Chillin'Competition

As promised, we are coming back with the conditions to take part in the award set up in the memory of Rubén Perea. We encourage you to participate, and we call on university professors and senior lawyers/economists to encourage their students and younger colleagues to apply.

Who can participate?

You may participate if you have not reached the age of 30 by the submission date (i.e. if you were born after 15 September 1990). Undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as scholars and practitioners are all invited to participate.

The Award

The winning paper will be published in the Journal of European Competition Law and Practice. The winner will be announced on Chillin’Competition, and will have the opportunity to present the work in a guest post. If the circumstances allow it, an award will be presented at the next Chillin’Competition conference.

What papers can be submitted?

You may submit a single-author unpublished paper which is not under consideration elsewhere. The paper may be specifically prepared for the award, or one originally drafted as an undergraduate or postgraduate dissertation.

The paper must not exceed 15,000 words (footnotes included); authors: do not fall into the trap of believing that more is necessarily better (the opposite is often true).

Submissions will have to observe academic conventions. It is strongly recommended that you follow the OSCOLA referencing guide (the citations of CJEU judgments should follow the ECLI method). Submissions should include a brief abstract in the form of three or four bullet points, as all papers published in the Journal of European Competition Law & Practice.

You may want to take a look at this paper to get an idea of the overall format and citation style followed by the Journal. [Warning, this is self-preferencing by Pablo aimed at increasing traffic to his papers]

What is the deadline?

Papers will have to be submitted by 23.59 (Brussels time) of 15 September 2020.

How to submit?

A paper, together with a cover letter, will have to be submitted via this link: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jeclap.

The cover letter must simply indicate that the paper is submitted for the Rubén Perea Award.

The Jury

The jury will include a representative of the Journal of European Competition Law & Practice (Gianni de Stefano), two promising young practitioners and friends of Rubén (Lena Hornkohl and David Pérez de Lamo), an academic/enforcer/former practitioner and former teacher of Rubén (Damien Gerard), a member of EVP Vestager’s Cabinet (Michele Piergiovanni) and a representative of Chillin’Competition/Garrigues (myself). The papers will be anonymised before they are sent out to the jury.

(by Alfonso Lamadrid and José Luis Buendía)

Our last blog post on State aid observed how the Covid-19 crisis may awake dangerous currents in Member States and how, absent concerted action or legal safeguards, unilateral measures could pose a threat to the EU internal market. We had in mind measures that could aggravate existing economic asymmetries between Member States. The Commission is now commendably pursuing a concerted approach on that front.

This post is about a different but related threat: that Member States may succumb to a renewed temptation to engage in backdoor protectionism through State aid.

The problem is not new. The Commission quickly realized about this risk and challenged the Polish and Hungarian taxes on retail and advertising, pointing to their clearly discriminatory nature (by virtue of progressive turnover thresholds, they affected almost exclusively companies from other Member States, and not domestic ones). We ourselves had also already discussed this on this blog (see here, and also here for Pablo’s take) when commenting publicly on the Digital Service Taxes announced in several Member States due to the absence of international or EU-wide consensus. Like the Polish and Hungarian measures, these also seek to tax non-domestic companies [Disclosure: we (but not Pablo) have since then written legal opinions for various companies on this subject].

Even if the problem is not new, it is now that this risk is acquiring a completely different dimension due to a combination of factors. First, Member States obviously need additional sources of income to support their economies (this is not only legitimate, but very necessary). Second, Member States might now have more incentives to obtain new income from non-domestic companies in order to support domestic ones (that is neither legitimate nor necessary). Third, recent Court Judgments may be read as suggesting that there is a creative way for Member States to pursue protectionist goals without contravening free movement and State aid rules.

These latter Judgments come from both the General Court (in Poland/Commission, T-836/16 and T-624/17, and Hungary/Commission, T-20/17) as well as, more recently, from the Court of Justice (Tesco-Global Áruházak, C-323/18, Vodafone Magyarország, C-75/18, and Google Ireland, C-482/18). In these cases the EU Courts would appear to have adopted a more lenient stance regarding Member States’ protectionist measures, refusing to follow the sensible positions advance by the European Commission (for a comment on the latter see also Prof. Nicolaides’ comment here).

