Author Archive
Guidance (and some other stuff)
The OFT keeps doing interesting stuff. They have now published two concise and useful guidance documents aimed at ensuring compliance by small and medium companies as well as by company directors. (The Spanish CNC also did a good job in releasing guidance for associations not so long ago).
Btw, for those of you who have not yet heard about it, one of the members of the OFT´s Board, Philip Marsden, is the new competition law Professor at the College of Europe, where he´ll be replacing Richard Whish.
Unrelated:
-Rumour has it that next week the Commission will finally announce its long-awaited decision in the air cargo cartel. You can expect truly huge fines.
-Also, yesterday I attended part of the sessions of the FIDE Congress in Madrid, and it was really a privilege to see such an unusual concentration of great legal minds. I could only attend the discussion on competition issues (excellentely chaired by Judge Lenaerts), but I hear that all three panels were of great interest.
Competition Law and Sport (V) FYI
Some days ago I participated together with José Luis Buendía in a conference on sports law held at the UNED (the only state-run Spanish distance-learning university). We covered a wide array of issues concerning the application of competition law in this sector, some of which have also been discussed here in the past (e.g. football tv rights, salary caps, state aids in sports, or the SCOTUS decision in American Needle).
In addition, we talked a bit about two cases on which we´ve worked but about which there is not much information available apart from news clips. I think both cases raise extremely interesting questions, and I believe that some of you may have an interest in knowing about their existence. Accordingly, and as an exception, this post deals with two cases on which I was directly involved (take that as a diclaimer too). I´ll be as objective as I can in exposing the facts:
The first case is currently pending before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, so I won´t say much about it. It relates to a complaint lodged by the Spanish Basketball League against the project to partially close the Euroleague (the basketball equivalent to the Champions League). In the near future the CAS will therefore be ruling on whether the partial closure of a previously open league could restrict competition in any of the many markets in which basketball clubs are active.
The second case, which was recently settled, deals with exactly the same issue as the withdrawn preliminary reference in the Oulmers case, i.e. the right of clubs to be compensated by national federations for the release of their players for international games and tournaments. It was initiated by a complaint lodged by ASOBAL (the Spanish Handball League) before the European Commission in March 2009. The complaint argued that by precluding the payment of a compensation to clubs the regulations governing the release of players restricted competition in a way contrary to both articles 101 and 102 TFEU (in the latter case, it was argued that the resulations were setting “unfair trading conditions”). The Commission took an interest in the case and started a preliminary investigation which was only put to an end pursuant to an agreement between ASOBAL and the European Handball Federation. This case adds up to the settlement between FIFA, UEFA and the European Clubs Association to put an end to Oulmers as one of the most interesting “non-precedents” regarding the application of EU competition law to sport.
New appointments in DG COMP
I believe that we´re the first ones to report the following changes within DG COMP (approved today by the Commission and effective from 1 November):
Nadia Calviño has been appointed Deputy Director General in DG Market. In order to replace her, Cecilio Madero has been appointed Acting Deputy Director General for Antitrust & Mergers.
In addition, Joachim Luecking will be acting as Director of C; Eduardo Martinez will act as Head of C/1; and Gert-Jan Koopman will become Deputy Director General for State aid.
Paul the Octopus dies
This is really (heart)breaking antitrust news. Paul the Octopus died yesterday at the Sea Life Centre in Oberhausen.
This is dramatic news for the competition community: precisely yesterday I saw that the market intelligence company Mlex had very recently referred to Paul as Damien Neven´s replacement (see the great picture above, extracted from the October-December 2010 issue of Mlex magazine).
The aquarium has announced that Paul´s body is in cold storage while decisions are made on “how best to mark his passing”. Paul will be given his own small burial plot and a permanent shrine would be erected in his memory”. For a modest idea from chillingcompetition as to how Paul could better rest in peace, see here
Chillin’Competition celebrates 1st Year
We hadn´t realized, but yesterdat chillingcompetition turned 1 !
It was on October 2oth that we started spreading the word around about the existence of this blog. Nicolas probably knew what to expect after the hotchpotch experience, but I´ve been frankly surprised by the reach of this tool.
Chillingcompetition has had nearly 70.000 visits; its daily visits are currently in the order of 350 (and constantly increasing).
Moreover, its visitors are from very varied places (check the map on the lower right side of the web, right now showing visits from all over Europe, the US, China, Colombia. Kenya, Thailand, Indonesia, Japan, India or Dubai).
We are proud that some people might find the posts here interesting, and we´re committed to improving all the many things that surely can be done better.
Thanks for your trust and interest in our stories!
