Gerber goes Global
Back in the day, D. Gerber (University of Chicago) made a great job at describing the historical roots of the EU competition system and its inner theoritical logics.
More than ten years after, his book is still available for 265$ on Amazon.
If Gerber’s new piece is as influential as the first, it will surely win whatever competition prize exists and, very importantly, collect huge royalties.
See flyer hereafter: OUP UK Flyer 2010 (2)
Chillingcompetition received no copy, but others apparently did and made a good review.
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.
College of Europe
The College of Europe – the academic institution which hosts the GCLC – made the buzz yesterday. I paste hereafter the full AFP story.
Belgian premier butt of linguistic gaffe(AFP) – 1 day ago
BRUSSELS — The premier of linguistically-divided Belgium, Yves Leterme, came in for a shock on being told Tuesday that French was the nation’s official language as well as his own — though he is a Flemish-speaker.
The gaffe came when Leterme, who has a French name and speaks the language fluently, visited the prestigious College of Europe in Bruges, flanked by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is on an official visit to Belgium.
Delivering a speech to the pair, the head of the institution, Spaniard Inigo Mendez de Vigo, said he would conclude in Belgium’s official language, French, “the language of Yves Leterme”, raising eyebrows in the room.
Leterme currently heads a caretaker government following inconclusive general elections in June that have left the country rudderless as parties on both sides of the linguistic divide quarrel over a deal to form a government.
Sixty percent of the country’s around 10 million people speak Flemish, the remainder French.
This story is a telling illustration that no one understands a d***** thing as to what is currently going on in Belgium.
Also, the head of the College is currently Rector Paul Demaret.
XIV Curso de Derecho de la Competencia – Madrid, 14 January 2011
As every year, the Instituto de Estudios Bursatiles (IEB) and the Universidad Complutense in Madrid organizes a full course in EU competition law from January 2011 onwards (see link at the end of this post).
I have been invited to give one of the first lectures and again, it is a great honour to be part of this venture.
As you will notice, Luis Ortiz Blanco is the driving force behind this programme. Alfonso assistst him and also takes a prominent part in the programme.
The Distance between Brussels and Paris
… seems far bigger than 300 kilometers. See press article at the end of this post.
What constitutes almost standard lobbying practices in Brussels is perceived in Paris as a large-scale conspiracy from the private sector.
The Canard Enchaîné reports that the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris has arguably (1) sponsored a biased study on fines (and their alleged excessive level); and (2) invited a Judge of the Paris Appeals Court to a secret meeting, in an attempt to persuade him that some recent investigation techniques of the French Autorité de la concurrence are illegitimate.
In reading this, and in particular (2), I realize that we in Brussels are possibly a little too lenient and naïve in relation to lobbying strategies in competition matters. Of course, (1) raises no ethical issues, as long as the ICC sponsoring is made public. However, secret attempts to influence judges and officials are almost akin to corruption practices, and deserve to be fiercely combated.
New Paper on SSRN
Damien Geradin and myself have just posted a new paper on ssrn. This paper is work in progress. It is entitled “Judicial Review in European Union Competition Law: A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment“. The paper tries to be a little innovative, in providing an empirical assessment (numbers and stats) on judicial review. As usual, comments are most welcome.
For regular users of ssrn, please note that hardcopies of papers posted on ssrn.com will soon be made available, and will cost a little less than 10$.
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
Patent = Monopoly
Many antitrust cholars are reluctant to equate an IPR with a monopoly. This is because, under conditions of equal access to capital and investments, any firm can also benefit from the protection of IPRs, and challenge the monopoly holder with innovative, IPRed products/services.
Our supreme judges in Luxembourg seem however to be a little less cautious. At para 64 of C-468/06 to C‑478/06, Sot. Lélos kai Sia EE and Others v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE, [2008] ECR I-7139, the Court of Justice held that:
“a medicine is protected by a patent which confers a temporary monopoly on its holder, the price competition which may exist between a producer and its distributors, or between parallel traders and national distributors, is, until the expiry of that patent, the only form of competition which can be envisaged“.
This wording is unfortunate. The Court seems unaware of the fact that within a same relevant market, there can be competition amongst various patented products.
(Image possibly subject to copyrights: source here)
Chillin'Competition 
