Archive for the ‘Lunch talks and other events’ Category
Last Call – GCLC Lunch Talk on Menarini
On Thursday 8 December, the Global Competition Law Centre (GCLC) will hold its 55th Lunch Talk on the Judgment of the ECHR in Menarini Diagnostics SRL v. Italy.
Sir Christopher Bellamy QC (Linklaters) and Marco C.E.J. Bronckers (Leiden University and VVGBlaw) will share the stage.
Online registration at http://gclc.coleurope.eu/LunchTalk
Forthcoming Events
A quick post to update our readers on forthcoming events:
- GCLC Evening Policy Talk on 1 December with B. Kovacic (former US FTC Commissioner);
- A set of three BSC seminars on the Law & Econ of Horizontal Cooperation Agreements (incl. recent developments) with M. Bennett (OFT), A. Lofaro (RBB Econ) and S. Völcker (WilmerHale);
- A half day conference on the future of Belgian Competition Law on 12 December (in the framework of the BSC);
- GCLC Lunch Talk on 8 December on the ECtHR Judgment in Menarini Diagnostics v. Italy (with M. Bronckers and C. Bellamy).
“Canada Dry” Decisions
The ECJ ruling in Tele2 Polska is a joke (actually a bad one).
I’ve already blogged on the nefarious effects of this ruling. Today, I’d like to make a few more points.
Remember: the judgment states that National Competition Authorities (“NCAs”) cannot, under Regulation 1/2003, adopt declaratory decisions stating that there has been no breach of Article 101 and/or 102 TFEU (on the merits).
This judgment is likely to have far reaching consequences. As written in a paper below, and confirmed by a number of colleagues at the GCLC lunch talk yesterday, it means that NCAs cannot adopt individual exemption decisions under Article 101(3) TFEU.
Since the inception of Regulation 1/2003, however, many – including me – have repeatedly stated that decentralisation was all about empowering NCAs to take Article 101(3) TFEU decisions. More importantly, several NCAs have taken exemption decisions over the past 7 years. Is this decisional practice now unlawful?
The Commission’s response to this is that the ruling does not change much. Rather than taking a negative decision under 101(3) TFEU, the NCAs can still adopt decisions that “there are no grounds for action on their part” pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation 1/2003.
Now, is this really true? As noted by F. Zivy yesterday, could a NCA conceivably write in a decision: « The impugned practice infringes Article 101(1) TFEU. There is strong evidence that it is nonetheless justified under Article 101(3). But we are sorry, the only thing we can do is to say there are no grounds of action against this infringement”?
Or to be even more extreme: “The impugned practice constitutes an infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Hence, there are no grounds of action on our part“? Come on..
To me, decisions that there are no grounds of action are like Canada Dry to “negative decisions”: they look like negative decisions, they taste like them, but they are not like them.
In practice, rather than making such paradoxical statements, NCAs willing to exonerate anticompetitive agreements are likely to reason within Article 101(1) TFEU, under a “rule of reason“-like approach (which BTW has been consistently held alien to EU law by the ECJ).
A last remark: the judgment is primarily based on a litteral reading of Article 5 of Regulation 1/2003 which sets the powers of NCAs, and is supposed to be exhaustive. Article 5 says nothing of inapplicability decisions. hence, NCAs cannot take them.
Now, has the ECJ really read Article 5 of Regulation 1/2003?
I mean had it done so, it would have realised that this provision is all about the decisions taken for the application of Article 101 and 102 TFEU (“The competition authorities of the Member States shall have the power to apply Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty in individual cases“). Hence, it is somewhat unavoidable that this provision is silent on negative decisions, that DO NOT apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
Hereafter a paper that I have written with my assistant (in French) + the slides presented at the GCLC lunch talk yesterday.
Commentaire Tele 2 Polska – Petit et Lousberg – Final
GCLC Lunch Talk on VEBIC and Tele2 Polska
I am very pleased to announce a new GCLC lunch talk on “The Rights, Powers and Duties of NCAs following the ECJ Judgments in VEBIC and Tele2 Polska“.
It will take place on 24 October. Time and place as usual. Online registration available here.
We have invited E. Sakkers (DG COMP), F. Zivy (French Competition Authority) and S. Brammer (University College Leuven) to discuss those fascinating cases.
Some background documentation can be found here.
Slides of GCLC Lunch Talk on Remedies in State Aid Banking Cases
I attach below the slides presented by H. Gilliams (Eubelius) and N. Pesaresi+G. Mamdani (DG COMP) at yesterday’s lunch talk.
Pesaresi and Madamdani – Competition Measures and State Aid Banking Cases
Hans Gilliams — Bank R&R aid — compensatory measures — GCLC Lunch Talk 27 June 2011
The open question to me: the remedial approach enclosed in those slides sought primarily to address the “too big to fail” issue. Now, should this approach be applied to the different setting where banks face bankrupcy issues because they have purchased dirty paper from failing States?
Next GCLC Lunch Talk on Restructuring Aid in the Financial Sector – 27 June
What price did banks pay for restructuring aid amidst the financial crisis?
Get a chance to know more on this by attending our next GCLC lunch talk on 27 June (see programme below and registration form here).
This event is entitled “Restructuring Aid in the Financial Sector: An Overview of Compensatory Measures and other Innovative Remedies“. Speakers are Nicola Pesaresi (DG Comp) and Hans Gilliams (Eubelius). Time and place as usual.
Roundtable on Leniency Programmes
A short post today.
Last week, the GCLC hosted a roundtable on the interplay between leniency programmes at EU and national levels.
We discussed in particular convergence, jurisdictional matters (summary applications, what is a well-placed authority, etc.), and the scope of leniency programmes (do they cover also exchange of information?).
I attach below the slides presented by the speakers at this event.
PPT Clemencia v.2 – Marcos Araujo
GCLC – LUNCH TALK – Mario Todino
GCLC_27 May 2011 – Sari Surnaaki
GCLC Lunch Talk on Leniency – Antoine Winckler
Forthcoming GCLC Lunch Talk – Roundtable on Leniency Programmes
The next lunch talk of the GCLC will be devoted to “Leniency Applications and the European Competition Network: Roundtable discussion on the Interplay between National and EU Procedures“.
It will take place on 27 May 2011 at The Hotel in Brussels.
Our speakers for this promising event are Saari Suurnäkki (DG Competition); Marcos Araujo (Garrigues); Mario Todino (Gianni, Origoni, Grippo & Partner); and Antoine Winckler (Cleary Gottlieb).
The registration form is available here.
Next GCLC Lunch Talk – EU and National Leniency Applications – 27 May
Our next lunch talk will be devoted to the interplay between national and EU leniency procedures.
It will take place on 27 May at The Hotel in Brussels. For this event, we’ll follow a somewhat specific format, with 4 speakers and a roundtable discussion.
Registration form can be downloaded below.
JV
I attach hereafter the slide deck presented jointly by J. Rattliff (WilmerHale) and C. Gauer (COMP) at our GCLC lunch talk last week.
A somewhat unusual, but welcome joint venture between DG COMP and a law firm
On a related issue: I was puzzled to learn that all the Article 102 TFEU cases dealt with by the Commission in 2010 concerned the energy sector… but less surprised of their outcome: all of them gave rise to Article 9 decisions.
Chillin'Competition 