Archive for the ‘Events’ Category
Enforcement Gap?
While in Sorrento for the first conference of the Associazone Antitrust Italiana, I learned an interesting fact about Italian competition law. For a few years now, the Italian Antitrust Authority has apparently shifted the quasi-entirety of its enforcement resources to the investigation of unfair trading practices. As a result, little, if any, enforcement initiatives are undertaken on the basis of the Italian competition rules. The daily business of Italian competition lawyers has thus changed dramatically, and many have had to learn a new discipline.
Interestingly, the rationale for this strange enforcement prioritization agenda has to do with media exposure. Because unfair trading practices cases require little resources, the competition authority can investigate and decide many of them and thus appears frequently in the press. In contrast, antitrust cases are more costly, lengthy and uncertain. Their political, social, and media benefits are much more limited.
Now, I wonder if the Italian CA, and more generally multi-function CAs, can lawfully decide to renege on competition enforcement, and allocate their resources to other areas (e.g., consumer protection, unfair trading practices, etc.). After all, an enforcement agenda of this kind undermines the principle of effectiveness of Article 101 and 102 TFEU enshrined in Article 35(1) of Regulation 1/2003. Such a practice creates an enforcement gap on Italian territory which to me, is incompatible with the twin logic of decentralized & homogeneous enforcement which blows on the EU competition system. Just think for a minute to the situation of a French firm facing exclusionary tactics from a dominant Italian incumbent. Faced with a CA reluctant to open proceedings, the remedies open to the French firm are drastically limited.
Of course, the next question is: what can firms do to induce the Italian CA to revisit its enforcement agenda? Besides asking DG COMP to put pressure on Italian officials, the most obvious course of action involves a complaint before the Commission against Italy under Article 258 TFEU for failure to comply with EU law.
The first conference of the Associazone Antitrust Italiana was a great success with approximately 150 participants. I attach my slides and the text of my speech.
Oral Intervention – Speaking Notes – N Petit
Slides NP – Judicial Review in European Union Competition Law – Final
Rock and Law + The Legal Run
In the past few days we have posted stuff on Competition Parties, Competition Tourism , Fine Arts in Brussels and even on competition law manga. To complete this string of posts on competition law and leisure time we wanted to publicize and praise a couple of worthy initiatives undertaken by some law firms and in which a more than fair representation of competition lawyers (as well as a handful of readers of this blog) are participating:
The first one is “Rock and Law” a beneficial concert night which will take place in Madrid on the 16th of June with the participation of rock bands from Garrigues, Clifford Chance, Freshfields, Uría Menéndez, Ashurst, Cuatrecasas, Gómez Acebo &Pombo, CMS Albiñana, and Baker& McKenzie. Last year this event was a tremendous success, and I bet that this edition will top its predecessor.
Competition lawyers will be very well represented in Rock and Law with the band “The members of the Bar” (also called “The Whistleblowers” when under a different formation); two of their components , Carlos Vérgez and Enrique Carrera , are (apart from readers of this blog and good friends) almost as good with the guitar as they are with competition law (and I mean this as a compliment!)
The second initiative I was referring to is “The Legal run”, a fundraising activity organized by the Brussels in the framework of the Brussels 20 K, which will be taking place next Sunday. Although not necessarily registered through the Legal Run, a good bunch of competition lawyers will be taking part in this race (although fewer than expected; a number of ex-Howreys had reportedly been registered by the (ex)firm but their entries were subsequenlty withdrawn without notice. What are liquidators for if not for these things?). We´re willing to offer one of our already famous prizes to the fastest competition lawyer taking part in the race, so feel free to send us your times.
Awareness and Public Outreach Programmes
Public outreach programmes were a key topic on the agenda of the ICN annual conference in the Hague.
Those programmes seek to raise awareness of the general public (including firms) to the scope, content, institutions and penalties of competition rules. They are particularly important in countries with young antitrust regimes. They induce firms to comply spontaneously with the new rules.
But they are also relevant to any agency seeking to improve its detection efficiency. To take one example only, too many individuals still believe that price-fixing is not unlawful. Through education, awareness programmes may prompt stakeholders to report infringements (by lodging complaints and leniency applications, for instance).
Now CAs accross the world have been very inventive in crafting such programmes, often with the active support of the ICN. The leniency movie is now a standard in many competition law jurisdictions. DG COMP has recently posted on its website a funny flash module which illustrates the scope of competition policy. The Norwegian and Brazilian CAs have produced t-shirts with competition-friendly slogans (would love to get one of them. My size S or M).
Without the shadow of a doubt, however, the prize of the best public outreach device must be awarded to the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS). On its website, the CCS makes available (for free) a MANGA on abuse of dominance (in English). Bravo!
