Exam (elaborations)
Competition Law Revision Notes - Distinction
- Course
- Institution
I achieved a distinction with these revision notes for Competition Law at a Russell Group University.
[Show more]
1 review
By: yojna0405 • 4 year ago
Seller
Follow
lawnotesxo2
Reviews received
Content preview
INTRODUCTION *Link every point to Q facts + Q) is this a relevant fact?End paragraph on whether requirement was met / ask for more info
*Pick a side to essay Q
ARTICLE 101 TFEU “Prohibits agreements / decisions by associations of undertakings / concerted
practices which may affect trade between MSs + have as their object / effect the
prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition within the internal market”
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN UNDERTAKINGS
• Wide scope: Includes non-binding / oral / gentlemen agreements
Volkswagen
COMPETITION • Art 101 TFEU prohibits restrictive practices, which may harm competition within the EU - Manufacturer telephoned car dealers requiring them to comply w/ non-binding price recommendation
• Process of rivalry between firms in the marketplace b/c aim = make profit • We must consider the elements of Art 101(1) in order to determine whether a breach was established
• Competition requires free market economy ∴ freely enter/exit • We will prove “…“ will be automatically void under Art 101(2). However, X may rely on Art 101(3) / BER. ACF Chemiefarma
- Series of informal gentlemen’s agreement to market share for the Quinine cartel = agreement
Issues w/ competition ≠ best outcome for society • Achieves EU law aims: 1) Consumer welfare / economic efficiency: No price-fixing
• Natural monopolies: Economies of scale are so great that 1 firm serves the whole market = excludes rivals 2) Protect small / medium-sized firms: No disproportionate non-compete clauses • Meeting of the minds?
• Network effects: If ↑ customers use the good = ↑ value ∴ 1 firm dominates the market 3) Single market: No absolute territorial protection Bayer
o Direct: Telecommunications - If new subscriber, existing customers may contact ↑ people - B limited supply of pharmaceutical drug to French + Spanish distributors to prevent them from selling their
ARTICLE 101(1): PROHIBITION excess supply in UK
o Indirect: Software - If ↑ join, programmers will write new software = ↑ valuable to customers
o Two-sided market: Caters 2 or more groups 1) COLLUSION BETWEEN UNDERTAKINGS = interpreted broadly ∴ catches all agreements w/ harmful effects - CJEU: No concurrence of wills ≠ agreement
§ Newspapers: ↑ Readers = ↑ ability to sell advertising space UNDERTAKINGS
• Functional approach AEG Telefunken
• Inappropriate for particular sectors: Defence, agriculture, labour markets
Albany Höfner - Some distributors refused to accept AEG’s pricing policy ∴ AEG refused to contract w/ them
- Collective bargaining between unions + employers = outside Art 101 TFEU - Undertaking = “any entity engaged in an economic activity”, regardless of its funding / legal status - CJEU: AEG + existing distributors had tacit acceptance of this practice = agreement
∴ X + Y are undertakings involved in the provision of “…”
• Restricting competition = beneficial Ford
o Firms w/ low costs = at the expense of safety checks e.g. airlines - Ford’s right-hand-drive cars = cheaper in Germany > UK
• Doesn’t require profit motive / economic purpose
• Ethical issues: Cut-throat competition leads to insolvency = discredited FIFA - Ford notified German Ford dealers that right-hand-drive cars must be purchased from UK dealer
• Competitions should be won: Most innovative, respond to customer needs ∴ why condemn monopolists? - Despite no profit motive, FIFA engaged in an economic activity = undertaking - CJEU: Activity was part of ongoing relationship between Ford + its distributors = agreement
Perfect competition • Private bodies: Natural (artists, accountants) / legal persons (companies) Sandoz
• Infinite no of competing firms w/ homogenous goods, full info, no barriers = most efficient allocation of o NOT govt activities / public sector - Wrote “export prohibited” on all invoices ∴ continuing commercial relationship = agreement
economic resources
• Issues: Non-economic activities Complex cartels
o Unrealistic: Firms sell slightly differentiated goods + customer loyalty ∴ ↑P ≠ lose customers • Social activity may overshadow economic activity • If detailed arrangements / sub-agreements, Commission doesn’t need to establish exact level of participation by a
