Skip to main content
Log in

An Exploration of the Evolution of the EU’s Twin-Track Approach to the Achievement of Its International Competition Policy Goals

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The EU has two main goals in relation to regulating competition matters with an extraterritorial dimension: the first is to secure access to overseas markets for EU firms by removing beyond-the-border competition distortions in these markets and the second is to ensure that competition in the Single European Market is not distorted by the restrictive practices, such as international cartels, of non-EU companies. In order to achieve these goals, the EU has adopted both cooperative and non-cooperative approaches: the former is predominant at both a multilateral and bilateral level and has been used in pursuit of both goals whereas the non-cooperative approach is used unilaterally, primarily, but not only, to achieve the second goal. This paper analyses the efforts made by the EU to deal with these extraterritorial issues, concluding that, although the EU has an avowed preference for multilateral over bilateral action in relation to the cooperative approach, the difficulty of reaching agreement multilaterally, or indeed persuading sufficient countries that such matters are an important subject for negotiation, is such that the bilateral approach has become the EU’s focus in recent years. Even here, though, progress has been relatively slow. Moreover, matters have become unnecessarily complicated in relation to the EU’s efforts to secure extra-territorial jurisdiction enabling it to take unilateral action against non-EU companies in the non-cooperative approach. This complexity has arisen from the range of jurisdictional tests—the effect doctrine, the single economic entity test and the implementation criterion—which suggests overkill.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Commission Decision of 8.12. 2010 (COMP/39.309—LCD—Liquid Crystal Displays).

  2. Woolcock (2007, p. 2).

  3. Koopmann and Wilhelm (2010, p. 307).

  4. See for example, Van Miert (1998, pp. 7–8).

  5. Communication from the European Community and its member states to the World Trade Organisation’s Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy. 19 November 2002. WT/WGTCP/W/222. 1–8, paragraph 3.

  6. Ibid n. 5, paragraph 3.

  7. Ibid n. 5, paragraph 3.

  8. Ibid n. 5, paragraph 3.

  9. Ibid n. 5, paragraph 6.

  10. Pons (1999, p. 8).

  11. Supra n. 5, paragraph 8.

  12. Submission to the Working Group on the interaction between Trade and Competition policy from the European Community and its member states. A WTO Competition agreement’s contribution to international cooperation and technical assistance for capacity building. Submission for the WTO Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy (WGTCP), pp. 1–15. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/113125.htm.

  13. Ibid n. 12, pp. 3–5.

  14. Ibid n. 12, pp. 7–10.

  15. Ibid n. 12, p. 9.

  16. Ibid n. 12, p. 8.

  17. Supra n. 12, pp. 6–7.

  18. Supra n. 12, p. 8.

  19. World Trade Organisation. Doha Ministerial Declaration, paragraph 23.

  20. Monti (2002, p. 2).

  21. Stewart (2004, p. 8).

  22. Ibid n. 21, p. 7.

  23. Ibid n. 21, p. 7.

  24. Lamy (2003a, p. 3).

  25. Lamy (2003b, p. 3).

  26. Ibid n. 25, p. 2.

  27. Our emphasis.

  28. WTO Ministerial Statement (2003, paragraph 6).

  29. Supra n. 25, p. 5.

  30. Lamy (2004, section 2, p. 2).

  31. Monti (2004, p. 1).

  32. Competition Commission, Office of Fair Trading and Chisholm (2013, p. 9).

  33. International Competition Network. About section. http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/about.aspx.

  34. OECD. Global Forum on Competition.

  35. OECD. Revised Recommendation of the Council (1995).

  36. EU OJL (2010) 108—29 April.

  37. EU OJL (2013) 278—18 October.

  38. EU OJL (1995) 095—27 April.

  39. EU OJL (1999) 175—10 July.

  40. EU OJL (2003) 183—22 July.

  41. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/agreement_eu_ch_en.pdf.