What these Judgments have in common is that they have seemingly dismissed allegations of material discrimination, choosing instead a formal assessment of ad hoc taxes as reference systems of their own. In other words, they accept at face value the declared logic of each specific tax (for instance, the need to tax advertising and to do so based on turnover) without wondering if the said logic is consistent and fits within the objectives of a fiscal system as a whole.

Perhaps the EU Courts’ ambivalence and lack of decisiveness in the assessment of these measures has to do with political sympathy for other unilateral measures (Advocate General Kokott’s Opinion in the Hungarian cases suggests that the Court may have had in mind Digital Services Taxes when approaching these other recent cases). Political sympathy for a given set of measures, however, should not blind us to their possible illegality; arguably, it should even make us more alert to it.

Indeed, the problem is much bigger than DSTs or that the Hungarian and Polish taxes at issue in the recent Judgments and in other pending cases. If this new and recent line of case law were confirmed in the pending appeals against the General Court Judgments, it would open the door to deconstructing all the progress achieved in fiscal State aid in recent years.

Negating the potential discriminatory nature of progressive taxes could run counter to non-discrimination principles as well as to an established line of case law on asymmetric taxes (British Aggregates, T-210/02 RENV recently confirmed in ANGED, C-233/16). In these and other cases EU Courts have consistently established safeguards against artificial boundaries around fiscal measures, emphasizing the need to check whether the boundaries and conditions of specific taxes are coherent with their declared objective or are rather set in an arbitrary way.

The lack of a clear EU position on unilateral asymmetric/ protectionist measures can be the source of enormous problems at a time when the temptation to resort to them may be particularly high. Any Member State could simply decide to slice up the national tax systems into ad hoc taxes in order to avoid State aid control, and to create asymmetric taxes targeting not a public policy goal, but only certain players with a perceived capacity to pay. This would not just concern EU retailers in Poland and Hungary or a handful of US multinationals. These would simply be the first in a long list. And then, let’s not underestimate the capacity of other blocs around the world to reciprocate with similar discriminatory and distortive taxes.

One can only hope that the negotiations at OECD level to reform the international tax system will result in some international consensus on digital taxation. A very recent Commission Communication has confirmed that it supports the discussions led by the OECD and the G20 and stands ready to act if no global agreement is reached.

Pending these negotiations, it would be dangerous to EU law to permit unilateral discriminatory measures. Some may feel sympathy for measures designed to affect only global players, but one should keep in mind that exactly the same approach could be replicated to discriminate between different EU companies.

At the end of March, my colleague José Luis Buendía and I wrote a post on this blog (also here and here) pointing to the risk of massive distortions to the internal market caused by the asymmetric national responses to the Covid-19 outbreak. We put out there a proposal to mitigate these distortions that we think would be legally feasible.

This was not a prominent debate at the time. After all, there appeared to be more pressing issues, and pointing to this one was uncomfortable, and even politically incorrect. Things, however, have changed, and this debate is gaining prominence (see below for a list of recent pieces touching on it). President Von der Leyen and Commissioner Vestager have now also warned about the dangers of what’s happening. The consequences of what we decide to do on this subject might be felt for generations.

What was politically incorrect only two months ago has now become almost the consensus. To put it mildly, almost everybody recognizes now that may be witnessing the greatest competitive distortion of our lifetime. Having a correct diagnosis does not cure the illness but is at least a first step in the right direction. It is certainly much better than denying the existence of the problem.

We put a possible solution on the table that we think is legally feasible, but you might have other ideas about variants or alternative models that could also do the trick. We are confident that if the community of competition lawyers and economists puts its creative juices to work we might be able to contribute to the solution. After all, we can get really creative when it comes to market definitions and theories of harm…

If any of the readers of this blog has other ideas or suggestions on how to prevent, mitigate or correct these competitive distortions, we are happy to offer you a space in this platform.