o Costs ≠ kept to a minimum b/c social costs, e.g. air pollution o But if economic activity prevails = undertaking for some of its activities cartel member b/c seen as a single overall agreement > looking at sub-agreements individually
FENIN o Even if firm only attended 1 meeting, but not all / involved in operation of agreement
Dynamic competition - Although SNS engaged in economic activity, they also provided free services + state-funded ∴ social Polypropylene
• Competition is a continuing process of innovation + technological advances ∴ firms should exploit this gain activity ≠ undertaking - Complex cartel arrangements = single overall agreement between 15 firms in petrochemical industry
- Proof of participation in overall agreement = all 15 were liable, despite some weren’t involved in every decision
COMPETITION LAW • Wouters: Activities linked w/ exercise of public powers ≠ economic activity
• Set of legal rules to protect competition from anti-competitive behaviour Eurocontrol Intention
o No obligation to compete - Collecting route charges = inseparable from other activities Tréfileurope
1) Firms have freedom to compete - As a whole, activities linked w/ performing public task of improving air navigation safety ≠ undertaking - If X doesn’t publicly distance itself from what was agreed = still liable for participating in cartel
2) Cannot constantly intervene in market - Other participants still believe X agreed + would comply w/ it
• Principle of solidarity: Social protection based on solidarity > economic activity
COMPETITION POLICY = Enforcing the rules o Pensions, social security, healthcare, insurance Westfalen
• Intervention ensures fair competition + prevents undesirable activities from being realised Poucet - “Public distancing” = write to competitors to not be part of cartel / participate in meetings > whistleblowing
• Workable competition: Only intervene if market failure - French body ran social security scheme based on national solidarity
∴ benefits ≠ proportionate to contributions ≠ undertaking DECISIONS BY ASSOCIATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS
o Invisible hand (market forces) fail to deal w/ issues arising in market b/c market power
VS. • Trade association that regulates activities of their members
SYSTEM OF COMPETITION LAW Federation Française • Wide scope: Includes recommendations, resolutions, regulations, code of conduct
• Competition body created regime where all 3 operates as a whole - Paid benefits in proportion to contributions + financial results of investments based on solidarity IAZ International
• Art 3(3) TEU: Aim = achieve a “highly competitive social market economy” economic activity = undertaking - Association of water supply undertakings issued non-binding recommendation to only connect washing
machines w/ conformity label supplied by them = decision by association of undertakings
Aims of EU law = consumer welfare, protect process of competition, market integration Profession
Economic goals Commission v Italy (1998) Wouters
• Maximise consumer welfare: ↓ Prices / ↑ choice / ↑ product quality - Members of profession, e.g. Italian custom agents = undertaking - Netherlands Bar issued regulation to prevent lawyers acting in partnership w/ accountants
• Economic efficiency - Every NL lawyer = undertaking, b/c their economic activity: NL Bar = association of undertakings
o Productive efficiency: Firm produces at lowest possible cost, e.g. outsourcing, innovation, Wouters ∴ regulation = decision by association of undertakings
technology, cheap materials - General Council of Dutch Bar exercised regulatory functions + exclusively appointed by members of
the Bar > state economic activity = undertaking CONCERTED PRACTICES
o Allocative efficiency: Lowest price consumers are willing to pay
§ Resources allocated so that no customers are better off w/o making others worse off • Hard to prove existence of anti-competitive agreements b/c firms operate in secret + destroy evidence ∴ Art 101(1)
Single Economic Entity à Q) Wholly-owned subsidiary? has a safety net
o Dynamic efficiency: Stimulates innovation / quality / R&D = LR consumer welfare
• If undertakings linked to form a single economic entity (parent-subsidiary) = Art 101 doesn’t apply • Commission may rely on circumstantial evidence: Coordinated action by competitors may suggest collusion
§ Galbraith: Only monopolists carry out expensive R&D ≠ correct o But agreement between independent undertakings = within Art 101 ICI (Dyestuffs)
• But perfect competition ≠ exist IRL ∴ strives for effective competition • Test of control: Q of degree - Leading producers had 3 simultaneous uniform increases in price of dyes = concerted practice
