Author Archive
Exit
To all readers,
After a long period of silence – part of it was Commission-imposed – the shareholders of chillincompetition have decided to transform this blog.
From today onwards, the blog moves from joint to sole control. In plain words, I quit, and leave the blog in Alfonso’s hands.
We discussed this together, but the reasons for exit are compelling.
Paraphrasinging BB King: “The Thrill is gone, it’s gone away for good“.
Alfonso’s challenge is now to find a new “bad cop“, to keep a sane degree of political incorrectness on this platform.
Thanks to all for the support in the past years.
And to my good pal Alfonso: “And now that it’s all over, All I can do is wish you well“
The Interface between Competition and the Internal Market – Market Separation under Article 102 TFEU
Given:
1. the 102-abusive prices charged by academic publishers for their books;
2. the drain in State aids imposed on Belgian Universities;
=> this advertisement is my sole way to get a copy of this new book.
Vasiliki Brisimi
This book explores the interface between competition law and market integration in the application of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), focusing on the notion of market separation namely conduct that may hinder cross-border trade. The discussion reviews, among other things, the treatment of geographic price discrimination and exclusionary abuse, by which out-of-state competitors are affected.
Market separation cases are treated in the book as a case study for appraising the interface between competition and the Internal Market. On this basis, the book provides a comparative analysis of the Treaty requirements under Article 102 TFEU when applied in market separation cases and the Treaty requirements under the free movement provisions. In addition, it utilises market separation cases as a springboard for advancing an informed reformulation of the application of Article 102 TFEU when state action comes into play.
All in all, the analysis presented in the book deconstructs the elements for establishing market separation as an abuse of the dominant position. It shows that there is nothing that would justify a distinctive treatment of market separation under Article 102 TFEU, other than a principled understanding of Internal Market law as a whole: whatever understanding one reaches about the proper shape of the Internal Market, interrogation of the proper application of competition law comes after that and thus should be informed by this understanding.
Bye bye
As Alfonso hinted in a previous post, I will be an “atypical” trainee at DG COMP in the next 6 months.
The stage starts tomorrow, and whilst I keep my ULg, GCLC and BSC activities, I have decided to discontinue my posts on the blog during my stay at COMP.
Alfonso will of course remain active. And I’ll be back in full force in 6 months.
Meanwhile, you can still write to me at my usual university address.
This post also gives me a last opportunity to share with you several recent presentations and papers:
- A presentation on injunctions on SEPS given at the University of Wurzburg (Germany), in the context of a seminar series organized by Professor Florian Bien: Universität Wurtzburg – Presentation on Injunctions
- A presentation on Compliance Programmes in EU and National Competition Law, given in Paris at a joint EDHEC-Ernst&Young conference: Antitrust et compliance – 11 02 14 – Risque juridique et compliance – tendances actuelles NP
- A paper on the flawed patent=monopoly equation (co-authored with Prof. Bostyn): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2373471
- A paper on market power in the credit rating industry (co-authored with Profs Candelon and Gautier): http://ssrn.com/abstract=2392989
With Alfonso, you guys are in good hands.
And my posts will presumably be better informed when I return in 6 months.
New Issue of European Competition Journal
EUROPEAN COMPETITION JOURNAL
Volume 9 . Number 3 . December 2013
The 3rd issue of the 2013 volume of European Competition Journal is now available online.
ONLINE ACCESS
To access this issue online and purchase individual papers please click here.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
For further information about European Competition Journal, please click here.
CONTENTS
Antitrust Marathon V: When in Rome Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law
A discussion led by Philip Marsden, Spencer Weber Waller and Philipp Fabbio
Welcome
Topic 1: Public–Private Partnerships for Effective Enforcement
Public–Private Partnerships for Effective Enforcement: Some “Hybrid” Insights?
Philip Marsden
Topic 2: Effective Injunctive Relief
Effective Injunctive Relief
Spencer Weber Waller
Topic 3: Private Actions for Damages
Private Actions for Damages
Philipp Fabbio
Topic 4: Criminal Enforcement
Real Crime: Criminal Competition Law
Susan Beth Farmer
Abstract: The Antitrust Marathon is a long-running series of roundtable discussions sponsored by the Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies of Loyola University Chicago School of Law and the Competition Law Forum of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, focusing on enduring issues of comparative competition law. These discussions always take place the day before or after the great marathon races of the world which some of the participants also endure. However, no running is required for the roundtable discussion itself. Past Antitrust Marathons have focused on Abuse of Dominance, Antitrust and the Rule of Law; Competition and Consumer Protection, and other topics, and have been held in Chicago, London, Boston and Dublin. We are grateful to the Italian Competition Authority and the University of Rome I (Sapienza) for hosting and being co- sponsors of the 2013 Antitrust Marathon.