For more on this see, for example:

-. Von der Leyen warns state aid ‘unlevelling the playing field’ in Europe (The Guardian, 13 May)

-. Vestager: Discrepancy in state aid distorts single market, hampers recovery (Euractiv.com and Reuters, 18 May)

-. EU Members clash over State aid as richer countries inject more cash (Financial Times, 1 May)

-L. Hornkohl and J. van‘t Klooster, With Exclusive Competence Comes Great Responsibility: How the Commission’s Covid-19 State Aid rules Increase Regional Inequalities within the EU, VerfBlog (29 April)

-M. Motta and M. Petz, EU state aid policies in the time of COVID-19 (18 April);

–Macron: “We are at a moment of truth” (Financial Times, 17 April)

– JL. Buendía, Editor’s Note: Editor’s Note – State Aid in Time of Cholera (European State aid Law Quarterly, Vol 19, Issue 1 (1 April)

The debate about the role of technology and technology companies in the economy and in society is inevitable, and largely positive. It is necessary and healthy for experts to discuss the virtues and perils of different ideas and approaches, no matter how creative, conservative, revolutionary. I am not sure, however, that many of the ongoing debates will assist society in reaching sensible solutions. I don’t know where the right balance lies, but I do have a clear idea of how we are not going to attain it. So this is not a post on substance; it is (mostly) a post on process.

An important disclaimer: I do have professional interests in this debate and work for companies at the center of these debates (on the last point I discuss how that affects my personal views and attitude).

1-.The tone. It is perplexing to see how much animosity these debates create, how many personal attacks and high-pitched criticism they trigger, how they make awkward friends and new enemies. But we should all be above that. We probably all think we are on the right side of the debate (which is not necessarily a bad thing). But that doesn’t entitle anyone to be offensive or dismissive of those with different ideas. If anything, we have the responsibility to demonstrate the merits of our ideas, and not let them lose weight because of our tone. Being a lawyer is mostly about empathy, and too often we show too little. Can’t we try to be less controversial and more civilized? [A tip: the ones who insult the least are the ones who tend to be right]. All these are but minor issues in the grand scheme of things. Even within competition law, there are arguably more important ongoing debates eliciting less passions and commentary

2-. The temptation of partisanship and simplicity. Unfortunately, moderate views are often a faithless creed. Pablo wrote some time ago about the “footballization” of competition debates. As he explained, “it would seem it is all about joining a team – becoming a loud, proud member of a camp that supports everything that comes from within and opposes whatever comes from the other side”. That’s sadly true. Life is much more comfortable when you align yourself with one view and know always what line to take. If only things were that easy… Most debates are about trade-offs, and that is certainly the case of debates on big tech. If you refuse to understand the real points others are making, your arguments will be weaker, it not flawed. That’s an easy mistake to make (perhaps I make it all the time), but that’s precisely why we should resist the instinct. More nuance would do much good.  More active listening and constructive engagement with/by the affected stakeholders (companies, consumers, industry associations) would also be desirable.

3-. The lack of neutrality. Last weekend we received a critical comment pointing to alleged conflicts of interests in lawyers/economists participating in these discussions. So take this also as a comment on that comment. There is nothing wrong with people advocating for private interests; that’s the way the system works. Lawyers and consultants do that for a living, and I don’t see how one can criticize us for doing our job. That also includes academics who may choose to do consulting, which I believe it’s absolutely fine. To be sure, we are all for clear disclosures to permit closer scrutiny on the merits by the audience. That said, I can see the point that there is too little neutrality in professional circles and in academia. People like Pablo are all too rare. It’s legitimate and most helpful for academic to voice out their views, no matter whom they benefit. But I do admit there’s a problem when advocacy work is concealed as an academic piece. [A tip: If someone’s research is only dictated by their client base, then you know they are not academics]. We should also hear more from more people, including experts in related areas.

