Recent developments in abuse of dominance and merger control
Next Friday we’ll be holding the annual seminar on Recent developments in abuse of dominance and merger control within the framework of the course that Luis Ortiz and myself direct in Madrid. Starting at 16.00, this seminar will feature:
Cecilio Madero (Deputy Director General, DG Comp): Introduction and overview.
Nicholas Banasevic (Head of Unit, DG Comp): Competition law and Intellectual Property: Recent developments.
UPDATE. The intervention on Recent developments in merger control has been cancelled.
Milan Kristof (Référendaire at the European Court of Justice): Recent developments in the case law of EU Courts.
For more info you can contact the course’s secretary at competencia@ieb.es or drop me a line at alfonso.lamadrid@garrigues.com (I will be travelling for the next 30 hours (including 3 very tedious transfers…) so don’t expect a rapid response from me).
Bye bye
As Alfonso hinted in a previous post, I will be an “atypical” trainee at DG COMP in the next 6 months.
The stage starts tomorrow, and whilst I keep my ULg, GCLC and BSC activities, I have decided to discontinue my posts on the blog during my stay at COMP.
Alfonso will of course remain active. And I’ll be back in full force in 6 months.
Meanwhile, you can still write to me at my usual university address.
This post also gives me a last opportunity to share with you several recent presentations and papers:
- A presentation on injunctions on SEPS given at the University of Wurzburg (Germany), in the context of a seminar series organized by Professor Florian Bien: Universität Wurtzburg – Presentation on Injunctions
- A presentation on Compliance Programmes in EU and National Competition Law, given in Paris at a joint EDHEC-Ernst&Young conference: Antitrust et compliance – 11 02 14 – Risque juridique et compliance – tendances actuelles NP
- A paper on the flawed patent=monopoly equation (co-authored with Prof. Bostyn): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2373471
- A paper on market power in the credit rating industry (co-authored with Profs Candelon and Gautier): http://ssrn.com/abstract=2392989
With Alfonso, you guys are in good hands.
And my posts will presumably be better informed when I return in 6 months.
On information requests and their limits
The latest entry in 21st Century Competition (Kevin Coates’ very good blog; btw, pictured above is a capture of his work keyboard) explains that the Commission has improved its habits regarding information requests and that there may still be some margin for further improvement.
Kevin’s views are, as always, sensible and well explained [he also has good taste for recommending other people’s writings; see here in relation to the ongoing Android investigation]. They also bring a thought to mind: is self-restraint the only limitation -other than the general principle of proportionality- that the Commission faces in relation to its powers to gather information?
Together with my colleagues Luis Ortiz and Napoleón Ruiz (no kiddin’) I am arguing in a case that is currently pending before the General Court (T-296/11) that this shouldn’t be the case [btw, I’m not disclosing anything not public given that an interim measures order was already published].
Article 18 of Regulation 1/2003 provides that the Commission may require undertakings “to provide all necessary information“. In our view, however, this provision should not be interpreted as granting the Commission absolute discretion.
If our interpretation is correct and the Commission does not enjoy carte blanche in this regard, then the criterion of necessity in Article 18 should be interpreted in an objective manner; otherwise it would be rendered meaningless, with the ensuing risk of fishing investigations. We posit that the objective element of reference could only be given by the indications of the existence of an infringement that are already in the Commission’s power, and not just by reference to the subject-matter and purpose of the investigation. The recent and most interesting Prysmian and Nexans Judgments (in relation to inspections) would seem to lend support to this idea.
This interesting question, however, won’t remain open for long. The General Court is set to deliver its Judgments on a few parallel cases on 14 March (with the exception of ours, which had a very interesting post-hearing procedural peculiarity on which I can’t yet comment). We’ll provide you with our views on these Judgments as soon as they’re out.
Breaking news: European Commission will accept Google’s commitments
Vice-President Almunia has just made it clear that the Commission will accept the third version of Google’s proposed commitments. In his words, “the new proposal obtained from Google after long and difficult talks can now address the Commission’s concerns. Without preventing Google from improving its own services, it provides users with real choice between competing services presented in a comparable way; it is then up to them to choose the best alternative. This way, both Google and its rivals will be able and encouraged to innovate and improve their offerings. Turning this proposal into a legally binding obligation for Google would ensure that competitive conditions are both restored quickly and maintained over the next years.”
