someone (my first suspect was that guy from 21stcenturycompetition because he’d read a draft of the endive thing; don’t worry, Kevin, I won’t disclose you thought it was serious) returning the joke, but it wasn’t, and I got invited to speak next Monday the most interesting (but closed door) Workshop on privacy consumers, competition and big data (to be held at the European Parliament and arranged in the wake of the EDPS report that we –actually Orla- discussed here).
I’d solemnly committed myself to have a life and not take on any more non-work (non-billable, that is) stuff in the coming weeks/months, but it was an offer I couldn’t refuse. My topic is Market Power in the Digital Economy.
Three days later, on Wednesday 5 June I’ll be providing an overview of the commitment decisions adopted by the Commission since the enactment of Regulation 1/2003 at the Brussels School of Competition’s annual conference. This event you really should attend (click here for info: Programme_Commitments in EU Competition Policy – 5 June 2014).
[ I apologize in advance to all attendants at these two conferences: I’ve an important General Court deadline on Friday and then a bachelor party weekend, so preparing might be a challenge. Yes, this is the ol old expectation-lowering trick ! ]
Then on 8 July I’ll be lecturing on EU competition procedure and on Special and Exclusive Rights (Art. 106) at the College of Europe’s Competition Summer School for Chinese officials. Talking with Chinese officials about how competition law applies to public measures should be quite an interesting experience. And then on the 11th same procedural class in the context of the College’s summer course on competiiton law.
And then, following my first paternity leave in September, I really plan to take on less of these commitments.
Well, on 28 November I’ll be participating at the Swedish Competition Authority’s annual and always excellent Pros and Cons conference, which on this edition will be devoted to Two Sided Markets, but I couldn’t say no to that either…
If you want to know everything about the use of commitment decision in EU Competition Law…
Monsieur le Prof Petit is a quick guy in many respects. The most recent illustration of this characteristic of his is that, within a few days of the unofficial announcent that the Intel Judgment will be out on 12 June, he’s managed to arrange a seminar about it. It will take place on 16 June, and the program is available here: Conference Intel v Commission – Programme and Registration Among the speakers are two economist who were working at the Commission when the decicion was adopted (Damien Neven and Frank Maier Rigaud), as well as Robert O’Donoghue, Jean François Bellis and Damien Geradin.
A few days later, on the 5th of June, the Brussels School of Competition (“BSC”) and The Liège Competition & Innovation Institute (“LCII”) will be holding a half-day conference on “Commitments in EU Competition Policy” in Brussels. More info is available here.
Finally, Nicolas’ assistant at University has also asked me to advertise one more conference,this one about The repair of competition harms in France and in Europe: State of art and future changes. It’ll be held on Tuesday May 13th in Paris.
On Friday 14 March the General Court issued seven Judgments in cases T-292/11, T-293/11, T-296/11, T-297/11, T-302/11M T-305/11 and T-306/11. We represented one of the seven applicants (needless to say, the opinions below are exclusively my own, and in no way can be attributed to my client or my colleagues).
I had already anticipated those Judgments noting that -irrespective of who the prevailing parties were- they would be of great interest and procedural relevance. [The Judgments came out while I was lecturing on competition procedure at the Brussels School of Competition, so I discussed them almost live].
The cases concerned seven appeals lodged by cement companies against massive -arguably unprecedented- requests for information, and they are important because the Court was asked to clarify whether there are any real limitations to the Commission’s investigative powers.
There have been two groups of Judgments:
-In six cases the applicants grounded their appeal on the lack of motivation of the information request. In those cases the GC has ruled (a) that although “it is true that “the presumed infringements [were] set out in very general terms which might well have been made more precise”, they have the minimum degree of clarity in order to be able to be considered to be consistent with the requirements of EU law; and (b) that even if “the size of the workload caused by the volume of information and the very high degree of precision in the response format imposed by the Commission cannot be reasonably disputed”, that workload was not disproportionate in the light of the necessities of the enquiry and the extent of the presumed infringements.
