Jonathan T. Fried ‘The place of competition and development in the global trade and economic architecture’ (2017) Concurrences 1 3

The author was the Canadian ambassador to the WTO. In this piece, available here, which is the opening speech to a conference on ‘Competition and globalization in developing economies’, he argues that trade liberalisation must be accompanied by sound economic regulation that enables trade and investment to occur. Robust and effective competition law and regulation is a key element of this enabling environment, and a potential contributor to sustainable development as well. The trade and competition communities have been supporting each other’s goals, and applying similar approaches, for some time. Building on this base, there are actions that will lead to the better integration of trade and competition perspectives, while avoiding being drawn into grand debates about new forms of global governance, as has happened in the past. In a first section, the paper provides an overview of the international trade regime. From its post-war beginnings as an “interim” agreement called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (‘GATT’) through…

Julien Briguet ‘The State’s Invisible Hand: Chinese SOEs Facing EU Antitrust Law‘ (2018) World Competition Law 52(5) 839

Chinese outbound merger and acquisition (M&A) activity has surged in Europe during the last decade. Chinese companies, particularly state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were the key drivers of this surge, amounting to 70% of these investments in Europe. This paper, available here, argues that the way the European Commission looks at mergers involving Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) suffers from several flaws. These arise primarily from inconsistency in how the single economic entity doctrine has been applied to these companies – sometimes a single Chinese SOE is taken to be the relevant economic unit, sometimes all SOEs active in a specific industry were said to comprise the acquiring undertaking. The author argues that a more systematic application of the single economic entity doctrine is required to restore consistency to the case law, address the realities of China’s State capitalism and protect the principle of competitive neutrality at the core of EU competition law. Section two reviews how the single economic entity doctrine applies…

Pieter J. F. Huizing ‘Comparing territorial limits to EU and US public enforcement of the LCD cartel’ (2018) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 6 231

This article, available here, describes the US and EU positions on the territorial scope of public cartel enforcement – i.e. how far outside their territories can competition authorities reach to punish cartel conduct committed abroad by foreign undertakings – by reference to the LCD cartel. Cartelised LCD panels were manufactured by a number of Asian producers with varying levels of direct and indirect imports into the EU and the USA. Both the European Commission (Commission) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had to determine the territorial limits to their enforcement in respect of this international cartel, and to then defend their approach in court. In both jurisdictions, it is accepted that competition authorities benefit from long territorial reach and wide discretion in determining the amount of fines. It is submitted that the legal precedents created by decisions regarding this cartel are a cause for concern in view of the increasingly crowded global cartel enforcement arena. This argument is developed…

Luca Prete ‘On Implementation and Effects: The Recent Case-law on the Territorial (or Extraterritorial?) Application of EU Competition Rules’ (2018) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 9(8) 487

In an era of globalisation and digitalisation, complex issues may arise as regards the laws applicable to situations that either involve cross-border elements or occur in cyberspace. The disconnect between the borderless nature of modern trade and the essentially domestic character of economic laws may give rise to complex issues of jurisdiction. Rules and principles of private international law often determine which national laws are applicable in any given situation. However, no equivalent system of binding rules exists as far as the public enforcement of antitrust rules is concerned. As a result, the same business conduct may potentially fall within the jurisdiction of a number of States, each having its own rules. Clearly, problems may not only arise when those rules are dissimilar (or interpreted and applied differently), but also when various jurisdictions with identical rules are applied cumulatively to the same conduct. This piece, available here, reviews European jurisprudence concerning the reach and scope of the EU’s competition laws….

Omar Shah, Christina Renner and Leonidas Theodosiou ‘Intel, iiyama, Power Cables: A Revolution in the Treatment of Territoriality and Jurisdiction in EU Competition Law?’ (2019) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice

Important recent decisions by the EU and national courts – in Intel, iiyama and Power Cables – have set the stage for a potential increase in public enforcement and private litigation of business conduct which has effects on competition in the EU internal market despite not being implemented there. This paper, available here, addresses the potential changes to EU and national law wrought by these decisions, and considers the extent to which limiting principles may emerge to address potential conflicts of law, multiplicity of proceedings and double jeopardy. It is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the evolution of EU law on the jurisdictional reach of its competition provisions. The EU Courts have had to delimit the jurisdictional scope of EU law, typically in the context of judicial review of decisions of the European Commission (‘Commission’) in which the Commission had exercised enforcement jurisdiction over conduct whose territorial links to the EU were susceptible to challenge. Early on, the Court…

Carsten Koenig ‘Comparing Parent Company Liability in EU and US Competition Law’ (2018) World Competition 41(1) 69

