No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The European Community's Influence on the Development of the Spanish Competition Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
Abstract
The aim of this article is to analyse the influence of the European Community on the shaping of the Spanish Competition court (Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia). The analysis gives particular emphasis to the influence exerted on the evolution of the Spanish Competition authorities which are due to statements made by the Commission and the European Court of Justice concerning the organisation and efficacy of the Spanish Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 833 - 855
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press and the Authors 2002
References
1 See Garrigues, J., La defensa de la competencia mercantil (Madrid 1964) p. 9Google Scholar. Some would see in the host of dispositions stretching as far back as 1566 the seeds of Competition law, see Allende, R. Mendizábal, “El Tribunal de defensa de la competencia”, 22 Revista de Derecho Judicial (1965) 57Google Scholar and A. Carretero, Perez, “Comentarios a la Ley de 20 de julio de 1963 sobre represión de prácticas restrictivas de la competencia”, Revista de Derecho Administrativo y Fiscal (1964) 366..Google Scholar
2 Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia, La libre competencia en España. Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia 1986/1988 (Madrid 1989) p. 9.Google Scholar
3 In the previous Century, the 1950s were the heyday of monopolies in Spain. The conditions were perfect: exceedingly high levels of protection, strong state intervention, defence of production come what may, growth, industrialisation and inflation. This inflation was both cause and effect of monopoly – its effect, because monopoly generates high prices; its cause, because inflation increases inflexibility of demand. After ten years of accelerating growth, at the end of the 1950s the Spanish economy was in a cul-de-sac. Growth and industrialisation had taken place within a framework of controls and interventions which in reality only served to hamper development and which the Stabilisation Plan of 1959 was devised to eliminate. The increasing liberalisation of the Spanish economy, which got under way in the same year, led to its complete transformation. It was so radically industrialised and technified that, if any period were to be labelled “the Spanish Industrial Revolution”, the period most fitting this term would be the 1960s, see Tortella, G., El desarrollo de la España contemporánea. Historia económica de los sighs XIX y XX (Madrid 1998) pp. 279 et seq.Google Scholar
4 See Cases, Ll., Derecho administrativo de la defensa de la competencia (Madrid 1995) p. 220.Google Scholar
5 See Garrigues, supra n. 1, at 38.
6 See F. Sanchez, Calero, “El Proyecto de Ley de Represión de las Prácticas Comerciales Restrictivas de la Competencia”, 88 Revista de Derecho Mercantil (1963) 308.Google Scholar
7 For more information, see Cases, supra n. 4, at 232 et seq.
8 See infra sect. 2.2.2.
9 LRPRC, Art. 13.
10 LPPRC, Art. 29. For a detailed analysis of this article, see de la Cuesta Rute, J.M., “Comentario al artículo 29 del Reglamento del Servicio de Defensa de la Competencia”, 119 Revista de Derecho Mercantil (1971) pp. 117 et seq.Google Scholar
11 Explanatory Memorandum of the LPPRC.
12 LRPRC, Art. 15.
13 LRPRC, Art. 27.
14 LRPRC, Arts. 25 and 26.
15 LRPRC, Art. 15.
16 LRPRC, Art. 15
17 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 252.
18 See M. Baena, del Alcázar, Régimen jurídico de la interventión administrativa en la economía (Madrid 1966) p. 210.Google Scholar
19 Firstly, it had faculties to demand certain information of both the Administration and undertakings and consumers. Secondly, it was able to order the performance of investigations by technicians and experts to assist in the decision regarding the proceeding. Thirdly, it could summon to make a statement anyone who was in some way related to the restrictive practice in question. Fourthly, it could commend to civil servants the gathering of evidence, to which end they were conferred the same faculties the law assigned to the tax inspectorate.
20 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 256 and 257.
21 See Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia, supra n. 2, at 11.
22 See F. Martinez-Burgos, Escudero, “Las actuaciones del Servicio de Defensa de la Competencia en relatión con las Comunidades Europeas”, 55 Gaceta Jurídica de la CEE (1988) p. 8.Google Scholar
23 See Broseta, M., “La legge spagnola sulla repressione delle pratiche restrittive della concorrenza”, 1 Rivista di diritto industriale (1973) p. 344Google Scholar
24 See Del Rey, J.M., “La participación española en la política de la competencia de la CEE”, 75 Noticias CEE (1991) p. 82.Google Scholar
25 See Font, J.I., Constitución económica y Derecho de la Competencia (Madrid 1987) pp. 166 et seq.Google Scholar
26 See Rosignoli, J.A., “Hacia una nueva aproximación al Derecho de la Competencia en España”, 650 Información Comercial Española (1987) 17.Google Scholar
27 See Franco García, J.M., “La reforma de la legislación mercantil (Derecho de la Competencia y Derecho de Sociedades)”, 193-194Revista de Derecho Mercantil (1989) 843.Google Scholar
28 Since it was passed, this law has undergone various modifications. The most significant were introduced by Law 52/1999, of 28 December 1999, reforming Law 16/1989, of 17 July, of Defence of Competition (BOE n. 311, 29 December).
29 Royal Decree 689/2000, of 12 may, por el que se establece la estructura orgánica tásica de los Ministerios de Economiá y Hacienda, Art. 1 (BOE n. 115, of 13 may; correction of mi stakes in n. 118. of 17 May 2000 and in n. 125, of 25 May 2000).
