Archive for the ‘Our Publications’ Category
Competition Law and Free Riding
A common line of defense for companies subject to antitrust scrutiny is to argue that the complainant seeks to free ride on their investments.
With my assistant Norman Neyrinck, we explore in a recent working paper (in French) whether firms can instrumentalize the competition rules to free ride on others’ efforts. See link hereafter.
We come to the conclusion that attempts to free ride through Article 101 TFEU allegations are likely to fail. In contrast, Article 102 TFEU offers a more promising legal avenue to wanna-be free riders.
As usual, we apply the first footnote acknowledgment to comments.
Droit de la concurrence et instrumentalisation parasitaire – PETIT et NEYRINCK _24 03 11_
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.
Unfaithful
Shame on me: I cheated on chillin’competition.
Yesterday, a short piece emanating from my computer was posted on adjudicating europe, a blog commenting on the case-law of the Court of Justice.
I attach hereafter a longer version of this post in the form of a working paper. As usual, I’d be happy to have your comments.
And BTW, it deals with the judgment of the ECJ in VEBIC, a case that we covered on this blog a few weeks ago.
New Paper
A poorly informed friend just told me over the phone that he was concerned by my low publishing record in recent weeks.
To prove him wrong, I am proud to announce the publication of a new paper entitled “Behavioral Economics and Abuse of Dominance: A Fresh Look at the Article 102 TFEU Case-law” (pdf available at the end of this post). The paper appears in the Osterreischische Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht (Dezember 2010 /Nr. 6, Seiten 201-236, p.203), and was co-drafted by my assistant Norman Neyrinck. This paper is an upgraded version of a GCLC working paper.
New paper on ssrn
Here’s a link to a new paper which I just finalized with my good friend David Henry (Howrey). The paper will appear in the book on vertical restraints that I am currently editing with Charles Gheur, as a follow up to our conference last year.
Its main added value is, I believe, to offer a stepwise method to self-assess vertical agreements. Beyond this, the paper offers a few critical perspectives on selected issues. It contends in particular that (i) the double market share threshold is certainly a nice idea on paper, but that it does not pass the practicability test, especially for small firms involved in vertical agreeements; (ii) the new framework marks a clear extension of the scope of EU competition law, in particular because it turns buyer power upside down (from a pro-competitive factor to an anticompetitive one).
Finally, I cannot resist to share a moment of happiness with you. I learned today that Anne Perrot and Jean-François Bellis will use my paper on the effects based approach under Article 102 TFEU as suggested reading for their forthcoming BSC module.
Break
I am leaving tomorrow on hols. Regular blogging will resume in early August. Thanks to all of you for the support, and for your interest in our postings.
And please mark your agendas for:
1. the GCLC annual conference, due on 7-8 October 2010 (see programme below).
2. the beginning of the BSC’s LLM in competition law and economics (on 1 October).
GCLC – Sixth Annual Annual Conference – 7 & 8 October 2010 – Programme and Registration Form
BTW: I have just posted a new working paper on ssrn.
(Image possibly subject to copyrights: source here)
Implications of the TFEU on EU Competition Law
Just published in the February Antitrust Chronicle with my Assistant Norman Neyrinck.
Writing this paper involved a lenghty reading of the new Treaties. A lot has changed, and I now believe that all EU lawyers, including competition lawyers, should devote some time to reading them too. The provisions on judicial remedies and the Court of Justice are particularly interesting.
Just Published: OGEL Antitrust Special
OGEL 1 (2010) – Antitrust in the Energy Sector (February 2010)
OGEL, the global Oil-Gas-Energy Law Intelligence service. OGEL focuses on recent developments in the area of oil-gas-energy law, regulation, treaties, judicial and arbitral cases, voluntary guidelines, tax and contracting, including the oil-gas-energy geopolitics. — www.ogel.org
A new issue has been published and can be found at www.ogel.org
This Antitrust in the Energy Sector special was prepared for OGEL by Prof. Nicolas Petit of the University of Liège (Belgium). This issue addresses the challenges arising from the implementation of the antitrust laws across various energy sectors.
EDITORIAL
- OGEL Special Issue – Antitrust in the Energy Sector
by N. Petit, University of Liège
Just Published
- From Formalism to Effects? The Commission’s Communication on Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 EC – World Competition 2009(4) – This is a written, extended, version of a speech I delivered in July 2009 at the Polish Office for the Protection of Competition and Consumers. Thanks again to S. Jozwiak and the President of the Office for their kind invitation.
- Chronique de l’affaire Belgacom/Scarlett – La fin de la récréation pour l’opérateur historique? – I wrote this paper with a former Howrey colleague, Ief Daems. The paper argues that the Belgian Competition Council has seemingly decided to follow a stronger enforcement policy in the telecoms sector. Yet, a number of flaws remain. In particular, it questions (i) wether the network divesture remedy imposed by the Council, and the conditions attached to it, are really effective; and (ii) the opportunity of allowing a State-owned company to acquire the business divested by Belgacom…
New Book on Standard of Review in Competition Law and Economic Regulation
Oda Essens, Anna Gerbrandy and Saskia Lavrijssen (Utrecht University) have just edited a new book entitled National Courts and the Standard of Review in Competition Law and Economic Regulation (Europa Law Publishing). Once more, I cannot say much of this book because I am conflicted (I co-authored the Chapter on French judicial review).
Yet, the overall topic of the book is extremely interesting. In a nutshell, the whole point is to assess whether the ECJ’s Tetra Laval ruling, and the specific standard of review it encapsulates, has had repercussions on national judicial review practices. Congratulations to the editors for bringing this project to completion.
Chillin'Competition 
