'Today’s Softness is Tomorrow’s Nightmare’::Intensifying the Fight against Cartels in Brussels and Bonn

The pursuit of hard-core cartel activity represents the core aspect of modern antitrust. Since the late 1990s, increased recognition of dangers posed by cartelization has led European competition regulators to initiate organizational changes and to modernize procedures and practice to combat cartels. However, has policy toward hard-core cartels softened in a harsher economic environment from late 2008? This article provides a comparative examination of the approach towards cartels by the European Commission and, at the national level, by the German Bundeskartellamt. It argues that, on current evidence, any doubts about how far the heightened anti-cartel drive could be sustained in the economic downturn post 2008 should be put aside. While some adjustments to fines have been made to take into account inability to pay in exceptional circumstances, no special provisions have been introduced to allow crisis cartels and it appears that the legislation continues to be interpreted strictly by the competition authorities as before.

Export Cartels: Is it Legal to Target your Neighbour? Analysis in Light of Recent Case Law

Despite the growing sophistication of antitrust regimes around the world, export cartels benefit from special treatment: they are almost universally tolerated, if not encouraged in the countries of origin. Economists do not offer an unambiguous policy recommendation on how to deal with them in part due to the lack of empirical data. This article discusses arguments for and against export cartels and it identifies the existing gaps in the present regulatory framework. The theoretical part is followed by an analysis of the recent case law: a US cartel challenged with different outcomes in India and South Africa, as well as Chinese export cartels pursued in the USA. The Chinese cases are particularly topical as the conduct at stake, apart from being subject to private antitrust actions before US courts, was also challenged within the WTO dispute settlement framework, pointing out to the existing interface between trade and competition. While the recent developments prove that unaddressed issues tend not to vanish, the new South-North dimension has the potential of placing export cartels again on the international agenda. Pragmatic thinking suggests looking for the solution within the WTO framework.

Inter-Agency Evidence Sharing in Competition Law Enforcement

While transnational antitrust enforcement is becoming only more common, the access to foreign-based evidence remains a considerable practical challenge. This article appraises considerations and concerns surrounding confidentiality, and looks into ways of their possible accommodation. It further identifies and critically evaluates the existing mechanisms allowing for inter-agency confidential information/ evidence sharing in competition law enforcement. The article outlines the shortcomings of the current framework and points to novel unilateral approaches. In the latter regard the focus is devoted to Australia, where the competition agency is empowered to share confidential information with foreign counterparts, also without any underlying bilateral agreement and on a non-reciprocal basis. This solution shows that a pragmatic and workable approach to inter-agency evidence sharing can be achieved.

On convergence with hiccups: recent amendments to Poland's competition law

Discusses the amendments to the Polish Competition Act 2007 adopted in June 2014 which aim to enhance the effectiveness of antitrust enforcement, including the introduction of: (1) civil fines for individuals; (2) a "leniency plus" programme based on the US model; (3) a settlement procedure; and (4) extended inspection powers for the Competition Authority. Assesses the likely effectiveness of the reforms.

Leniency (Amnesty) Plus: A Building Block or a Trojan Horse?

Leniency (amnesty) plus is one of the tools used in the fight against anticompetitive agreements. It allows a cartelist who did not manage to secure complete immunity under general leniency, to secure an additional reduction of sanctions in exchange for cooperation with the authorities with respect to operation of another prohibited agreement on an unrelated market. The instrument was developed in the United States and, in recent years, it was introduced in a number of jurisdictions. This article contextualises the operation of and rationale behind leniency plus, forewarning about its potential procollusive effects and the possibility of its strategic (mis)use by cartelists. It discusses theoretical, moral, and systemic (deterrence-related) problems surrounding this tool. It also provides a comparison of leniency plus in eleven jurisdictions, identifying common design flaws. This piece argues that leniency plus tends to be a problematic and poorly transplanted US legal innovation. Policy-makers considering its introduction should analyse it in light of institutional limits and local realities. Some of the regimes which already introduced it would be better off abandoning it.

On Extraterritoriality and the Gazprom case

In September 2012 the European Commission opened a formal investigation of Gazprom’s business practices in the EU. The Gazprom investigation raises a number of questions. One of them is the issue of jurisdiction—whether EU competition law applies to Gazprom, a foreign company. A day after the opening of the proceeding, in a press note and alongside other issues, Gazprom raised the question of jurisdiction, noting that it complies with laws of the countries in which it operates and that is it ‘registered outside the jurisdiction of the EU’. This statement, possibly, prompted some commentators to consider the applicability of EU law in this case.
In a piece in the ECLR, entitled ‘Iron Curtain at the border: Gazprom and the Russian blocking order to prevent the extraterritoriality of EU competition law’, Sean Morris offered his views on some of the aspects of the Gazprom case, including the issue of jurisdiction. Morris discussed also the blocking Order issued by the Russian President in response to the European Commission’s investigation, and its possible effects in the Gazprom case.
This article seeks to add a few important and relevant issues of law relating to extraterritoriality and the reach of EU law generally and in particular— in the context of the Gazprom investigation and in the light of the Morris article. This piece also sheds some light on the considerations which might have informed Russia’s hastily enactment of the Blocking Order.