The Commission’s press release is available here.
What happens now is that the Commission will send complainants a letter (pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation 773/2004 informing them that the Commission has obtained what it considers adequate commitments and that in its view there are no longer grounds to pursue the case. They will then have a chance to complain again. The Commission will then adopt a number of decisions: one under Art. 9 of Regulation 1/2003 in order to make those commitments binding, and a number of decisions rejecting all complaints received. I suppose that Google’s very active and well funded rivals will want to appeal those decisions before the General Court (with, I believe, arguable chances of success after the Court’s recent ruling in Microsoft/Skype, which was extremely favorable to Google for reasons that I might explain in a later post). This is, by the way, the outcome we always predicted.
In my personal opinion, this is a wise move on the part of the European Commission. However, it’s unlikely that the Institution will receive much praise: some will say that it demanded too much from Google (particularly given the US precedent), many others will say it’s been too lenient, some will say the investigation took too long, others will claim that it was incomplete. The fact that they will be criticized from both sides may actually suggest that perhaps the Commission has done something right.
As you know, I was never a big fan of the case (see here, here or here among others), but I always saw the proposed commitments (even in their first version) as a balanced attempt at putting and end to it getting the Commission what it wanted without introding too much in Google’s innovative business model. For my analysis of those commitments (as forecasted, despite some improvements the essence doesn’t appear to have varied since then) see here and here.
It will be interesting to discuss this development in the course of the upcoming AIJA conference on antitrust and technology in Bruges this weekend.
Oops! Anecdotal evidence on the assessment of evidence
As I mentioned on a previous post, for quite some time now I have been attempting (or rather planning) to finish a lengthy piece about evidence in cartel cases. Any of you weird enough to also find these things interesting –or who are otherwise obliged to follow the developments in this area- might have also noticed an increased willingness on the part of EU Courts to engage in a critical analysis of factual elements regarding evidence.
One illustration of this intermittent but commendable approach can be seen in a recent Judgment in case T-379/10. The Judgment concluded that the Commission did not have sufficient and reliable evidence to find that there had been a particular infringement (an agreement on minimum prices for low end ceramic products for the French market in 2004 by the members of an association –AFICS-).
In paras. 110-121 of the Judgment the Court motivates its conclusion, assessing one by one each of the four items of evidence put forward by the Commission. In a nutshell, it rules that (i) a third party’s reply to the SO wasn’t valid evidence because it had not been disclosed during the administrative procedure; (ii) that leniency statements by another party, given that they are contested, are not “on their own” sufficient proof of the infringement; (iii) that a chart provided together with a leniency application wasn’t enough, because it was “undated and contains nothing that might link it to the AFICS meeting of 25 February 2004 or to any anti-competitive discussions (…) In particular, the chart does not mention the names of competitors or any minimum or maximum prices which those competitors should apply”; and (iv) that yet another party’s leniency application, despite confirming exchanges of minimum prices within AFICS during 2002-2004, disputed the recollection of facts related to the specific meeting of February 2004. [Keep this last bit in mind; we’ll come back to it in a sec].
Few national Courts would have engaged in a similar assessment. The easy way out would’ve been to say that (ii) and (iv) corroborated each other and were moreover corroborated by (iii), and possibly also by (i). Since the appraisal of factual evidence is not a matter of law (however malleable this may be), that assessment would have most likely not been appealed before the ECJ. The GC nevertheless did not take this safe shortcut, and it should be commended for that rigorous approach. I wish all Courts did the same.
There is a problem, though. This sort of assessment occurs in some cases but not in others. For the most extreme example possible (I’m not aware that this has ever happened before), see…. the very same infringement!! Yep, in two other parallel Judgments issued on the same day, by the same Judges and in relation to the same facts (case T-373/10, paras. 286-296; and T-364/10, para 324), the General Court declares that that very same alleged infringement (really, the same one, the agreement on minimum prices at the meeting of February 24 2004) had been properly found by the Commission.
And the reasoning to do so resorts pretty much to the shortcut I described above; i.e. that (ii) and (iv) corroborated each other. What is more, the party that made the leniency statements that I referred to above as item (iv) actually received a 6% fine reduction for having contributed to proving that infringement (yes, the one that had not been proved in the parallel case!).
