Advertisement

Member States’ Interest in the Enforcement of EU Competition Law

A Case Study of Article 101 TFEU
  • Or Brook
  • Katalin J. CseresEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The decentralisation of the public enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU under Regulation 1/2003 altered not only its institutional setup by delegating enforcement responsibilities to national competition authorities (NCAs) and courts, but also the possibilities for Member States to implement their respective national competition policies and the domestic interest considerations embedded therein. In the multilevel governance framework established by Regulation 1/2003, the enforcement of EU competition law takes place exposed to the national political, institutional and procedural context. In particular, national laws and legal and administrative practices, which bind NCAs and national courts, directly influence the application of Articles 101 and 102 in the national territory. This chapter examines examples of such national measures and practices and assesses their impact of re-nationalising EU competition law and policy.

References

  1. Blomme, E. (2007). State action as a defence against 81 and 82 EC. World Competition, 30, 243–261.Google Scholar
  2. Botta, M., Svetlicinii, A., & Bernatt, M. (2015). The assessment of the effect on trade by the national competition authorities of the “new” Member States: Another legal partition of the internal market? Common Market Law Review, 52, 1247–1275.Google Scholar
  3. Brook, O. (in press). Coding the balancing of non-competition interests in Article 101 TFEU. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Castillo de la Torre, F. (2005). State action defense in EC competition law. World Competition, 28, 407–443.Google Scholar
  5. Claassen, R., & Gerbrandy, A. (2016). Rethinking European competition law: From a consumer welfare to a capability approach. Utrecht Law Review, 12, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cruz, J. B. (2007). The state action doctrine. In G. Amato & C.-D. Ehlermann (Eds.), EC competition law - A critical assessment (pp. 551–560). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Csépai, B. (2015). The ceasefire is over. European Competition Law Review, 36, 404–405.Google Scholar
  8. Cseres, K. (2007). The controversies of the consumer welfare standard. Competition Law Review, 3, 121–173.Google Scholar
  9. De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek. (2011). Competition newsletter. Retrieved January 1, 2018, from http://documents.lexology.com/b0af9024-75a2-4034-9d1a-f3b8eb55e7af.pdf
  10. De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek. (2013). Global competition review. Cartel regulation. The application of competition regulation in 48 jurisdictions worldwide. The Netherlands (pp. 203–215). Retrieved January 1, 2018, from https://www.debrauw.com/wp-content/uploads/NEWS%20-%20PUBLICATIONS/GCR-Cartel-Regulation-2013-Netherlands.pdf
  11. Ehlermann, C.-D. (2000). The modernization of EC antitrust policy: A legal and cultural revolution. Common Market Law Review, 37, 537–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission. (1993). XXIIIrd report on competition policy. Luxembourg: Publications Office.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (1999). White paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty. Retrieved November 30, 2017, from http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com99_101_en.pdf
  14. European Commission. (2000). White paper on Reform Regulation 17 - Summary of the Observations. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/others/wp_on_modernisation/summary_observations.html
  15. European Commission. (2009). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council: Report on the functioning of Regulation 1/2003 COM(2009) 206 final.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2014). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council: Ten years of antitrust Enforcement under Regulation 1/2003: Achievements and future perspectives COM(2014) 453 final.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2017). Proposal for a Directive to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market COM(2017) 142 final.Google Scholar
  18. European Parliament. (2016). European Parliament Study: A practitioner’s view on the role and powers of national competition Authorities. IP/A/ECON/2016-06.Google Scholar
  19. Gauer, C., Kjolbye, L., Dalheimer, D., de Smijter, E., Schnichels, D., & Laurila, M. (2004). Regulation 1/2003 and the modernisation package fully applicable since 1 May 2004. Competition Policy Newsletter, 2, 1–6.Google Scholar
  20. Gerard, D. (2010). EU competition policy after Lisbon: Time to review the “state action doctrine”? Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1, 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerber, D. J. (1998). Law and competition in twentieth century Europe: Protecting Prometheus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gerber, D. J. (2008). Two forms of modernization in European competition law. Fordham International Law Journal, 31, 1235–1265.Google Scholar
  23. German Monopolies Commission. (2000). Cartel policy change in the European Union? On the European Commission’s White Paper of 28th April 1999. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Goyder, D. G. (2009). Goyders’s EC competition law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Guidi, M. (2014). Delegation and varieties of capitalism: Explaining the independence of national competition agencies in the European Union. Comparative European Politics, 12, 343–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gyselen, L. (1989). State action and effectiveness of the EEC Treaty’s competition provisions. Common Market Law Review, 26, 33–60.Google Scholar
  27. Heitzer, B. (2008). Consumer welfare as a standard of competition policy. Speech on the European Competition Day. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/EN/Reden/L1/Bernhard%20Heitzer%20%20Consumer%20welfare%20as%20a%20standard%20of%20competition%20policy.html
  28. ICN (International Competition Network). (2011). Competition enforcement and consumer welfare: Setting the agenda. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc857.pdf