  42. OECD (1967) c(67) 53/final.

  43. Supra n. 38.

  44. EU OJL (1998) 173—18 June.

  45. Monti (2000, p. 3).

  46. European Commission (2006) Global Europe: Competing in the World, SEC (2006) 1230, Brussels 4.10.06.

  47. EU OJL (2011) 127—14 May.

  48. EU OJL (2009) 202—4 August.

  49. Draft text of agreement only available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index/cfm?id=96.

  50. EU OJL (1997) 327.

  51. MoU India 2013.

  52. MoU China 2012.

  53. MoU Russia 2011.

  54. MoU Brazil 2009.

  55. Case T-102/96, Gencor Ltd v Commission [1999] ECR II-753.

  56. United States v Aluminum Co. of America (Alcoa) 148 F.2d 416 (2D Cir. 1945) at 443.

  57. 15 U.S.C. §6(a)(1)–(2).

  58. Case 48/69 ICI v Commission (“Dyestuffs”) [1972] ECR 619.

  59. Ibid n. 58, p. 629.

  60. Ibid n. 58, p. 629.

  61. Ibid n. 58, p. 627.

  62. Ibid n. 58, Opinion of Mr. Mayras, p. 693.

  63. Ibid n. 58, Opinion of Mr. Mayras, p. 693.

  64. Ibid n. 58, Opinion of Mr. Mayras, pp. 693 and 694.

  65. Supra n. 58, Opinion of Mr. Mayras, p. 694.

  66. Supra n. 58, Opinion of Mr. Mayras, p. 694.

  67. Supra n. 58, Opinion of Mr. Mayras, pp. 695 and 696.

  68. Supra n. 58, paragraphs 132 and 133.

  69. Case 6-72, Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v Commission [1973] ECR 215, paragraph 15.

  70. Supra n. 58, paragraphs 137 and 138.

  71. Supra n. 58, paragraph 139.

  72. Commission Decision of 19 December 1984 (IV/29.725-Wood pulp) OJ L 85, 26.3.1985, pp. 1–52, paragraph 79.

  73. Joined cases 89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125 to 129/85. A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission [1988] ECR 5139, paragraph 6.

  74. Ibid n. 73, Opinion of Mr. Darmon, p. 5226, paragraph 53.

  75. Ibid n. 73, paragraph 18.

  76. Ibid n. 73, paragraph 16.

  77. Ibid n. 73, paragraph 16.

  78. Ibid n. 73, paragraph 17.

  79. See for example, Commission Decision of 7 October 2009 Case COMP/39.129-Power Transformers.

  80. Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, Article 1.

  81. Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, Article 1.

  82. Supra n. 81, Article 1(3).

  83. Supra n. 55, paragraph 20.

  84. Supra n. 55, paragraph 49.

  85. Supra n. 55, paragraph 50.

  86. Supra n. 55, paragraph 56.

  87. Supra n. 55, paragraph 57.

  88. Supra n. 55, paragraph 85.

  89. Supra n. 55, paragraph 85.

  90. Supra n. 55, paragraph 79.

  91. Supra n. 55, paragraph 87.

  92. Supra n. 55, paragraphs 92–101.

  93. Supra n. 55, paragraph 94.

  94. Supra n. 55, paragraph 97.

  95. Supra n. 55, paragraph 100.

  96. Supra n. 55, paragraph 101.

  97. Supra n. 1, paragraphs 232–234.

References

  • Competition Commission, Office of Fair Trading and A. Chisholm. 2013. The UK Competition and Markets Authority: A new institution to tackle a new set of challenges. Speech. 7 June 2013. ESRC Centre for Competition Policy Annual Conference. University of East Anglia, Norwich.

  • Commission Decision of 19 December 1984 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/29.725-Wood pulp) OJ L85, 26.3.1985, 1–52.

  • Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings. Official Journal L 395:1–12, 30/12/1989.

  • Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (EC Merger Regulation). Official Journal L 024, 29/01/2004, 1–22.

  • European Commission. 2006. Global Europe: Competing in the World, SEC (2006) 1230, Brussels 4.10.06.

  • European Union. 1995. Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Commission of the European Union regarding the application of their competition laws, Official Journal OJL 095/47-50.