So we have two different solutions to the same exact issue. Not sure about how this gets fixed now (I understand there are pending appeals against these Judgment).
I have some friends who like to claim that no one reads Judgments anymore, but I thought that was only endemic outside the Court itself… 😉 In the Court’s defense, however, I guess this -among other things- is what may happen when the workload is very significant and Member States don’t agree on increasing resources (i.e. the number of Judges).
Have a great weekend!
State aid: you don’t know what you’re missing (+ thicko of the day award)
Some of you might remember one of ours posts titled State aid conferences: that’s where the fun is! (Michael O’Leary and Kim Jong Il make for a great marketing combination and attracted quite a few readers) [Btw, today’s picture features another “peculiar” character; see below for an explanation].
In reality, and jokes aside, State aid is a field where much is currently happening, and that most antitrust lawyers often fail to follow and even perceive as distant. Let me explain why that may not make much sense:
Off the top of my head, I would say that around 40% of DG Comp’s decisional output and resources are devoted to State aid. In economic terms, State aid issues generally have much greater repercussions than most antitrust cases (to put just one example, the guys at my office are advising Spain on how to use some tenths of billions granted by the European Council to restructure the financial sector). The substantive issues are no less interesting, complex, and challenging as the one’s posed by antitrust law.
On the other hand, to be sure, political interference is much more frequent, intense, and often less camouflaged (politicians, very particularly French and British ones, seem to be the ones realizing about the impact of these rules) than in antitrust. You might have read this morning about the French Industry Minister, Arnaud Montebourg, openly attacking both State aid rules in general and Vice-President Almunia in particular. In the Minister’s words, the Commission lives in a “legal delirium” and “makes up rules that don’t exist in the Treaties in order to perpetuate its powers”. He also referred to the Commissioner an “obsolete liberal integrist” and asserted that he has the backing of 11 Member States to “revise and liberalize State aid”. For once I will be the controversial one here instead of Nico, and I’ll refer to Monsieur Montebourg as the first recipient of the “Thicko of the day” award (pictured above proudly receiving his trophy) 🙂
Despite all the above (the fun, the legal complexity and the political and economic importance), State aid is not paid the attention it deserves by practicing lawyers. Why? Easy: because those most directly affected often seem to be public authorities (many companies haven’t yet understood the opportunities and the risks associated to these rules), and those don’t pay as high bills as private companies do. (I guess efficiency and profit-maximizing related incentives also give rise to market failures/externalities).
Whereas I agree with the idea that State aid DNA shares more chromosomes with internal market rules than with antitrust law, there are some common feature between the two disciplines. Aside from the fact that they were placed in the same chapter of the Treaty –which led to their enforcement being entrusted to the same body: DG Comp-, State aid law is also always constantly in the making and questioning itself, which is what initially seduced me from antitrust.
An example: on January 17th the European Commission launched a consultation paper on the very the notion of aid. Think about it; no one would dare of doing the same in antitrust, even if very few people (perhaps with the exception of the influential Giuliano Marenco) have a comprehensive theory to explain what a restriction of competition actually is (an idea I also stated here and here).
There’s loads of “low-hanging fruit” in this domain. If you’re interested in an overview of the legal issues involved in determining what an State aid really is, I very strongly encourage you to read Andrea Biondi’s recent piece: State aid is falling down, falling down: An analysis of the case law on the notion of aid (very recently published in Common Market Law Review).
In the past few weeks I’ve taken a few initiatives to compensate for our State aid deficit. On a personal level, I got heavily involved together with José Luis Buendía in drafting and lodging no less than 12 State aid appeals concerning a particularly controverted and interesting decision (little did I know that I’d have to do that in the course of the Christmas holidays; btw, the experience left me wondering how we could manage in the pre e-Curia days). On a blog-related level, we’ve just asked a couple of the best minds in the field to become regular contributors to Chillin’Competition. We hope to be able to announce their coming on board soon.
Milton Friedman and EU Competition Law. Did you know?
That the Chicago School has had a profound and lasting impact on competition law analysis is well-known. That Milton Friedman, the intellectual leader of the most legendary of Economics Departments, played a (minor) role in the creation of an EU competition law system, is probably ignored by many of our readers.