  29. Jones, A. (2010). The journey toward an effects-based approach under Article 101 TFEU - The case of hardcore restraints. The Antitrust Bulletin, 55, 787–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, A., & Davies, J. (2015). Merger control and the public interest: Balancing EU and national law in the protectionist debate. European Competition Journal, 10, 453–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Komninos, A. P. (2005). Non-competition concerns: Resolution of conflicts in the integrated Article 81 EC. University of Oxford CCLP Working Paper (L) 08/05.Google Scholar
  32. Lasserre, B. (2009). The new French competition law enforcement regime. Competition Law International, 5, 15–20.Google Scholar
  33. Maher, I. (2002). Networking competition authorities in the European Union: Diversity and change. In C.-D. Ehlermann & I. Anatasiu (Eds.), European competition law annual 2002: Constructing the EU network of competition authorities (pp. 223–236). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Monti, M. (2002). Article 81 EC and public policy. Common Market Law Review, 39, 1057–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Monti, M. (2007). EC competition law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Odudu, O. (2006). The boundaries of EC competition law: The scope of Article 81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petit, N. (2009). The guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) EC: A critical review. Institut d’Études Juridiques Européennes Working Paper 4/2009.Google Scholar
  38. Petit, N., & Rabeux, L. (2009). Judicial review in French competition law and economic regulation: A post Commission v. Tetra Laval assessment. In O. Essens, A. Gerbrandy, & S. Lavrijssen (Eds.), National courts and the standard of review in competition law and economic regulation (pp. 103–126). Amsterdam: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Pina, Á. (2014). Enhancing competition and the business environment in Hungary. OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1123.Google Scholar
  40. Reader, D. (2016). Accommodating public interest considerations in domestic merger control: Empirical insights. University of East Anglia CCP Working Paper 16/3.Google Scholar
  41. Riley, A. (2003). EC antitrust modernisation: The Commission does very nicely—thank you! Part two: Between the idea and the reality: Decentralisation under Regulation 1. European Competition Law Review, 13, 657–672.Google Scholar
  42. Sauter, W. (2016). Coherence in EU competition law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scholten, M., & Ottow, A. (2015). Institutional design of enforcement in the EU: The case of financial markets. Utrecht Law Review, 10, 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Semmelmann, C. (2008). Non-competition goals in the interpretation of Article 81 EC. Global Antitrust Review, 1, 15–47.Google Scholar
  45. Simonsson, I. (2010). Legitimacy in EU cartel control. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Sufrin, B. E. (2006). The evolution of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty. The Antitrust Bulletin, 51, 915–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Szilágyi, P. (2013). Some aspects of liability in Hungarian competition law enforcement. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://jak.ppke.hu/uploads/articles/12417/file/liability_2013_plain.pdf
  48. Temple Lang, J. (1998). General report on the application of Community competition law on enterprises by national courts and national authorities. Retrieved February 10, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/competition/speeches/text/sp1998_027_en.pdf
  49. Temple Lang, J. (2014). After fifty years. What is needed for a unified European competition policy?. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2519713
  50. Tóth, T. (2013). The fall of agricultural cartel enforcement in Hungary. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2515967
  51. Townley, C. (2009). Article 81 EC and public policy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Townley, C. (2010). The goals of Chapter I of the UK’s Competition Act 1998. Yearbook of European Law, 29, 307–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. UK Parliament. (2000). Select Committee on European Union: Fourth Report. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldeucom/33/3307.htm
  54. Van Bael, I. (1986). The antitrust settlement practice of the EC Commission. Common Market Law Review, 23, 61–90.Google Scholar
  55. van der Woude, M., Hennen, T., Waelbroeck, D., Merola, M., van de Walle de Ghelcke, B., Morgan de Rivery, E., et al. (2009). Towards an optimal enforcement of competition rules in Europe: Time for a review of Regulation 1/2003?. Concurrences Review, 3-2009, Art. N° 26641.Google Scholar
  56. Van Rompuy, B. (2012). Economic efficiency: The sole concern of modern antitrust policy? The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  57. Venit, J. S. (2003). Brave new world: The modernization and decentralization of enforcement under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. Common Market Law Review, 40, 545–580.Google Scholar
  58. Vogel, L. (2012). Global competition law: A practitioner’s guide. Bruxelles: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  59. von Papp, W. (2015). Preface: de minimis. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2613979
  60. Wesseling, R. (2000). The modernisation of EC competition law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Whish, R., & Bailey, D. (2015). Competition law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wils, W. P. J. (2005). Principles of European antitrust enforcement. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Wils, W. P. J. (2013). Ten years of Regulation 1/2003. A retrospective. Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 4, 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Witt, A. C. (2016). The more economic approach to EU antitrust law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Amsterdam, Faculty of LawAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations