The Application of European Competition Law in Arbitration Proceedings

This work provides several policy proposals capable to strengthen the private enforcement of EU competition law in arbitration. It focuses on the procedural law aspects that are permeated by legal uncertainty and that have not yet fallen under the scrutiny of the law and economics debate. The policy proposals described herein are based on the functional approach to law and economics and aim to promote a more qualified decision making process by: adjudicators, private parties and lawmakers. The resulting framework of procedural rules would be a cost-effective policy tool that could sustain the European Commission’s effort to guarantee a workable level of competition in the EU internal market. This project aims to answer the following broad research question: which procedural rules can improve the efficiency of antitrust arbitration by decreasing litigation costs for private parties on the one hand, and by increasing private parties’ compliance with competition law on the other hand?Throughout this research project, such broad question has been developed into research sub-questions revolving around several key legal issues. The chosen sub-research questions result from a vacuum in the European enforcement system that leaves several key legal issues in antitrust arbitration unresolved. The legal framework proposed in this research project could prevent such a blurry scenario from impairing the EU private enforcement of competition law in arbitration. Therefore, our attention was triggered by those legal issues whose proposed solutions lead to relevant uncertainties and that are most suitable for a law and economics analysis.

The abuse of intellectual property rights and regulations in China: a law and economic analysis

From the institutional point of view, the legal system of IPR (intellectual property right, hereafter, IPR) is one of incentive institutions of innovation and it plays very important role in the development of economy. According to the law, the owner of the IPR enjoy a kind of exclusive right to use his IP(intellectual property, hereafter, IP), in other words, he enjoys a kind of legal monopoly position in the market. How to well protect the IPR and at the same time to regulate the abuse of IPR is very interested topic in this knowledge-orientated market and it is the basic research question in this dissertation. In this paper, by way of comparing study and by way of law and economic analyses, and based on the Austrian Economics School’s theories, the writer claims that there is no any contradiction between the IPR and competition law. However, in this new economy (high-technology industries), there is really probability of the owner of IPR to abuse his dominant position. And with the characteristics of the new economy, such as, the high rates of innovation, “instant scalability”, network externality and lock-in effects, the IPR “will vest the dominant undertakings with the power not just to monopolize the market but to shift such power from one market to another, to create strong barriers to enter and, in so doing, granting the perpetuation of such dominance for quite a long time.”1 Therefore, in order to keep the order of market, to vitalize the competition and innovation, and to benefit the customer, in EU and US, it is common ways to apply the competition law to regulate the IPR abuse. In Austrian Economic School perspective, especially the Schumpeterian theories, the innovation/competition/monopoly and entrepreneurship are inter-correlated, therefore, we should apply the dynamic antitrust model based on the AES theories to analysis the relationship between the IPR and competition law. China is still a developing country with relative not so high ability of innovation. Therefore, at present, to protect the IPR and to make good use of the incentive mechanism of IPR legal system is the first important task for Chinese government to do. However, according to the investigation reports,2 based on their IPR advantage and capital advantage, some multinational companies really obtained the dominant or monopoly market position in some aspects of some industries, and there are some IPR abuses conducted by such multinational companies. And then, the Chinese government should be paying close attention to regulate any IPR abuse. However, how to effectively regulate the IPR abuse by way of competition law in Chinese situation, from the law and economic theories’ perspective, from the legislation perspective, and from the judicial practice perspective, there is a long way for China to go!

La protezione dei diritti sociali nell'ordinamento dell'Unione Europea

This study deals with the protection of social rights in Europe and aims to outline the position currently held by these rights in the EU law. The first two chapters provide an overview of the regulatory framework in which the social rights lie, through the reorganisation of international sources. In particular the international instruments of protection of social rights are taken into account, both at the universal level, due to the activity of the United Nations Organisation and of its specialized agency, the International Labour Organization, and at a regional level, related to the activity of the Council of Europe. Finally an analysis of sources concludes with the reconstruction of the stages of the recognition of social rights in the EU. The second chapter describes the path followed by social rights in the EU: it examines the founding Treaties and subsequent amendments, the Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers of 1989 and, in particularly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the legal status of which was recently treated as the primary law by the Treaty of Lisbon signed in December 2007. The third chapter is, then, focused on the analysis of the substantive aspects of the recognition of the rights made by the EU: it provides a framework of the content and scope of the rights accepted in the Community law by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is an important contribution to the location of the social rights among the fundamental and indivisible rights of the person. In the last section of the work, attention is focused on the two profiles of effectiveness and justiciability of social rights, in order to understand the practical implications of the gradual creation of a system of protection of these rights at Community level. Under the first profile, the discussion is focused on the effectiveness in the general context of the mechanisms of implementation of the “second generation” rights, with particular attention to the new instruments and actors of social Europe and the effect of the procedures of soft law. Second part of chapter four, finally, deals with the judicial protection of rights in question. The limits of the jurisprudence of the European Union Court of Justice are more obvious exactly in the field of social rights, due to the gap between social rights and other fundamental rights. While, in fact, the Community Court ensures the maximum level of protection to human rights and fundamental freedoms, social rights are often degraded into mere aspirations of EU institutions and its Member States. That is, the sources in the social field (European Social Charter and Community Charter) represent only the base for interpretation and application of social provisions of secondary legislation, unlike the ECHR, which is considered by the Court part of Community law. Moreover, the Court of Justice is in the middle of the difficult comparison between social values and market rules, of which it considers the need to make a balance: despite hesitancy to recognise the juridical character of social rights, the need of protection of social interests has justified, indeed, certain restrictions to the free movement of goods, freedom to provide services or to Community competition law. The road towards the recognition and the full protection of social rights in the European Union law appears, however, still long and hard, as shown by the recent judgments Laval and Viking, in which the Community court, while enhancing the Nice Charter, has not given priority to fundamental social rights, giving them the role of limits (proportionate and justified) of economic freedoms.