As they explain in their memoirs, Milton and Rose Friedman spent some months in Paris in 1950, working for the Marshall Plan agency. Milton’s main task during his time in France was to analyse the Schuman Plan. He expressed concern that the project would lead to the ‘substitution of a single super-monopoly for the present collection of monopolies’ and that the ‘fine words about “competition” and “single market” have been interpreted to mean centrally directed and controlled industries’.
This passage is useful to put things in perspective. Many contemporary commentators tend to see the ordoliberals and the Chicago School as two extremes in a continuum. Against the widespread view, Milton Friedman’s account suggests instead that he shared with the ordoliberals of the time a concern with central-planning and with the cartelisation of key industries. Both saw competition as necessary for the emergence of a genuinely free and democratic society. And the rest is after all just details 😉
BIICL’s merger conference + AIJA’s tech conference + a pub-related question
The British Institute of International and Comparative Law will be holding its 11th annual conference in Brussels tomorrow. The line-up of speakers is quite impressive and the topics extremely timely; you can check them out here: 11th_BIICL_merger_conference
In case you’re too lazy to click on the above hyperlink to the program, just know that the panels will address the following subjects:
– Screens and inferences in mergers: has DG Comp opened the Pandora’s box of price pressure tests?
– Remedies and Efficiencies – What Really Compensates for the Loss of Competition?
– Hot topics: Minority Stakes, Procedural Simplification, the Rise of MOFCOM.
Apologies to Philip Marsden, to whom I said I’d advertise this a bit more in advance…
Also, be aware that the early bird rate offer for AIJA’s must-attend Bruges conference on Antitrust and Technology is expiring today. For more info, click here: https://chillingcompetition.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/antitrust-2-0-competition-law-and-technology1.pdf
P.S. And speaking of Bruges, on Wednesday I’ll be visiting the College of Europe as part of Garrigues’ recruitment process. I was told yesterday that De Garre (the real reason why I wanted to go to Bruges) is closed these days; if any student can give any inside-information, that’d be much appreciated 😉
New Issue of European Competition Journal
EUROPEAN COMPETITION JOURNAL
Volume 9 . Number 3 . December 2013
The 3rd issue of the 2013 volume of European Competition Journal is now available online.
ONLINE ACCESS
To access this issue online and purchase individual papers please click here.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
For further information about European Competition Journal, please click here.
CONTENTS
Antitrust Marathon V: When in Rome Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law
A discussion led by Philip Marsden, Spencer Weber Waller and Philipp Fabbio
Welcome
Topic 1: Public–Private Partnerships for Effective Enforcement
Public–Private Partnerships for Effective Enforcement: Some “Hybrid” Insights?
Philip Marsden
Topic 2: Effective Injunctive Relief
Effective Injunctive Relief
Spencer Weber Waller
Topic 3: Private Actions for Damages
Private Actions for Damages
Philipp Fabbio
Topic 4: Criminal Enforcement
Real Crime: Criminal Competition Law
Susan Beth Farmer
Abstract: The Antitrust Marathon is a long-running series of roundtable discussions sponsored by the Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies of Loyola University Chicago School of Law and the Competition Law Forum of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, focusing on enduring issues of comparative competition law. These discussions always take place the day before or after the great marathon races of the world which some of the participants also endure. However, no running is required for the roundtable discussion itself. Past Antitrust Marathons have focused on Abuse of Dominance, Antitrust and the Rule of Law; Competition and Consumer Protection, and other topics, and have been held in Chicago, London, Boston and Dublin. We are grateful to the Italian Competition Authority and the University of Rome I (Sapienza) for hosting and being co- sponsors of the 2013 Antitrust Marathon.
Awards
Vote for me friends: here.
And three questions/remarks:
1. Why wasn’t Alfonso’s great piece on “Antitrust and the policital center” selected in the Business section? This was the single most read piece in CPI last year.
2. Will the prize be effectively awarded this year? I was one of the laureates two years ago, but I am still awaiting my invitation to GWU. It goes without saying that if I win again this year, I am happy to give two lectures at GWU on the same trip.
3. Why has the voting count disappeared this year? 2 years ago, you could see the number of votes attracted by papers. This year not.
Chillin'Competition 