 4-. The theory vs the evidence. Our job, as lawyers or economists, consists in applying established rules and principles to a given set of facts. We are not entitled to our own facts, nor to ad hoc principles that would ensure we always win. The role of evidence is not to support preconceived views, but to challenge and test them in order to verify them. And this is particularly true for public authorities, who have the higher (and more difficult) responsibility to get it right. So we should not exclude the evidence that contradicts our instincts; we should look forward to it, because it may allow us to understand whether our views may be wrong, and how they can be polished. And if it is the case that this evidence is wrong, irrelevant or confirms our views, then we can reason through it and explain why. The EU Courts were right to point out that the only way of avoiding manifest errors is to have all the necessary evidence to avoid a complex situation. By the way, we can all probably agree that this should also apply to legislation and regulation.

5-. The frustration of uncertainty. Even (or particularly) when we look hard into evidence, the right answer is often “we don’t know” or “it depends”. That is frustrating, but it is what it is. This is true in most areas entailing some degree of complexity, also  when it comes to digital markets. The Special Advisers’ Report, for example, was open about it: there are many issues we simply don’t know. Can network effects tip markets? It depends. Can data be the source of competition concerns? It depends. Can self preferencing be anticompetitive? It depends. If there’s anything we know, is that we know very little. Does this suggest that we should never take action? Not at all! It means there should be even closer scrutiny, just not broad brushing. [For a similar message, see para. 80 of the recent Budapest Bank Judgment]. At the end of the day, we might still have doubts. Without recognizing that there might be doubts and shades of gray, instead of just black or white, we are unlikely to make progress.

6-. The alleged blind gap (?). What sets competition law apart from other areas of the law is its wideness and its reliance on vaporous legal concepts. That’s its blessing (it can immediately adapt to new realities and new economic theory), but that’s also its curse (hammer-nail, etc). So I think that it’s unfair on the discipline to dismiss it due to alleged blind gaps. Now, where is that gap? Is there any practice harmful to competition that EU competition authorities are not/ have not been able to effectively pursue? In my mind, the German Facebook case (discussed here) is a perfect example of how we are failing to address, or properly frame, the real challenges for enforcers. Nothing in the Düsseldorf Court’s Order suggests that there is anything wrong with a new theory of harm based on exploitative privacy policies; the reason for the annulment was lack of evidence. In reality, the problem is not that competition law and competition authorities cannot adapt to new theories and realities. If there is evidence of anticompetitive conduct in digital markets (which may very well exist), then competition authorities have the tools to address that. The problem is that we (as plaintiffs, authorities, etc) need to do our homework if we want to establish an infringement on the basis of evidence.

7-.The approaches to uncertainty (on the rule of law). What frustrates some people about competition law might actually not be the fault of competition law, but of Law alone. Legal principles and rules (allocation of burdens, presumptions, etc) articulate ways of dealing with uncertainty. These rules incorporate the lessons of experience and factor the relevant trade-offs. In any sanctioning regime, arguably the most important presumption is the presumption of innocence. When we speak about “Type-2 errors”, etc. we also need to understand that we have to operate within the confines of the rule of law and of that presumption. That might be uncomfortable, but that is what makes us civilized and what protects us from arbitrariness. Let me invoke, again, the words of General Court President Marc van der Woude: “where the contested conduct of the public authorities is repressive in nature, it is hard to conceive, at least in free democratic societies, that citizens and firms can be condemned on the basis of estimates, approximations or guesses, even if they are informed ones. Uncertainty must then be balanced against the requirements of the presumption of innocence […]. [T]his balance is struck by relying on legal concepts, such as the burden of proof”. To the extent that any proposals deviate from these principles, we will not be making progress. 