30 LDC, Art. 21.
31 LDC, Art. 22.
32 LDC, Art. 31.
33 Royal Decree 689/2000, of 12 May, por el que se establece la estructura orgánica básica de los Ministerios de Economía y Hacienda, Art. 1 (BOE n. 115, of 13 may; correction of mistakes in n. 118. of 17 May 2000 and in n. 125, of 25 May 2000).
34 Explanatory Memorandum of the LDC, sixth paragraph.
35 See Berenguer, L., “Los derechos de defensa en los procedimientos en materia de competencia. Derecho español y comunitario”, D-27 Gaceta jurídica de la C.E. y de la competencia (1997) 79 et seq.Google Scholar
36 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 333.
37 LDC, Art. 36.1.
38 See Suay, J., “La discutible vigencia de los principios de imparcialidad y de contradicción en el procedimiento administrativo sancionador”, 123 Revista de Administración Pública (1990) 178.Google Scholar
39 LDC, Arts. 47 and 48.2.
40 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 315–316.
41 LDC, Art. 37.
42 LDC, Art. 33.
43 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 317–318.
44 Ibid, pp. 318–322.
45 LDC, Art. 37.3.
46 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 330.
47 LDC, Art. 39.
48 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 332.
49 LDC, Art. 40.4.
50 LDC, Art. 40.3.
51 Constitutional Court Sentence 150/1987, of 1 October 1987.
52 Judgement of the Court of First Instance, of 24 October 1991, case T-1/89, Rhône-Poulenc, fund., 170.
53 LDC, Arts. 42 and 43.
54 Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Audiencia Nacional (LDC, Art. 49)
55 LDC, Art.46.
56 LDC, Art. 10.2.
57 LDC, Art. 10.3.
58 LDC, Art. 46.5.
59 LDC, Art. 45.
60 LDC, Art. 38.
61 BOE, n. 16, of 18 January 2002.
62 LDC, Art. 14.
63 Royal Decree 1143/2001, Art. 8.
64 LDC, Art. 14.
65 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 373 et seq.
66 See Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia, Memoria 1992 (Madrid 1993) p. 64.Google Scholar
67 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 380.
68 Explanatory Memorandum of the LDC, fifth paragraph.
69 See Galán, E., “La reforma del Reglamento del Servicio de Defensa de la Competencia”, 130 Revista de Derecho Mercantil (1973) 533.Google Scholar
70 See Villar y Romero, J.M., “El Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia: Jurisdicción y procedimiento”, 47 Revista de Administración Pública (1985) 384–385.Google Scholar
71 See Petitbò, A./Berenguer, L., “La aplicación del Derecho de la competencia por órganos jurisdiccionales y administrativos”, in Anuario de la Competencia 1998 (Madrid 1999) p. 29.Google Scholar
72 LRPRC, Art. 7.
73 See J. Garrigues, supra n. 1, at 112.
74 See Carretero, A., “Comentarios a la Ley de 20 de julio de 1963 sobre represión de prácticas restrictivas a la competencia”, Revista de Derecho Administrativo y Fiscal (1964) 383Google Scholar
75 High Court Sentence, of 24 December 1965.
76 See Soriano, J.E., Derecho público de la competencia (Madrid 1998) p. 301.Google Scholar
77 See J. Garrigues, supra n. 1, at 109–110.
78 See. Baltar, J.F., Las Juntas de Gobierno en la Monarquía Hispánica (Siglos XVI-XVII) (Madrid 1998) p. 164.Google Scholar
79 See R. Mendizábal, supra n. 1, at 95 et seq.
80 J.M. Villar, supra n. 70, at 386.
81 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 247.
82 See Soriano, supra n. 76, at 302.
83 Judgement of the Court of 16 July 1992, Case C-67/91 Dirección General de Defensa de la Competencia v. Asociación Española de Banca Privada (AEB) and Others (1991) ECR I-4785.
84 Judgement of the Court of 30 June 1966, Case 61/65 Vaasen-Göbbels (1966) ECR p. 377.
85 See European, Commission, Report on the Implementation of the 1999 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, n. 1 (2000) p. 91Google Scholar; European, Commission, Report on the Implementation of the 2000 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, n. 2 (2001) p. 73.Google Scholar
86 See Soriano, supra n. 76, at 307.
87 See Parada, R., Derecho administrativo, vol. II (Madrid 2000) pp. 306 and 314Google Scholar; also García Llovet, E., “Autoridades administrativas independientes y Estado de derecho”, 131 Revista de Administración Pública (1993) 88–89.Google Scholar
88 See Salvador, M., Las autoridades independientes. Un estudio de Derecho comparado (Barcelona 2002) p. 29.Google Scholar
89 See Cases, supra n. 4, at 402.
90 BOE, of 31 December 2001.
91 See Clavero, M.F., “Personalidad jurídica, Derecho general y Derecho singular en las administraciones autónomas”, 58 Documentación administrativa (1958) 13 et seq.Google Scholar
92 See E. García de Enterría/T.R. Fernández, Rodríguez, Curso de Derecho Administrativo, vol. I (Madrid 2000) p. 399.Google Scholar