Reti transeuropee e servizi nei settori dell'energia, delle telecomunicazioni e dei trasporti

Le reti transeuropee sono uno dei vettori della competitività, dell’integrazione e dello sviluppo sostenibile dell’Unione. La tesi mette in luce la progressiva affermazione di una coerente politica infrastrutturale europea a carattere strumentale, esaminando tale evoluzione sotto tre profili: normativo, istituzionale e finanziario. In primo luogo, sotto il profilo normativo, la tesi evidenzia, da un lato, la progressiva emancipazione delle istituzioni dell’Unione dall’influenza degli Stati membri nell’esercizio delle proprie competenze in materia di reti transeuropee e, dall’altro, lo sviluppo di relazioni di complementarietà e specialità tra la politica di reti e altre politiche dell’Unione. L’elaborato sottolinea, in secondo luogo, sotto il profilo istituzionale, il ruolo del processo di «integrazione organica» dei regolatori nazionali e del processo di «agenzificazione» nel perseguimento degli obiettivi di interconnessione e accesso alle reti nazionali. La tesi osserva, infine, sotto il profilo finanziario, l’accresciuta importanza del sostegno finanziario dell’UE alla costituzione delle reti, che si è accompagnata al parziale superamento dei limiti derivanti dal diritto dell’UE alla politiche di spesa pubblica infrastrutturale degli Stati membri. Da un lato rispetto al diritto della concorrenza e, in particolare, al divieto di aiuti di stato, grazie al rapporto funzionale tra reti e prestazione di servizi di interesse economico generale, e dall’altro lato riguardo ai vincoli di bilancio, attraverso un’interpretazione evolutiva della cd. investment clause del Patto di stabilità e crescita. La tesi, in conclusione, rileva gli sviluppi decisivi della politica di reti europea, ma sottolinea il ruolo che gli Stati membri sono destinati a continuare ad esercitare nel suo sviluppo. Da questi ultimi, infatti, dipende la concreta attuazione di tale politica, ma anche il definitivo superamento, in occasione di una prossima revisione dei Trattati, dei retaggi intergovernativi che continuano a caratterizzare il diritto primario in materia.

Regulating State Aid: Inter-jurisdictional competition, public choice, and corporate governance

Depending on the regulatory regime they are subject to, governments may or may not be allowed to hand out state aid to private firms. The economic justification for state aid can address several issues present in the competition for capital and the competition for transfers from the state. First, there are principal-agent problems involved at several stages. Self-interested politicians might enter state aid deals that are the result of extensive rent-seeking activities of organized interest groups. Thus the institutional design of political systems will have an effect on the propensity of a jurisdiction to award state aid. Secondly, fierce competition for firm locations can lead to over-spending. This effect is stronger if the politicians do not take into account the entirety of the costs created by their participation in the firm location race. Thirdly, state aid deals can be incomplete and not in the interest of the citizens. This applies if there are no sanctions if firms do not meet their obligations from receiving aid, such as creating a certain number of jobs or not relocating again for a certain amount of time. The separation of ownership and control in modern corporations leads to principal-agent problems on the side of the aid recipient as well. Managers might receive personal benefits from subsidies, the use of which is sometimes less monitored than private finance. This can eventually be to the detriment of the shareholders. Overall, it can be concluded that state aid control should also serve the purpose of regulating the contracting between governments and firms. An extended mandate for supervision by the European Commission could include requirements to disincentive the misuse of state aid. The Commission should also focus on the corporate governance regime in place in the jurisdiction that awards the aid as well as in the recipient firm.