 8-.The role of the Courts. The trend that worries me the most in these debates is that of “taking antitrust away from Courts”, proclaiming that precedents are but relics that hold progress down. In my view, this is intimately connected with all of the above. We might disagree with Courts (coincidentally, that tends to happen more when we lose), but they are what makes the system work. We should cherish the legitimacy that Courts give to any decision and policy. That is why I resist the proposals to turn to regulation (where there is no judicial review or evidence standards). I never really understood the Furman Report’s point that “appeals systems can contribute to the competition authority’s risk aversion” (to be sure, I get the point; just not why that’s a problem). In addition, the EU case law is remarkably sensible and balanced in its approach to competition law (for more, see here), and we should be proud about that. I’ve said this for many years when people systematically accused EU Courts of being biased in favor of the Commission, and I say the same now that some people criticize the case law as putting limits on enforcement. It’s remarkable that the Courts can be accused of the two things at the same time, which brings me to my next point (almost done!).

 9-.What the near future holds. The Courts will soon have the chance to rule on some of the test cases at the heart of these debates. Regardless of what they do, remember: the system does work. I am personally invested in some of these cases, but I will oppose any suggestion, on any side, invoking an outcome to point to alleged flaws in EU competition law or in our enforcement system. And those will come. Whatever side loses will need to accept it and adjust. In a properly functioning system, cases are won and lost (see here for Pablo’s recent take on that). That is how the law progresses, even if at a cost, and even of not always in a straight line. If test cases work, then that shows the tested hypotheses are correct. If they don’t, then that would show the test-case was flawed or that the evidence was insufficient, but it will say nothing about our discipline (other than that the system works).

 10-.My own bias. Are my views affected my work and background? Of course they are. The fact that I spend a lot of my time on these issues does make me more sensitive to them, and also contributes to shaping my views. Does that mean I might be wrong? Perhaps, yes. I’ve never worked on a case where I didn’t believe on the points we were making, so it’s a matter of probability and common sense that I might have been wrong on a good number of occasions. It is healthy to keep that in mind, and it is a reason to more carefully scrutinize the merits of what we say. Actually, for quite some time I’ve been holding thoughts on many of these issues, avoiding to engage and comment on important issues, simply because I realize my comments may be suspect of bias (and also because of my first observation about the tone of the debates). That might have been a mistake.

My commitment: Together with Pablo, we commit to making this platform a place where people can discuss different ideas openly and respectfully. We will comment on the issues that we believe are important, because there are important things going on in competition law at the moment (even if more important things are happening outside competition law). We will always play the ball, and not the man. We won’t be offensive or dismissive to people with contrary views. And we will continue to like and invite (here and to our conferences) people who think differently from us.

Rubén Perea passed away on 1 April 2020 at 25 years old.

He was a smart, kind, formidable guy who had just completed his LL.M at the College of Europe and accepted an offer to work as a competition lawyer at Garrigues in Brussels. He bravely fought for months against cancer, a fight he ultimately could not win because the Covid-19 delayed the surgery on which we all had our hopes.  The grace and courage he showed in these past few months revealed the kind of person that he was, that he would have been, and that we have tragically lost.

In his memory, we have decided to create the annual “Rubén Perea Award” for the best paper (master thesis, research paper or article) in competition/state aid law written by lawyers, economists or students under 30 years old.

The paper will be published in the Journal of European Competition Law and Practice. The winners will be announced on the blog, where they will have the opportunity to present their work in a guest post. If the circumstances allow it, an award will be presented at our next Chillin’Competition conference.

We call on university professors and senior lawyers or economists to encourage their students and younger colleagues to apply. The deadline for submission will be 15 September, so you can save the date. More details will follow soon.

We are also exploring the possibility of funding a scholarship to pursue EU studies in Ruben’s memory, and we hope to publish more info on this soon. Should anyone like to contribute to this initiative, please drop us a line.

(By Alfonso Lamadrid de Pablo and José Luis Buendía)

The Covid-19 outbreak is putting societies, institutions, companies, families and individuals to the test. Like all major crises, it is exposing our strengths and weaknesses, our contradictions and limitations. A common threat of unprecedented scale has revealed, once again, that our societies are capable of the very best and the very worst. Over the past few days, we have witnessed inspiring examples of empathy and solidarity, but also prejudice, frustration and tension. We have the chance to show we are up to the task. How we collectively choose to react to this crisis will define our future.