This paper, available here , contrasts how law parent companies can be fined for antitrust infringements by their subsidiaries under EU competition law, while courts in the US are reluctant to hold parent companies directly or indirectly liable in private damages suits. The author argues that one of the main reasons why EU competition law holds parent companies liable is to solve an under-deterrence problem that occurs when subsidiaries lack sufficient assets to pay fines or damages. US antitrust law uses other enforcement instruments to address under-deterrence by, in particular the individual liability of managers and employees. The article consists of four substantive parts: In section 2, the paper reviews the case law and literature on parent company liability for antitrust infringements by subsidiaries in the European Union and the United States. In the EU, the single economic entity doctrine is deeply ingrained in competition law. The European court interprets the concept of ‘undertaking’ in a functional way: it is the economic entity…

Eric Barbier de La Serre and Eileen Lagathu ‘The Law on Fines Imposed in EU Competition Proceedings’ (2018) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 9(7) 459

This paper, available here, provides a brief overview of a number of important issues regarding fining in Europe up to 2018. There is no specific argument being made, just an overview of the state of play at the time this paper was published. Section I discusses how the statute of limitations affects fine amounts. The Commission’s power to impose fines for substantive infringements is subject to a 5-year limitation period from the date the infringement was committed – or, in the case of a continuing or repeated infringement, from the date when the infringement ceased – unless formal steps to investigate or prosecute the infringement have been taken by a competition authority during that period. Each interruption produces effects erga omnes, in so far as the limitation period starts running afresh in respect of all undertakings that participated in the infringement. Furthermore, the fact that the conduct of subsidiaries falls outside the scope of the statute of limitation does not preclude proceedings from…

Javier Garcia-Verdugo, Carlos Merino Troncoso and Lorena Gomez Cruz ‘An Economic Assessment of Antitrust Fines in Spain’ (2018) World Competition Law and Economics Review 41(3) 335

This article, available here, tries to quantify the deterrent power of fines imposed by the Spanish competition authority from 2011 to 2015. Despite being authored by senior staff at the Spanish competition authority, the paper concludes that most of the fines imposed by the Spanish competition authority during this period were under deterrent. The argument is structured as follows: Section II sets out how to quantify cartel gains. A deterrent optimal fine can be defined as a fine that deters a company from participating in a cartel. Such an outcome is achieved when there is no expected net gain from participating in the cartel in the first place, i.e. when the expected illicit gain of entering into a cartel is lower than the expected loss from being sanctioned for cartel participation. Therefore, the reference value for an optimal fine should be determined by reference to an estimate of the illicit gain (also known as excess profit) flowing from cartel membership. This illicit…

Dagmar Schiek and Andrea Gideon on ‘Outsmarting the gig-economy through collective bargaining – EU competition law as a barrier?’ (2018) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 32(2-3) 275

While the use of information technology can enhance personal self-determination, its use in the context of the gig-economy also creates the risk of entrenching casual, precarious and exploitative working conditions. A crucial question that arises is how far gig-workers are able to shape their work conditions. Within the sphere of employment law, the right of workers to organise collectively provides the opportunity to achieve just that. This paper, available here, aims to analyse the barriers posed by EU competition law to collective labour rights of gig-workers. It argues that EU competition law, as currently interpreted by the Court of Justice, would hinder collective organisation of those serving the gig-economy. It also advances an interpretation of the competition provisions which would allow EU competition law to adapt to recent developments in labour markets. It is structured as follows: A first section sketches the basic features of the gig-economy. The gig-economy is mainly characterised by the extensive use of IT for the distribution, allocation,…

Douglas Ginsburg and Cecilia (Yixi) Cheng  ‘The Decline in U.S. Criminal Antitrust Cases’ George Mason University Law & Economics Research Paper Series 19-31 (Forthcoming in Liber Amicorum Albert A. Foer (2020) Nicolas Charbit et al. (eds)

Criminal cartel prosecutions are at modern lows in the U.S. The authors of this paper, available here, offer three non-exclusive hypotheses for this decline: (1) increasingly large fines in multiple jurisdictions have lessened the incentive to apply for leniency in any one jurisdiction; (2) technology has caused the substitution of lawful tacit for unlawful express collusion; and (3) competition policy has succeeded in deterring cartel formation – at least among U.S. companies. Copyright: FT While the available data is too limited to reach a definite conclusion, it seems to support the third hypothesis: since 2008, investigations have focused predominantly on foreign companies, while both the number and share of investigated U.S. companies have decreased. This is consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. competition policy has been effective in deterring anti-competitive conduct by US companies. Section II describes the recent downward trend in cartel prosecutions. The number of criminal cases filed annually by the DoJ decreased from 90 in 2011 to 18 in…