A Comparative Look on Foreign State Compulsion as a Defence in Antitrust Litigation

This paper presents and investigates the foreign state compulsion as a defence in transnational antitrust cases. It takes a comparative approach by looking at the doctrine and its developments in the United States and in the European Union. To illustrate the relevance of the defence and the difficulties of its applicability, this paper analyses the new antitrust case law emerging in the US involving Chinese export cartels. It is argued that at present the standard required to prove compulsion is too high to serve its function.

Editorial–Both Sides Now

Competition law is fun. As a noted expert consultant told one of us:'Don't tell my spouse, but I'd work on these cases for the sheer joy of it.'The facts, the issues, the window into economies and legal systems--it does not get much better than this. Not surprisingly,
then, competition law academic seminars are also fun. At their best, they present opportunities for energized students to engage with scholars and wrestle with cutting edge issues in this particularly interesting field.

The Irish High Court Issues its First Order on a Commitment Agreement between the NCA and an Undertaking (Fitflop)

The Irish Competition (Amendment) Act 2012 introduced court-endorsed commitment agreements to Irish competition law. The new section 14B of the principal Competition Act 2002 provides for making commitment agreements between the Irish Competition and undertakings an order of the Irish High Court. This piece, first, investigates the prior Irish practice regarding commitment or settlement agreements and its legal basis. It looks then into the newly introduced rules on court-endorsed commitment agreements. Finally, before concluding, it points to the first instance of their application — to an order issued by the High Court in the FitFlop case in December 2012, which came into effect in February 2013.

Avoidance Techniques: State Related Defences in International Antitrust Cases

Despite its economic significance, competition law still remains fragmented, lacking an international framework allowing for dispute settlement. This, together with the growing importance of non-free-market economies in world trade require us to re-consider and re-evaluate the possibilities of bringing an antitrust suit against a foreign state. If the level playing field on the global marketplace is to be achieved, the possibility of hiding behind the bulwark of state sovereignty should be minimised. States should not be free to act in an anti-competitive way, but at present the legal framework seems ill-equipped to handle such challenges.

This paper deals with the defences available in litigation concerning transnational anti-competitive agreements involving or implicating foreign states. Four important legal doctrines are analysed: non-justiciability (political question doctrine), state immunity, act of state doctrine and foreign state compulsion. The paper addresses also the general problem of applicability of competition laws to a foreign state as such. This is a tale about repetitive unsuccessful efforts to sue OPEC and recent attempts in the US to deal with export cartels of Chinese state-owned enterprises

UK: general - UK enforcement.

Reports that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) began operations in "shadow form" on October 1, 2013 prior to it taking over the mandates of the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading in April 2014. Outlines the CMA's draft guidance, issued for consultation on September 17, 2013, on prosecutions for the cartel offence. Presents links to other CMA communications.

Legislation Blocking Antitrust Investigations and the September 2012 Russian Executive Order

This article offers a typology of so-called blocking legislation and analyses its development, functions and legality under international law. It also presents and discusses the new Russian blocking Order, issued in September 2012, focusing on its possible effects on the European Commission's investigation of Gazprom's business practices (in light of EU competition law) as well as, more broadly, on foreign operations of Russian strategic enterprises.

Crisis Cartels:Non-Economic Values, the Public Interest and Institutional Considerations

This paper considers the use of non-economic considerations in Article 101(3) analysis of industrial restructuring agreements, using the Commission's Decisions in Synthetic Fibres, Stichting Baksteen, and the recent UK Dairy Initiative as examples. I argue that contra to the Commission's recent economics-based approach; there is room for non-economic considerations to be taken into account within the framework of the European Treaties. The competition law issue is whether the provisions of Article 101(3) can save such agreements.
I further argue that there is legal room for non-economic considerations to be considered in evaluating these restructuring agreements, it is not clear who the appropriate arbiter of these considerations should be given the institutional limitations of courts (which have no democratic mandate), specialised competition agencies (which may be too technocratic in focus) and legislatures (which are susceptible to capture by rent-seeking interest groups).