Like all major crises, the Covid-19 outbreak is also straining the European Union, bringing once again unresolved tensions between Member States to the surface, and awakening dangerous currents of misunderstanding among citizens. Critics of EU integration have jumped on the occasion, failing to realize that the problem calls for more, not less EU. At the current stage of European integration, absent a fiscal union and with limited EU competences on public health, decisions remain mainly in the hands of national governments controlled by national Parliaments. Disagreements among EU Member States within the European Council are sometimes desirable, and sometimes not so much, but they are perhaps inevitable. It is not only a matter of attitude and prejudice, but also of institutional and political constraints. While we wait for consensus among national governments on a comprehensive political response, other constructive and complementary solutions must be explored.

The European Commission can be the driving force in the pursuit of EU solidarity. Unlike national governments, the Commission is entrusted with safeguarding the general interests of the Union as a whole. President von der Leyen has committed to exploring any options available within the limits of the Treaties. The Commission has both the responsibility and the power to take decisive action, and to shape the reactions of Member States to the crisis in line with the general interest. The Commission cannot require Member States to ignore or work around existing constraints, but it can impose proportionate ones.

Indeed, while the Commission’s powers may be limited in certain areas, they are strong and decisive in others. Notably, the Commission enjoys the exclusive competence to control, under State aid rules, the measures adopted by Member States to support economic operators. Over the past few days, the Commission has made a significant effort to exercise these powers swiftly and responsibly, adopting a Temporary Framework and authorizing a considerable number of national measures to support the economy in the context of the pandemic. As we write, the Commission has announced an imminent amendment to the Temporary Framework aimed at enlarging the categories of permitted aid.

The unquestionable necessity of allowing the speedy authorization of Covid-19-related national measures should, however, not blind us to their inevitable negative side-effects. The “full flexibility” recognized by the Temporary Framework applies in theory to all Member States. In practice, however, it mostly benefits deeper-pocketed Member States with the means and the budget to spend the greatest resources. Note that the Member States that benefit disproportionately from this policy are also the champions of austerity Member States that, rightly or wrongly, oppose other solidarity instruments like corona bonds. Under the current Temporary Framework, all Member States enjoy the same freedom to unleash their economic arsenal, but some may end up using bazookas, while others are stuck using slingshots.

Massive capital injections by only certain Member States might lead to massive distortions of competition. Companies and sectors from wealthy Member States may enjoy much more support to weather the crisis than their competitors established elsewhere in the EU, regardless of where the ongoing crisis happens to hit harder. Under the current circumstances, this could trigger the market exit of companies that would have normally survived, and vice versa. Competitive asymmetries deriving from State aid would moreover be exacerbated should national governments fail to reach an agreement on mutualizing budget risks.

This scenario is not inevitable. It is within the power of the European Commission to ensure sure that State aid is awarded in a way that minimizes any distortions of competition and, by the same token, fosters EU solidarity. The Commission itself recognizes in the Temporary Framework that a coordinated effort will make the measures adopted more effective and may even foster a quicker recovery. The Framework also emphasizes that this is not the time for a harmful subsidies race.

Our proposal is that the Commission amend the Temporary Framework in order to make the compatibility of State aid conditional on the provision of compensation for the competitive distortions that they necessarily create. This compensation would take the form of a contribution to the support of companies established in other Member States. The contribution could be equivalent to a percentage (for example, 15%) of the public resources involved in the measures at issue. Each Member State would be able to propose specific ways to channel these contributions in a way that minimizes competitive distortions. The Commission would assess their sufficiency prior to authorizing the aid, and it would also ensure that most of the compensation is received by those who need it the most.

In order to speed up the approval process, the Commission could also predetermine ex ante that contributions to a “European Solidarity Fund” would be presumed an acceptable compensation in this regard. The Fund could be initially established by some Member States as a vehicle allowing financial solidarity among them, but would be open all  Member States. The Fund itself should also be notified under State aid rules and could obtain Commission approval as an “Important Project of Common European Interest” (IPCEI).

We see no EU law impediment to implementing this proposal. Making the compatibility of State aid measures subject to compensatory conditions would not in itself entail any deviation from the Commission’s standard assessment. The rules adopted by the Commission to manage the support to financial institutions in the context of the past crisis were accompanied by strict conditions aimed at minimizing distortions of trade and competition. To be sure, while requiring direct compensation from the State which granted the aid would constitute a novelty, this innovation would be justified. Indeed, the current circumstances do not permit the use of traditional safeguards, based on limiting the amounts of aid granted.

Several national measures have already been authorized, but it is not too late to take action. Public support measures are here to stay and are likely to materialize in unprecedented volumes of aid. Failure to prevent further asymmetries would only make matters worse. Under this proposal, Member States would retain the ability to support their national economies, subject only to the condition that they contribute, proportionately to their means and to their measures, to minimizing distortions to the internal market. This way, State aid policy could better contribute to the solution, rather than the problem.

Important details should be ironed out following an urgent consultation with Member States. Some version of this formula would not only be sensible and feasible, but also indispensable. It would mitigate serious distortions and contribute to levelling the playing field. In the absence of a political agreement between Member States, it would create a proportionate legal obligation to prevent harm to companies established in other EU countries, easing ‘rich’ Member States’ task of justifying their solidarity efforts to their citizens and parliaments. It would show precisely what the European Union is for and would restore citizens’ trust in the ideals of European integration. Let us not forget that, as empathically stated in Article 3 of the TEU, one of the main tasks of the EU is to promote ‘economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’.

This proposal is not a silver-bullet, but it is an important step towards solidarity based on legal mechanisms. As proclaimed in the Schuman declaration, the EU “will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.” The European Commission has now the opportunity, the unique ability, and the historical responsibility to fulfill its mission.

Next Friday 31 January 2020 we will be holding the traditional annual seminar on “Recent developments in EU Competition Law and Policy” at the IEB in Madrid. The seminar is coordinated by Fernando Castillo and Eric Gippini and is part of the wider specialist course that I co-direct there (and that Pablo inaugurated last week). It is also a great opportunity for a weekend escape to Spain (a selling point I’ve tried to downplay at home).

The program:

16.00-17.45. Enforcement: Reports from the frontline

Damages in practice

Patricia Pérez. Associate, Cuatrecasas

Marc Barennes. Executive Director, CDC Cartel Damage Claims

The revival of interim measures and the birth of restorative remedies

Peter Schedereit. European Commission, DG Comp

Alfonso Lamadrid. Partner, Garrigues

18.00-19.45. Vertical agreements entering 2020

Isabel Pereira Alves. European Commisison, DG Comp

Patricia Lorenzo. Vice President, Compass Lexecon.

Sergio Baches. European Commission, Legal Service.

José María Jímenez Laiglesia. Partner, Latham&Watkins.

For registration info (the price is 150 euros), please contact competencia@ieb.es. If anyone registers after having read this post, you also get a free drink from me 😉

Thanks a million to all those of you who attended, sponsored, wanted to attend, or otherwise followed our conference last Monday. We felt it was interesting, chilled, decaffeinated ,and fun, and we were happy to see so many friends from all over the world. Vice-President Vestager did us the honor of announcing the revision of the market definition notice at the conference. General Court President van der Woude provided his insightful views on the past, present and future of EU judicial review. We are particularly grateful to the two of them for their support.

With this conference we always wanted to do something substantive but refreshing, and also something balanced, with no particular agenda. Thanks to you, to our sponsors and to the excellent speakers and friends who have accepted our invitations, this conference has become a significant event in only 5 editions.

This time we were “only” able to accomodate 450 people, while close to 500 remained in the waitlist (most of whom had registered on day 1!). We will do our best to fix that in the furure.  In case you couldn’t make it, here are the videos (which, however, do not capture the best thing about this conference: its atmosphere).

