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.

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

Discovery and Evidence in Transnational Antitrust Cases: Current Framework and the Way Forward

This paper identifies and analyses the means of accessing and collecting foreign-based evidence in transnational antitrust cases. It makes an original contribution to the existing scholarship by critically addressing the available mechanisms of judicial cooperation, the possibility of reliance on domestic discovery in transnational context, as well as the existing instruments allowing for cooperation between antitrust agencies. It identifies the shortcomings of the current regulatory framework and points out to the existing good practices in those jurisdictions which provide their antitrust agencies with more leeway in sharing confidential information with foreign counterparts.

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.

Leniency programs, antitrust enforcement and multimarket contact : three essays in industrial organization

The Layout of My Thesis This thesis contains three chapters in Industrial Organization that build on the work outlined above. The first two chapters combine leniency programs with multimarket contact and provide a thorough analysis of the potential effects of Amnesty Plus and Penalty Plus. The third chapter puts the whole discussion on leniency programs into perspective by examining other enforcement tools available to an antitrust authority. The main argument in that last chapter is that a specific instrument can only be as effective as the policy in which it is embedded. It is therefore important for an antitrust authority to know how it best accompanies the introduction or modification of a policy instrument that helps deterrence. INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 examines the efféct of Amnesty Plus and Penalty Plus on the incentives of firms to report cartel activities. The main question is whether the inclusion of these policies in a leniency program undermine the effectiveness of the latter by discouraging the firms to apply for amnesty. The model is static and focus on the ex post incentives of firms to desist from collusion. The results suggest that, because Amnesty Plus and Penalty Plus encourage the reporting of a second cartel after a first detection, a firm, anticipating this, may be reluctant to seek leniency and to report in the first place. However, the effect may also go in the opposite direction, and Amnesty Plus and Penalty Plus may encourage the simultaneous reporting of two cartels. Chapter 2 takes this idea further to the stage of cartel formation. This chapter provides a complete characterization of the potential anticompetitive and procompetitive effects of Amnesty Plus in a infinitely repeated game framework when the firms use their multimarket contact to harshen punishment. I suggest a clear-cut policy rule that prevents potential adverse effects and thereby show that, if policy makers follow this rule, a leniency program with Amnesty Plus performs better than one without. Chapter 3 characterizes the socially optimal enforcement effort of an antitrust authority and shows how this effort changes with the introduction or modification of specific policy instruments. The intuition is that the policy instrument may increase the marginal benefit of conducting investigations. If this effect is strong enough, a more rigorous detection policy becomes socially desirable.

Le contrôle des pratiques anticoncurrentielles au sein des marchés de l'Union Européenne, des États-Unis et du Canada : perspectives d'un droit antitrust international

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit des affaires"

Commission v. Gazprom: The antitrust clash of the decade? CEPS Policy Brief No. 285, 31 October 2012

This new CEPS Policy Brief boldly asserts that the antitrust case launched by DG Competition against Gazprom on September 4th will turn out to be the landmark antitrust case of this decade, in much the same way that Microsoft v. Commission was the defining antitrust lawsuit of the last decade. The paper argues that, for a host of political and economic reasons, this case is likely to be hard fought by both sides to a final prohibition decision and then onwards into the EU courts. In the process, the European gas market and the powers of DG Competition in the energy field are likely to be transformed.