o Are parties to agreement independent in their decision-making / does parent company exercise - CJEU: Concerted practice = form of coordination between firms w/o reaching the level of an agreement, but
Social goals
decisive influence lacks real freedom in determining its own course of conduct on market? knowingly coordinate actions + cooperate > compete
• Protect consumers + small firms from exercise of market power
o E.g. Parent’s shareholding in subsidiary / parent controls board of directors / influences policy or
o But Darwin’s theory: Protecting inefficient firms ≠ consumer welfare ∴ weak should disappear +
issues instructions to subsidiary • Easier task: Only requires proof of participation, not that concerted practice restricted competition
strong remain
Viho Hüls
• Protect democratic principles - Test to prove concerted practice:
- Parker Pen sold stationary products via its subsidiaries, which refused to supply Viho
• Public interest / equity, e.g. redistribute wealth, protect jobs, South Africa protects “black empowerment” 1) Undertakings concerted w/ each other
- PP controlled their sales + marketing activities subsidiaries lacked control = single economic entity
Political goals 2) Common conduct on market
• Even if parent party to anti-competitive activity, parent company liable for its wholly-owned subsidiary 3) Causal connection between (1) + (2)
• Single market objective: Remove barriers to trade + ↑ free movement
AKZO
• Specific sectors in national economy 1) Undertakings concerted
- Cartel activity involved subsidiaries, but Akzo Nobel had 100% shareholding subsidiaries lacked control
INSTITUTIONS - Despite no personal involvement, Commission fined AN • Direct/indirect contact between firms
§ But may rebut if parent can prove subsidiary acts independently on the market Suiker Unie
• European Commission empowered to enforce law at EU level
o Takes actions against breaches, impose penalties, adopt BER, investigate mergers, develop policies - EU sugar producers only imported into Holland w/ permission of 4 Dutch producers = less pressure to compete
Corporate reorganisation - No need for actual plan, but mental consensus w/ practical cooperation knowingly substituted for competition
o Why? • When one entity succeeds another, both legal entities = treated as same undertaking ∴ rights + liabilities
1) Lacks confidence in national judges / firms will apply EU competition rules correctly/in good faith • Includes (single) meeting where members informed each other of their future commercial moves
passed to the successor
2) Experienced legal / economic experts ∴ better qualified > national bodies Compagnie T-Mobile
3) Centralization = in line w/ aims of original Treaty of Rome - Change in name + legal form ≠ create a new undertaking = remains liable - Despite no explicit agreement to ↑P, merely attending meeting where pricing plans are disclosed = liable
• General Court: Specialist court reviews Commission decisions
• European Union Court of Justice: Highest EU judicial body = interprets/applies EU competition law • PVC: Q) Functional + economic continuity between original infringer + undertaking into which it was merged? • Exchange of information between firms: e.g. recent economic crisis
• National courts: Apply directly applicable EU competition law Autoritá v ETI o Horizontal Guidelines (2011): If exchange of info ↓ “strategic uncertainty” in market ∴ facilitates collusion
- AAMS involved in cartel + transferred activities to ETI Italian competition authority imposed fine on ETI = concerted practice
Relationship between EU + national competition law
• Walt Wilhelm: If clashes, EU law prevails over national law Sells business to 3 rd party 2) Common conduct
• Shared competence to apply Art 101/102 between Commission + NCAs / national courts • If undertaking responsible for business still exists = remains liable for infringement > acquirer • Parallel conduct = strong evidence
• Recital 8 Regulation 1/2003: Create a “level playing field” Zinc Phosphate o But if market conditions explain parallel conduct / competitors unilaterally adapted themselves to existing +
o If agreement ≠ prohibited by EU law, national bodies cannot apply stricter national law - Undertaking breached Art 101, then disposed assets + left market = remains liable expected conduct of competitors ≠ concerted practice
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lawnotesxo2. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.30. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53068 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now