Here are the videos:

Introduction- The 10 Year Challenge (Alfonso Lamadrid)

Keynote by General Court President (Marc van der Woude)

Keynote by European Commission Executive Vice-President (Margrethe Vestager)

TED@Chillin’Competition “Our Data/ Our Future” (Jorge Padilla)

TED@Chillin’Competition “Hey Dude, for Pete’s Sake, you’re 30. It’s no longer cute to be so ?#@*&% disorganized. Grow up and focus on the essentials!” (Frank Montag)

InstantYoutubeHit@Chillin’Competition “A Rap on Competition” (Philip Marsden)

TED@Chillin’Competition “Sustainable Competition Policy”  (Maurits Dolmans)

10 Years of Competition Enforcement by the European Commission(featuring Nicolas Petit, Kim Dietzel, Kai-Uwe Khühn, Lars Kjolbye, Vanessa Turner and Lewis Crofts)

Articulating the Effects-Based Approach (featuring Svend Albaeck, Christian Ahlborn, Avantika Chowdhury, James Killick, Christian Riis-Madsen and Pablo Ibañez Colomo)

[P.S. Due to a technical problem we have no videos of two panels, the discussion with Renata Hese, John Sutton and Heike Schweitzer and the last panel on the burden of proof featuring Eric Barbier de la Serre, Kevin Coates, Leigh Hancher, Kristina Nordlander and Nigel Parr. But we’ll try do something about that soon]

The Chillin’Competition conference is about to start.

You can follow it live via this link.

The action will start at 9.30 (or 9.40, as people are still arriving…)

Enjoy!

The 5th Chillin’Competition conference is fast approaching!

We have received many requests for additional tickets, particularly from those of you on the waitlist. We can’t unfortunately accommodate any more attendees (Pablo is even concerned that we might not be able to accommodate those currently registered).

Here’s the good news: to make up for this, we have arranged for the conference to be accessibe via a Youtube live stream.

We will be posting a (functioning) link on the blog around 9.am next Monday that will enable you to follow all the action.

We have had to make a few tweaks to the program. Please see the final version below. Those watching from the office/home will at least be able to take a break at some point in the morning 😉

THE CHILLIN’COMPETITION CONFERENCE 2019

9.00-9.30: Registration

9.30-9.45: The 10-Year Challenge

Alfonso Lamadrid (Garrigues)

9.45-10.30: Keynote by GC President Marc van der Woude

10.30-11.30 TED@Chillin’Competition  

Philip Marsden (Bank of England, College of Europe, CRA)

Frank Montag (Freshfields)

Jorge Padilla (Compass Lexecon)

Maurits Dolmans (Cleary Gottlieb)

11.30-12.15: Keynote by Commissioner Margrethe Vestager

12.15-13.30: 10 Years of Enforcement by the European Commission 

Kim Dietzel (Herbert Smith Freehills)

Lars Kjolbye (Latham & Watkins)

Kai-Uwe Kühn (University of East Anglia and The Brattle Group)

Nicolas Petit (University of Liège)

Vanessa Turner

Chair: Lewis Crofts (MLex)

13.30-15: Lunch

15.00-16.00: A New Competition Law for a New Decade? Chillin’ with:

Renata Hesse (Sullivan & Cromwell)

Heike Schweitzer (Humboldt University Berlin, Special Adviser to Commissioner Vestager)

John Sutton (LSE)

16.00-17.15: Articulating the Effects-Based Approach

Christian Ahlborn (Linklaters)

Svend Albaek (European Commission)

Avantika Chowdhury (Oxera)

James Killick (White & Case)

Christian Riis-Madsen (GibsonDunn)

Chair: Pablo Ibáñez Colomo (LSE and College of Europe)

17.15-17.45: Coffee Break

17.45-19:  Meeting or Shifting- The Burden of Proof

Eric Barbier de la Serre (Jones Day)

Kevin Coates (Covington & Burling)

Leigh Hancher (Baker Botts)

Kristina Nordlander (Sidley)

Nigel Parr (Ashurst)

Chair: Alfonso Lamadrid (Garrigues)

19-21.00 Drinks