Outlook: Discussion of Reform Proposals
01 Jan 2020-pp 517-559
TL;DR: In this article, the authors defend the Commission's use of commitment decisions, arguing that the recourse to the Article 9 instead of the Article 7 procedure entails only a modest relaxation of the link between harm and remedy and of the procedural safeguards; it entails also a modest negative impact on legal certainty.
Abstract: So far, the present study has argued that most of the criticism that is levelled at the Commission’s use of commitment decisions is not justified. In the view defended here, the recourse to the Article 9 instead of the Article 7 procedure entails only a modest relaxation of the link between harm and remedy and of the procedural safeguards; it entails also only a modest negative impact on legal certainty. It is submitted that these modest shortcomings are, from an abstract point of view, acceptable in view of the consensual nature of commitments and of their underlying goal of procedural economy. This conclusion applies without prejudice to the necessity to balance the respective costs and benefits of Article 7 and Article 9 in each individual case according to the circumstances of the case at hand.
Citations
More filters
[...]
TL;DR: The 2011 proposal of the European Court of Justice aiming to increase the number of judges of the General Court has mutated after four years into a complete change of the EU judicial system.
Abstract: The 2011 proposal of the European Court of Justice aiming to increase the number of judges of the General Court has mutated after four years into a complete change of the EU judicial system. This long legislative debate was the first implementation of the Lisbon Treaty in the judicial domain. It has revealed different problems – formal and substantial – of the approach of public service reform in the European institutions.
References
More filters
Journal Article•
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the ability of the current EU competition law remedies to achieve effective enforcement, measured against the key parameters termination, compensation, restoration and deterrence, and identified several shortcomings, both with regard to the development of specific remedies and coordination between different forms of remedies.
Abstract: This article discusses current EU Competition law remedies in light of the key parameters termination, compensation, restoration and deterrence. Both public remedies available under Regulation No 1 and private remedies under national law are examined. A first aim is to test the ability of the current body of remedies to achieve effective enforcement, measured against the aforementioned parameters. A second aim is to examine whether there are tensions between different forms of remedies and their respective functions which may impact adversely on effective competition law enforcement. The article identifies several shortcomings, both with regard to the development of specific remedies and coordination between different forms of remedies. It is argued that Article 7 decisions may fill a flexible and prospective function, and that these aspects remain under-developed, partly because of the increased use of Article 9 commitment decisions. Moreover, the author points to a pressing need for better coordination between remedies with different functions. It is particularly argued that private enforcement should be more limited than currently reflected in the ECJ case law, and that it should be better integrated with public enforcement.
11 citations
Journal Article•
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the evolution of commitment decisions, analyzes the logic and consequences of the Alrosa Court judgment, and offers some suggestions on how to establish a better equilibrium between the legitimate objective of promoting the effectiveness of the Commission by allowing it enough flexibility to end cases when competition could be restored rapidly and without major expense thanks to the cooperation of investigated firms, while respecting the necessity to ensure that enforcement remains compatible with three goals: developing a robust competition law jurisprudence to ensure legal predictability, particularly in abuse of dominance cases; ensuring that chosen remedies are not only the most
Abstract: This Article details the evolution of the commitment decisions, analyzes the logic and the consequences of the Alrosa Court judgment, and offers some suggestions on how to establish a better equilibrium between the legitimate objective of promoting the effectiveness of the Commission by allowing it enough flexibility to end cases when competition could be restored rapidly and without major expense thanks to the cooperation of investigated firms, while respecting the necessity to ensure that the effectiveness of enforcement remains compatible with three goals: developing a robust competition law jurisprudence to ensure legal predictability, particularly in abuse of dominance cases; ensuring that chosen remedies are not only the most effective to solve a case but also the most efficient way to restore competition on the affected markets; and offering investigated firms willing to cooperate with the Commission an adequate level of procedural rights.
11 citations
[...]
01 Nov 2011
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present an examination of the present procedures of the European Commission in competition cases under Regulation 1/2003 and find that the existing safeguards for due process are not sufficient and explain why reform is urgently needed.
Abstract: Following an examination of the present procedures of the European Commission in competition cases under Regulation 1/2003, this paper finds that the existing safeguards for due process are not sufficient and explains why reform is urgently needed. Three possible radical solutions are outlined: 1) setting up a decision-making body within the Commission, 2) setting up a separate European competition authority and 3) making the Commission a “prosecutor” bringing competition cases before the General Court, which would adopt the first legally binding decisions.
9 citations
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed a settlement procedure for the enforcement of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which allows the parties to admit the existence of an infringement of Article 101 and their liability for it.
Abstract: The settlement procedure was introduced in EU competition law rules with the adoption of the Commission Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in 2008. The instrument allows the settlement of a cartel case whereby the parties to the proceeding acknowledge the existence of an infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), as well as their liability for it. In turn, they benefit from a 10% reduction of their fine, after any application of the Leniency Notice. The instrument was designed to speed up the proceedings leading to the adoption of a decision. The final decision presents all the usual characteristic of a ‘ceaseand-desist’ and a prohibition decision under Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation 1/2003. From a public enforcement point of view, the instrument allows to gain procedural efficiencies and to shorten the proceedings in cases where the Commission has solid evidence of an infringement, and thus to free resources. This in turn allows the Commission to deal with more cartel cases more quickly, while ensuring the necessary remedies and deterrence effect.
8 citations
Related Papers (5)
[...]
[...]
[...]