Nicolas / Alfonso
Satisfaction
In the past both Nicolas and I have resorted to this blog to express our views on the issue of competition lawyers who can get no satisfaction (jobwise) (see here and here). It now seems that U.S. Law Schools are reacting to the perception of lawyers being unhappy by offering their students the chance to study this phenomenon in depth with a view to coming up with some sensible solutions.
Those are good news. There are many of us who, although enjoying what we do (or precisely because of this), believe that many things could be done differently and better within the legal profession. The best lawyers deserve better. In the long term, outstanding legal skills and excellent client service can only be offered by satisfied lawyers. Otherwise, our profession risks losing new generations of not so short-sighted and highly skilled lawyers.
OFT and Competition Commission to merge
There had been rumours about it in the past few weeks, but it now appears to be confirmed: the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission will be merging as part of the British coalition government´s plan to cut costs (the monopoly in the enforcement of the competition rules is justified on the basis of its alleged efficiencies).
Despite its apparent complexity and notwithstanding certain duplication of tasks between the two agencies, the British enforcement system has until now worked extremely well. According to press reports, some regard this move as a negative one, fearing that it will endanger the reputation of the system. I (obviously not an expert on British competition law ) see no major objections to it. Does anyone have strong feelings about it?
Unrelated: I´ve just learnt via a communication from the ABA that you run the risk of being disbarred if you charge $3.500/hour fees, call a court clerk a “f…. bitch” and suggest that the judge in front of you is a pedophile. I suppose we´ll all have to adapt and change our argumentative techniques..
A French poll, non-profit-maximizing behavior and tacit collusion
A poll that appeared last Friday on Le Monde offers some interesting data regarding issues that have attracted our attention in the past.
The poll´s main finding is that 71% of French consumers would not switch to a competing internet provider in the event of a price increase. This further confirms that, as priorly discussed here, assuming profit-maximizing behavior on the part of consumers -although perhaps inevitable and irreplaceable as a proxy – is a hell of an assumption.
28% of those who would not switch in response to the hypothetical price increase in the order of 2-3 euros a month seem not to perceive such increase as a big change. These consumers could be regarded as the per se inelastic part of demand.
If I refer to per se inelasticity it’s because it seems that there´s a greater source of inelasticity derived from consumers expectations with regards to the parallel behavior of competitors: 38% of those who would not switch argue that switching would be pointless given that all undertakings would simultaneously increase their prices too. Interestingly, past experiences of conscious parallelism could thereby be enhancing the rigidity of the market and the individual market power of certain undertakings.
The data reflects a, certainly justified, disbelief on the part of consumers regarding competition law’s ability to face the oligopoly problem (see here for a controversial exception). A chap you might know has written a bit on this topic.
(Thanks to Napoleón Ruiz for the pointer!)
Yet another interesting conference announcement
In addition to Nico´s recommendation yesterday, here is another interesting conference:
The Centre for Competition Policy at San Pablo CEU´s Institute of European Studies and the Spanish Competition Authority will be holding an international conference under the title Reviewing Vertical Restraints in Europe: Reform, Key Issues and National Enforcement. The conference will take place on November 11th and 12th at San Pablo CEU University in Madrid. Amongst the speakers there will be many distinguished scholars and practitioners, and the program looks certainly well (nothing to do with the fact that this is actually the University where I got my law degree).
Btw, only today I´ve received 6 emails advertising conferences and competition law courses (in addition to those, you´ve also read a blog post doing the same). Some of them look great and others don´t. Now, isn´t there an excess of offer on the “market” for conferences? Should output be somehow restricted?
This excess of offer may be at the origin of an opinion I´ve heard from various people: the traditional Fordham conference, which was held a couple of weeks ago, seems not to be at its best moment in terms of attendance. A real pity for an event which is always amongst the yearly highlights in our small world. Let´s hope it rises back up.
FIDE Congress 2010
The FIDE (Fédération Internationale de Droit Européen) will be holding its XXIV Congress in Madrid between the 3rd and the 6th of November. One of the three topics discussed will be “The Judicial Appliccation of Competition Law”. The other two topics will focus on “The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union” as well as on ““Public Capital and Private Capital in the Internal Market”.
The program for all three topics is most appealing. As it´s customary in FIDE, the discussions will be based on reports prepared by representatives of national associations members of FIDE. The General Report on Competition Law is authored by Santiago Martínez-Lage and Rafael Allendesalazar (Howrey-Martínez Lage); the EU Report has been written by André Bouquet (from the Commission´s Legal Service); and discussion sessions will be chaired by Judge Koen Lenaerts, Assimakis Komninos (Greek Competition Authority), and Ulf Bernhand Bernitz (Stockholm University).
For more info see here.
Chillin'Competition 
