Michael Carrier ‘The Four-Step Rule of Reason’ (2019) Antitrust 33(2)

US courts employ the rule of reason to assess a restraint’s effects on competition. Commentators have recently debated the predictability and appropriate structure of the analysis. However, at the same time as these nuances have been fleshed out in the literature, courts appear to have lost sight of first principles. This paper, available here, criticises recent developments in the US. It does so as follows: Section 2 looks at the background and analytical framework of the rule of reason. Some offences (like price fixing, bid rigging, and market sharing) are considered inherently anticompetitive and deemed automatically illegal without any scrutiny of actual competitive effects. In contrast, the vast majority of agreements are considered under the rule of reason. For much of the mid-20th century, antitrust courts applied mostly per se rules, even beyond hard-core cartels. That changed in the 1970s with the introduction of economic analysis, which led to the rule of reason beginning to be applied in earnest. However,…

Pablo Ibáñez Colomo ‘Legal tests in EU competition law: taxonomy and operation’ (2019) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice

EU competition law does not apply a single legal test. However, the existence of various legal tests is not commonly acknowledged, nor has it been studied systematically. This paper, available here, seeks to bridge this gap. (c) Pablo Ibanez Colomo One of the objectives of this paper is to draw a map of the existing legal tests, and to clarify where each of the practices stands along a spectrum ranging from those deemed prohibited irrespective of their effects and those deemed lawful. According to the author, legal tests in EU competition law can be grouped into four main categories. First, some practices are prima facie unlawful irrespective of their effects. Secondly, some conducts are deemed prima facie lawful. Thirdly, some behaviour is subject to a ‘standard effects’ test, which seeks to ascertain whether it has, or is likely to have, anticompetitive effects in the economic and legal context in which it is implemented. Finally, an ‘enhanced effects’ test applies in…

Angela Huyue Zhang, Jingchen Liu and Nuno Garoupa on ‘Judging in Europe: Do Legal Traditions Matter?’ (2018) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 14(1) 144

Infringement decisions adopted by the European Commission in competition procedures are subject to review by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’). The CJEU is an international tribunal comprising judges from countries with varying legal traditions within Europe. This empirical paper, available here, seeks to determine whether the outcome of appeals from European Commission infringement decisions are affected by the legal origins of the judge rapporteur. In particular, the authors test whether judges coming from countries with French-inspired administrative systems are more likely to decide in favour of the Commission. They find that this is indeed the case, and that the results are robust to alternative political ideology variables, including left–right politics and a preference for European integration. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 delves into the various legal traditions of Europe, and how they may influence the judicial review of competition appeals. There is extensive literature demonstrating that preconceptions nourished by education, work experience and…