Chillin'Competition

The winners of yesterday’s quizz are Anna and Alfonso. Here’s the source: B. Hawk, “Un tour d’horizon de la politique de la concurrence”, Cahiers de droit européen , 1992, n°5, p.1. I found the quote in one of my students (Mathieu Coquelet) dissertation.

I am currently reading students dissertations. I  find this very stimulating  intellectually. Two ideas came to mind in going through their papers:

• From an economic standpoint, the prohibition of RPM even at low market share levels makes some sense, because it allows price differenciation at the distribution level (e.g., distributors can efficiently price discriminate to serve more customers/recoup fixed costs more rapidly);
• What economic errors could give rise to compensation under Articles  268-340 TFUE ?: Saying that establishing tacit collusion does not require the proof of retaliation mechanism; using list prices rather than transaction prices to establish a finding of SIEC, whilst rebates are pervasive on the relevant market.

The Commission has published today a call for projects in the context of its FP7 programme (i.e., the EU’s main instrument for funding research in Europe).

This thing is a bitter news for us legal academics looking for research funds. Under theme  8 (socio-economic sciences and humanities), only one topic is related specifically to law.

This bitter feeling only gets worse when looking at the selected topic: “Rule of Law and Justice in a Multilevel Governance System“. Although I do love legal theory, I hate  jargon-driven, remote from practice research topics, and don’t believe this is the direction where the EU should direct its funds.

Take a bite at it and read the following summary of the research topic. Really disconcerting.

“Interdisciplinary research -drawing from law as well as sociology, political science, history or others- should address the implications of the Lisbon Treaty on the very identity and’actorness’ of the EU with regard to its legal personality and the impact of this on the work ofthe EU and its Member States. The integration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into theTreaty and the new provisions of the Stockholm Programme must be taken into account.More broadly research could examine how the interaction between the Community method,intergovernmental decision making, and matters decided by national and EU parliaments,executives, courts as well as international bodies influence the legitimacy and theeffectiveness of EU policies. The impacts of the diversity of legal cultural traditions and bodyof law (e.g. common, civil or Islamic law tradition) on mutual recognition of judicialdecisions, the internal market, family law and many regulatory fields should also be assessed.The citizen’s point of view when faced with a multilevel governance system in the field ofjustice needs to be examined, as well as the implications of the Citizen’s Initiatives foreseen inthe Treaty. Different degrees and forms of ‘litigiosity’ –in terms of intensity of resort to legal suit- across countries, sectors and political and legal cultures in contexts ranging from economic regulation to consumer’s safety and the development of alternative disputes resolution could be assessed“.