Awards
Vote for me friends: here.
And three questions/remarks:
1. Why wasn’t Alfonso’s great piece on “Antitrust and the policital center” selected in the Business section? This was the single most read piece in CPI last year.
2. Will the prize be effectively awarded this year? I was one of the laureates two years ago, but I am still awaiting my invitation to GWU. It goes without saying that if I win again this year, I am happy to give two lectures at GWU on the same trip.
3. Why has the voting count disappeared this year? 2 years ago, you could see the number of votes attracted by papers. This year not.
A Proposal in relation to Commitments
I attach hereafter a link to the presentation on Article 102 TFEU that I gave yesterday at the Mardis du droit de la concurrence.
I end up concluding that time is ripe for Communication on Article 9 (or a notice, or guidelines, or a guidance, or whatever a little formal).
But more importantly, I make substantive suggestions to modify the Article 9 tool (eg. to introduce a bifurcation within Article 9 for protracted infringements, etc.).
Commissioner Almunia has been described in the press as “Mr. Commitments”.
I believe that he would really leave office on a high note with the adoption of a Communication rationalising and codifying the practice of COMP in this controversial, and often misunderstood, area.
Présentation N PETIT – Mardi du droit de la concurrence – Article 102 TFUE
Collaborative research (and some propaganda)
This WE, I’ll be prepping for the Mardis du droit de la concurrence held at the Free University of Brussels (ULB) next Tuesday. The talk is about recent developments in the law of Article 102 TFEU (read in the last year). This is the propaganda bit of this post.
On substance, not much to report I am afraid. Pity that Intel is still stuck in the judicial pipeline.
So I thought of saying a few words on institutional developments. I’ll make the usual point on Article 9 commitments (and the less usual one that time is ripe for a communication on this, simply to clear away some ambiguities of R1/2003 and streamline the process). I’ll talk also of the // proceedings between CJEU and Commission in the ongoing smartphones war (with its recent article 15 addition) .
But there’s one thing I would like to do above all: question whether the Commission is sufficiently staffed to handle the flood of complaints that have been lodged before it, and in particular, before Unit C/3, Antitrust, IT, Internet and Consumer electronics. For this, I’d need more specific info on the number of formal complaints lodged. But despite the wealth of info available on COMP’s website, there’s no registry of formal complaints :(.
I have already asked this information to the official in charge, but they are understandably not able to disclose it.
So I today turn to you: could you help me re-compile the list of formal cases/complaints currently lodged before unit C/3? You can post this info as comment to this post or email me at nicolas.petit@ulg.ac.be
I also buy info on “ghost cases”, ie forgotten cases that are no longer on the radar screen of external observers: Dupont/Honeywell, Mathworks, Wikileaks, spare part cases etc.
And finally, I am a taker of any information of cases which have been relegated to the low end of the priority list of this Commission.
Besides this, I’ll submit that substantive law developments yield institutional effects. In my opinion, but this is my opinion only, the forms-based approach is in part responsible for the flurry of – weak – complaints that have been brought before COMP.
It is so elastic that it offers ammunition for ludicrous grievances. Yet another reason to embrace fully the economic approach of Article 102 TFEU.
PS: I Article 9-commit to negotiate a free ticket for those who help.
Conference on Preliminary rulings in EU Competition Law
In Bruges, on 17 January, the GCLC will celebrate its 10 years with a conference on preliminary rulings in EU competition law.
For more, see here.
New Paper
A new paper, this time with co-written with an IP specialist, Prof. Sven Bostyn (University of Liverpool).
We take a shot at the flawed patent=monopoly equation.
Here’s the abstract:
“A patent right is an exclusionary right. With it, the patent holder can exclude third parties from making, using, selling, etc. products or processes protected by his patent. In the past, this right has also been referred to as a ‘monopoly right’ and this has lead to considerable confusion about the scope of patent rights and the role of the patent system in a modern economy. This paper seeks to provide some clarity on this issue and highlight the distinction between the exclusionary right granted by patent law and the notion of monopoly in economic regulation“.
Chillin'Competition 