I am just back from the Hague with 6 paperback copies. They will be awarded to my best students this semester.
PS: A great experience. I am truly indebted to the DG COMP for its kind invitation.
Competition Tourism
Last week, I finished my lectures in Liege. Now comes the time of tourism for us academics:
- To start, a dream comes true: For the 1st time, I will be attending the ICN conference in the Hague as a NGA representative (a big thank you to the EU Commission for the invitation). Subject to Wifi availability, and to the interest of speeches, I will try to report/tweet live from the ICN tomorrow. In the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, an unusual number of competition law events are organized in the days that follow the ICN conference. Events organizers are taking
a free rideprofit of the presence in Europe of high-profile speakers from the overseas.
- On Saturday, I will be in Sorrento (Italy) where the Italian Antitrust Association organizes a conference entitled “Major Developments in EU and Italian Competition Law“. See programme hereafter. Sorrento – bozza programma – 22-2-11 – def (2)
- Finally, on 20th, 27th May and 10th June, the Brussels School of Competition (BSC) will be organizing a tour in the national competition laws of 4 Member States (Be, FR, DE, UK). See registration form hereafter. Nat_comp_registration_form
IMEDIPA Conference on Competition Law and Policy
The 5th International IMEDIPA Conference on Competition Law and Policy will be held in Athens on May 27th -28th under the auspices of the Hellenic Competition Commission and the Competition Authority of Cyprus.
Aside from the venue, this Conference has many other attractives: a very comprehensive program, an impressive line-up of speakers, and a very affordable price (which is quite rare in the world of competition law conferences).
The program and registration information are available here.
(Thanks to George Pedakakis for the pointer!)
Terrorist Competition Law
… is the reaction that I triggered from a participant at the APRAM’s conference yesterday. See my presentation below. A paper on trademarks and competition law is in the making.
The APRAM is a famous French association that gathers practitioners active in trademarks and designs law.
And now a question: will the French APRAM urge international colleagues to start bombing raids over the Institute for European Legal Studies?
GCLC Lunch Talk on Competition Enforcement in Energy Sector
Will keep it brief for today. I am VERY busy (and so is Alfonso).
We have a GCLC lunch talk tomorrow, with C. Gauer (COMP) and J. Rattliff (WilmerHale).
There’s still a few seats available. Please drop a line to Tarik Hennen, should you wish to participate.
AT Quote of the Day
Wanna look eloquent at your next antitrust conference? Here’s a good, catchy antitrust quote:
“While the law [of competition] may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department”.
A. Carnegie, Wealth, from the North American Review (June 1889 vol. 148, issue 391).
A New Theory of Harm
I attach below a presentation I delivered yesterday at the Amsterdam Center for Law & Economics (UvA). This presentation summarizes and updates my PhD work.
In substance, It shows that Article 102 TFEU may provide a workable ex post remedy against certain types of oligopolistic conducts. The concept of abuse of joint dominance may be applied to the artificial tactics which oligopolists adopt to protect an observed collusive equilibrium from the natural, disruptive effect caused by an external shock (entry, natural disaster, change in tax rate, etc.). In this sense, it is different from the proposals of Prof Whish re. excessive prices and Korah, Monti & Stroux re. facilitating practices.
A related aspect of my work challenges the over-optimistic, and naive view that the merger regulation is the ultimate preventive instrument against tacit collusion.
The good news is: my hosts in Amsterdam – very bright economists and lawyers – were quite attracted by the idea. They advised me to send it to officials within competition authorities.
A paper will shortly follow.
Presentation ACLE – 14 March 2011 – N Petit
A big thank you to Maarten Pieter Schinkel, Carmine Guerriero and all the other ACLE nice guys I met yesterday.
PS: With yesterday’s post on the Dutch competition authority, Alfonso’s taste for dirty stories is now public. Unlike him, I have decided to spare our readers from stories on coffee shops and other infamous districts of Amsterdam.
I made it
The above picture is proof that I eventually attended the expensive conference which triggered a post on price discrimination two days ago
And guess what: I made it for free :)… I belong to the happy few who got a free pass from a very important institutional player in the field (not a law firm).
More seriously, I understand my benefactor shares my concerns on (i) the pricing of such conferences; and (ii) on the necessity to entitle the little number of academics active in the field to participate to such events.
Now a teaser: the next big issue in the merger area relates to minority shareholdings. Is there a gap in the EUMR, and should it be closed? Commissioner Almunia referred to this issue in his speech, and I trust the Commission will start to do some thinking on this in coming months.
Many thanks again to my colleagues who helped me get a free ticket.
Chillin'Competition 