Archive for May 2010
I love my job
A statistical exercize: ask a young competition lawyer how he is doing. In 9 out of 10 cases, with a sound of desperation, he will tell you he is horrendously busy, that his job is exhausting, and that life is tough and stressful.
By contrast, you will almost never hear someone say that he’s happy, that he loves his job, and that he is doing what he had always dreamt of.
I find this very sad.
As a kid, I remember hearing my dad saying how fantastic his job was. This was really instrumental in pushing me to study hard and, more recently, in deciding me to choose academia over private practice.
Over the past years, my students have often told me that they were discouraged from working as a competition lawyer because of the perception most young professionals did not look happy, but tired and busy.
So friends, readers, let’s just try to sound a little more happy (and if you are not, you should certainly do something else).
(Image possibly subject to copyrights: source here)
Week-End Ruminations
With all the fuzz about the Greek financial tragedy, I cannot help but drawing comparisons with what happened last year in the private sector. The most glaring similarities are:
- Not unlike the subprime crisis, this crisis stems from problems of asymetrical information and moral hazard, with Greece lying on the real status of its finances, and fooling its European Monetary Union partners;
- We here have a country that has become “too big too fail“, and Member States have to rescue it;
- Massive State aids are now provided. Those aids fall short of the prohibition of the TFEU. Yet, like aids granted last year to banks, this rescue scheme distorts competition between disciplined and careless governments. Of course, some may argue that Europe is not an area where Member States compete against each other, but where countries act jointly, in a spirit of solidarity. Well, as sad as this may sound, this is plain untrue. Each Member State individually defines its budget seeking to maximize domestic wealth. In addition, the competence over the main economic issues lies at the national level (social security, pensions, military, research and education, etc.);
- What’s missing in the European Monetary Union is a credible regulatory framework, with tough enforcement mechanisms.
Another puzzling thing: some of you may have heard that regionalism in on the rise in Belgium. A handful of influential Dutch-speaking politicians – who come from the wealthy northern part of Belgium – no longer want to subsidize the poor, French-speaking southern region. Now here’s something which puzzles me: how can those guys can reconcile this with the billions of € they are ready to lend to Greece (and more generally with their alleged pledge to build a stronger Europe)?
Upcoming GCLC Events
With Bernard Van de Walle de Ghelcke as our new President and Tarik Hennen as our new executive secretary, things are really pro-active at the GCLC. We have two events in the pipe:
On 20 May, Dominik Schnichels (DG COMP) and James Killick (White & Case LLP) will talk on forthcoming developments following the Pharma sector inquiry. Registration form can be downloaded here.
On 7 June, Donncadh Woods (DG COMP) and Axel Gutermuth (Arnold & Porter) will talk on the Commission’s Review of Horizontal Cooperation Agreements. Registration form can be downloaded here.
Location as usual: Hilton Hotel, Brussels
A Message of Hope, and some Food for Thougt
The unofficial purpose of this post is to send a message of hope to all our readers who believe that each and every email shall be answered in the minute. Some organizations are there to help you turn your blackberry off. Please note in addition, that from a time management perspective, checking emails on a live, constant basis is wholly inefficient and disruptive.
Those communications-related words allow me to jump to the official topic of this post. The last weeks here have been very telco oriented, with a talk at IIC forum (I eventually could not make it) on telcos, and a successful conference on Friday.
I attach the slides of the conference hereafter
Creation and purpose of Berec J.Doherty
Electronic Communications regulatory framework.Next steps- Giuseppe Conte
Functional Separation. Evolution, Revolution or Step back- Boaz Moselle
Institutional Issues in the EU regulatory Framework – NRAs – Axel Desmedt
The New telecoms package-Ripe for reform,again- Andrea Renda
Spectrum Regulation under the New Eu Framework- Phillipa Marks
Bottom-Up Cross Fertilization
Apologies for the mysterious title of this post. It deliberately borrows to the jargon which political scientists use to look bright, and impress their colleagues.
Here’s the explanation. The Commission’s released today its drafts on horizontal cooperation agreements, which are intended to replace the Block Exemption Regulation on joint R&D, the Block Exemption Regulation on Specialisation Agreements and last, but not least, the Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation Agreements. Pursuant to the Commission’s press release, the primary innovations of the Guidelines are:
- The inclusion of a chapter on the assessment of information exchange between companies;
- Guidance on standard terms in the chapter on standardisation;
- Clarification of the application of the competition rules to agreements between joint ventures and their parent
Now, what stroke me in going through the text is that the Guidelines abundantly recycle examples taken from the case-law of national competition authorities.
Read this:
Luxury hotels in the capital of country A, which is a tight and stable oligopoly operating in a non complex and concentrated market, directly exchange individual information about current occupancy rates and revenues. In this case, from the information exchanged the parties can directly deduce their actual current prices.
Looks familiar? Now read this:
The four companies owning all the petrol stations in country A exchange current gasoline prices over the telephone. They claim that this information exchange cannot have restrictive effects on competition because the information is public as it is displayed on large display panels at every petrol station.
Both those examples refer to cases dealt with the French competition authority in previous years. Those draft Guidelines are thus the proof that Regulation 1/2003 has triggered bottom-up, cross fertilization dynamics. More simply, the decisional practice of NCAs helps shaping the content of EU competition law.
(Image possibly subject to copyright. Source here)
Slides of the 44th GCLC Lunch Talk on the Lisbon Treaty
I post hereafter the slides presented at last week’s GCLC lunch talk on the Lisbon Treaty and the Future of Competition Policy. They include presentations by Prof Alan Riley (CULondon) and Eric Morgan de Rivery (JonesDay). A most interesting event (and my first time presiding a GCLC lunch talk).
Now, a little advertising: contrary to the dominant viewpoint that the fundamentals of competition policy remain stable after Lisbon, I have developped arguments to the effect that the elimination of Article 3(1)g) had the potential to fragilize EU competition policy as a whole. See the paper below (in French) and my recent Antitrust Chronicle paper with Norman Neyrinck, my assistant.
Traité de Lisbonne_Revue Fac de droit
Alan’s position is virtually similar, with further arguments taken from public international law principles (the Vienna convention) and the recent financial and economic crisis. Please also note that Alan’s position has been further explored in Chris Townley’s brilliant book on public policy principles under Article 101(3) TFEU.
GCLC – Slides Alan Riley – The Competition Protocol
GCLC – Slides Eric Morgan de Rivery – The Future of Competition Policy – Institutions and Procedure