[Intermission: Too often, when the Court decides to dismiss an application it practically denies any reason to every argument made by the applicant). This wasn’t the case here, and the Court was objective and transparent enough to acknowledge that there could be problems, but that they were overridden by effectiveness considerations. I like it better this way].
-The content of the Judgment in the seventh case (T-296/11 in which we acted for the applicant) is different, as explained in the Court’s press release http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-03/cp140035en.pdf
Instead of focusing our arguments on lack of motivation (which we thought would at most have only given us a temporary victory), we had posited that the criterion of “necessity” in Art. 18 of Regulation 1/2003 should be interpreted not in light of what the Commission intends or hopes to find, but in the light of the elements that the Commission has and that raise the suspicion triggering the investigation. We claimed that otherwise the criterion of necessity would be devoid of any practical significance.
The GC has accepted the theory (as it did in Prysmian and Nexans -now pending before the ECJ- regarding inspections). According to the GC, the Commission is not obliged to disclose to the companies the preliminary evidence at its disposal, but it must have enough evidence to justify the information request (paras. 38-40).
In this particular case, and since the Court acknowledges we had “put forward factors capable of casting doubt on the sufficiently serious nature of the evidence concerned”, the Commission was very exceptionally asked to produce a summary of its file. Luis Ortiz Blanco and myself were asked to go to Luxembourg to access it and make observations without being allowed to disclose anything not even to our client [I’m not disclosing anything confidential because this is all explained in paras. 23-26 of the Judgment]. This is what explains that a great part of the Judgment is redacted as confidential.
Obviously I can’t say or even hint at anything that’s not been disclosed in the non-confidential version of the Judgment. Essentially, the Court explains that in the light of the Commission’s file the Institution could have validly addressed the exhaustive and exhausting information request to the applicant. The reasoning (mainly contained in para 59) is that even if we did offer an alternative interpretation of the elements in the file, the Commission cannot be asked at a preliminary stage to have evidence so consistent as to be sufficient to establish an infringement; it’s enough to have evidence that -at a preliminary stage and absent third party contextualization- would have arouse a reasonable suspicion.
The lines of what’s reasonable are of course blurry, and the Court’s approach is -rightly or wrongly- deferential to the Commission and to the need of safeguarding the effectiveness of its investigations, particularly at an early stage. Some may fear that if Courts started annulling requests for information (or Phase I clearance decisions, to pick a “random” example) then the floodgates would open. However, failing to annul those categories of decisions systematically and regardless of their merits or lack thereof those may also be akin to conferring carte blanche on the Commission, and that (regardless of the unquestionable good intentions of the Institution) might also have drawbacks.
When you have a
8 9 10 to 9 ? job it’s often quite hard to do things on the side, and, between us, it may not make much sense that many of them are work-related. Only this month, and in addition to ordinary work -which included 5 Court deadlines- and blog posting, I had to lecture in Madrid about 102 (intro, tying and refusal to deal in 3 hours), participate in the panel on interop at AIJA’s antitrust and tech conference on a Saturday morning, finish and present a paper on evidence in cartel cases, and lecture -next Friday- for 6 hours at the Brussels School of Competition on procedure. And since I thought it would be the quietest month in sight, I took a week off for my postponed Christmas holidays (not very smart, no). Overall I spent almost as much times in planes (11 flights this month) as in the office, and had to compensate at the cost of sleeping hours.
Why should you care about all this? You shouldn’t; this is all to explain why during this whole month I kept on swearing myself that -blogging aside- I would refuse any non-work projects for the next few months. Well, said and not done:
On 3 April ERA will be hosting an afternoon workshop on Two sided markets in merger and abuse of dominance cases here in Brussels. They couldn’t have chosen a more interesting topic, so I gladly accepted to chair it. Not only is the subject matter a fascinating one, it will also be dealt with by two great panellists: Thomas Graf (Cleary Gottlieb) and Lars Wiethaus (E.CA Economics).
The program is available here: Two Sided Markets in Merger and Abuse of Dominance Cases (ERA)