  • European Union. 1997. Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation: Establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part. Official Journal OJL 327/3-69.

  • European Union. 1998. Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America on the application of positive comity principles in the enforcement of their competition laws, Official Journal OJL 173/26-31.

  • European Union. 1999. Agreement between the European Communities and the Government of Canada regarding the application of their competition laws. Official Journal OJL 175/49-60.

  • European Union. 2003. Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan concerning cooperation on anti-competitive activities. Official Journal OJL 183/12-17.

  • European Union. 2009. Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning co-operation on anti-competitive activities. Official Journal OJL 202/36-41.

  • European Union. 2010. Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part. Official Journal OJL 108/1-354.

  • European Union. 2011. Free trade agreement between the European Union and its member states, on the one part, and the Republic of Korea, on the other part, Official Journal OJL 127/1-1426.

  • European Union. 2013. Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part. Official Journal OJL 278/16-473.

  • European Union. 2014. Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation concerning cooperation on the application of their competition laws, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/agreement_eu_ch_en.pdf.

  • Koopmann, G., and M. Wilhelm. 2010. EU trade policy in the age of bilateralism. Intereconomics 45(5): 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamy, P. 2003a. Result of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancún Plenary Session on the Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Cancun. Speech/03/429. 24 September 2003. Strasbourg.

  • Lamy, P. 2003b. The EU, Cancún and the Future of the Doha Development Agenda. Speech/03/499. 28 Oct 2003. Journal for Common Market Studies. London.

  • Lamy, P. 2004. The relaunching of negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda. Report. 13 Jan 2004. Plenary session, Strasbourg.

  • Memorandum of Understanding. 2009. MoU on co-operation between the EU and Brazil, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/brazil_mou_en.pdf.

  • Memorandum of Understanding. 2011. MoU on co-operation between the EU and Russia, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/russia_mou_en.pdf.

  • Memorandum of Understanding. 2012. MoU on co-operation in the area of anti-monopoly law between the European Commission and China. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/mou_china_en.pdf.

  • Memorandum of Understanding. 2013. MoU on between DG Competition and the Competition Commission of India. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/india_agreement.pdf.

  • Monti, M. 2000. Cooperation between competition authorities—A vision for the future. Speech/00/234. 23 June 2000. The Japan Foundation Conference. Washington, DC.

  • Monti, M. 2002. A Global Competition Policy. Speech/02/399. 17 Sept 2002. European Competition Day. Copenhagen.

  • Monti, M. 2004. International antitrust—A personal perspective. Speech/04/449. 7 Oct 2004. Fordham Corporate Law Institute. New York.

  • OECD. Global Forum on Competition. About the Global Forum on Competition. http://www.oecd.org/competition/globalforum/abouttheglobalforumoncompetition.htm.

  • OECD. 1995. Revised Recommendation of the Council. Concerning Co-operation between Member countries on Anticompetitive practices affecting international trade. C(95) 130/FINAL.

  • Pons, J. 1999. International co-operation in competition matters—Where are we four years after the Van Miert Report? Speech. 9 July 1999. Zurich.

  • Stewart, T. 2004. The fate of competition policy in Cancun: Politics or substance? Legal Issues of Economic Integration 31(1): 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Miert, K. 1998. Globalization of competition: The need for global convergence. Speech. 25 March 1998. Vrije Universitent, 1–9. Brussels.

  • Woolcock, S. 2007. European Union policy towards Free Trade Agreements. ECIPE. Working Paper No. 03:1–15.

  • World Trade Organisation. 2001. Doha Ministerial declaration. Adopted on 14 Nov 2001. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1. 1–8.

  • World Trade Organisation Ministerial Statement. 2003. Adopted on 14 Sept 2003. WT/MIN (03)/20. MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE. Fifth Session. Cancun, 10–14 Sept 2003.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leigh M. Davison.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davison, L.M., Johnson, D. An Exploration of the Evolution of the EU’s Twin-Track Approach to the Achievement of Its International Competition Policy Goals. Liverpool Law Rev 36, 73–99 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-015-9160-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-015-9160-0

Keywords

Navigation