How high (and far) can you go? On setting fines in cartel cases involving vertically-integrated undertakings and foreign sales

How to Measure the Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy: Frequency or Composition?

We show that the number of merger proposals (frequency-based deterrence) is a more appropriate indicator of underlying changes in merger policy than the relative anti-competitiveness of merger proposals (composition-based deterrence). This has strong implications for the empirical analysis of the deterrence effects of merger policy enforcement, and potential implications regarding how to reduce anti-competitive merger proposals.

Trade Liberalization and the Profitability of Domestic Mergers.

It is often thought that a tariff reduction, by opening up the domestic market to foreign firms, should lessen the need for a policy aimed at discouraging domestic mergers. This implicitly assumes that the tariff in question is sufficiently high to prevent foreign firms from selling in the domestic market. However, not all tariffs are prohibitive, so that foreign firms may be present in the domestic market before it is abolished. Furthermore, even if the tariff is prohibitive, a merger of domestic firms may render it nonprohibitive, thus inviting foreign firms to penetrate the domestic market. In this paper, we show, using a simple example, that in the latter two cases, abolishing the tariff may in fact make the domestic merger more profitable. Hence, trade liberalization will not necessarily reduce the profitability of domestic mergers.

Bundling under the Threat of Parallel Trade

This paper examines the use of bundling by a firm that sells in two national markets and faces entry by parallel traders. The firm can bundle its main product, - a tradable good- with a non-traded service. It chooses between the strategies of pure bundling, mixed bundling and no bundling. The paper shows that in the low-price country the threat of grey trade elicits a move from mixed bundling, or no bundling, towards pure bundling. It encourages a move from pure bundling towards mixes bundling or no bundling in the high-price country. The set of parameter values for which the profit maximizing strategy is not to supply the low price country is smaller than in the absence of bundling. The welfare effects of deterrence of grey trade are not those found in conventional models of price arbitrage. Some consumers in the low-price country may gain from the threat of entry by parallel traders although they pay a higher price. This is due to the fact that the firm responds to the threat of arbitrageurs by increasing the amount of services it puts in the bundle targeted at consumers in that country. Similarly, the threat of parallel trade may affect some consumers in the hight-price country adversely.

Patent pools and competition law : an examination of the enforcement strategies of competition authorities

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de maîtrise en droit, option recherche"

Vida y muerte empresarial. Estudios empíricos de perdurabilidad : proyecto : empresas saludables. Caso : hamburguesas El Corral

Este Proyecto analiza los factores determinantes que hacen que Hamburguesas El Corral haya sido una idea empresarial exitosa y duradera en el tiempo. Se basa en un modelo de perdurabilidad de la Universidad del Rosario, compuesto por 13 elementos y se complementa con unos lineamientos transversales de investigación de la Facultad de Administración, en liderazgo y gerencia.

Estado del arte acerca de las discusiones teóricas sobre soberanía del estado y la unión monetaria europea entre 2002 - 2010. Caso: El Reino Unido

El siguiente trabajo tiene como objetivo el Estado del arte acerca de la discusión teórica de la repercusión de la unión monetaria en el principio de soberanía nacional, específicamente el caso de Gran Bretaña, ya que éste es el único país que expresa abiertamente su incertidumbre referente a algún tipo de amenaza a su soberanía. Se pretende precisar si existen criterios concluyentes, o por el contrario determinar si no hay claridad con respecto al futuro de Gran Bretaña como miembro de la unión monetaria.A partir de lo anterior, se plantean como sus propósitos particulares construir un marco conceptual acerca de la soberanía. Este estado del arte se inicia con citas de los principales autores de finales de siglo XVII y XVIII y finaliza con las posiciones conceptuales aportadas por los teóricos modernos motivados por el nacimiento de la Unión Europea como un nuevo orden político. Entre las que se citan: modelo centrico o intergubernamentalista, modelo de gobernabilidad multi-nivel, modelo neo-funcionalista y modelo federalista. Igualmente, el trabajo, busca desarrollar un marco conceptual sobre Unión Monetaria y su evolución hasta el logro de una unión fiscal europea en el periodo de 1950-2010, establecer las relaciones teóricas entre Soberanía del Estado y Unión Monetaria y por último realizar un análisis histórico hermenéutico de la Unión Europea y el caso del Reino Unido de acuerdo a las relaciones evidenciadas en los apartados teóricos entre soberanía del Estado y Unión Monetaria.