No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
European competition law has influenced many national competition law systems. One of them is Greek competition law, which is already 23 years old. The development of the Greek competition law system is quite distinctive. This article gives an overview of Greek competition law by stressing the influence of European competition law upon it.
1 Published in the Government Gazette (FEK) Vol. I No. 278 of 26.9.1977. For an English translation of an older version see Rokas, and Perakis, in: von Kalinowski, (ed.), World Law of Competition (New York: Bender 1989- looseleaf) Unit B, Vol. B7: Greece, Part 12, Appendix IIGoogle Scholar. Before the enactment of the Competition Act, restraints on competition were treated with the traditional instruments of civil law, like the principle of “bones mores” (Arts. 178 and 179 of the Greek Civil Code) and the law of unfair competition (Law 146/1914).
2 The Sherman Act was adopted in 1890. For a historical overview of the American competition rules see Scherer, , Competition Policies for an Integrated World Economy (Washington D.C.: Brookings Inst. 1994).Google Scholar
3 On the development of German competition law see Isay, and Tschierschky, , Kartellverordnung (Mannheim: Bensheimer 1925) passimGoogle Scholar; Emmerich, , Kartellrecht (München: Beck 1999) p. 13Google Scholar; Burkhardt, , Kartellrecht (München: Beck 1995) pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
4 The decisions of the Competition Authority can be appealed before the Administrative Court of first instance in Athens within 20 days from their notification to the parties. The highest Administrative Court in Greece, called “Symboulio tis Epikrateias”, is the court of last instance to adjudicate such cases.
5 For an extensive analysis of the historical evolution of Greek competition law see Papathoma-Baetge, , Das europäische Wettbewerbsrecht als Vorbild des griechischen Kartellrechts (München: Beck 2000) pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
6 Tzouganatos, , Zur Rezeption fremden Rechtsguts im Bereich des Wirtschaftsrechts (1983) p. 17Google Scholar; Argyriadis, , “Les méthodes de collaboration entre entreprises indépendantes en droit grec”, Rev.hell.dr.intern. (1997) 90Google Scholar; Vainanidis, , “The Greek Antitrust Law”, ECLR (1981) 422.Google Scholar
7 Petrochilos, , “Greek Antitrust Policy: An Analysis”, The Antitrust Bulletin (1979) 611.Google Scholar
8 The courts often ignored the instruments of competition law and applied the law of unfair trade practices to classical problems of competition law instead. See District Court of Lamia 501/1980, EEmpD (1981) 129; District Court of Athens 11486/1980, EEmpD (1980) 50.
9 Papathoma-Baetge, supra n. 5, at p. 10.
10 Law 1232/1982, published in KNoB (1982) 5, and the ministerial decision B3/395, published in the Government Gazette (FEK) Vol. II No. 217 of 26.4.1982.
11 Tzouganatos, , “Skepseis me aformi gnomodotiseis tis Epitropis Antagonismou [Some thoughts on the occasion of expert opinions published from the Competition Authority]”, EEmpD (1986) 373.Google Scholar
12 See, for instance, the decision of the Administrative Court of Athens (first instance) 4558/1991, Syllogi III, 227 at p. 241 and 17745/1988, Syllogi II, 150 at p. 155. Syllogi is a collection of decisions and expert opinions of the Greek Competition Authority by Koutsoukis and Tzouganatos.
13 Published in the Government Gazette (FEK) Vol. I No. 31 of 8.3.1991.
14 About the amendment of Law 1934/1991 see extensively Delouka-Igglesi, “Neoteres nomothetikes exelixeis sto dikaio tou antagonismou [New Developments in the Field of Competition Law]”, EEmpD (1991) 382.Google Scholar
15 Papathoma-Baetge, supra n. 5, at p. 11.
16 Published in the Government Gazette (FEK) Vol. I No. 206 of 24.12.1991.
17 Tzouganatos, , “I prosfates tropopoiiseis tou n. 703/1977 kai i prostasia tou eleftherou antagonismou [The latest amendment of Law 703/1977 and the protection of free competition]”, EEmpD (1992) 517Google Scholar; Soufleros, , “I politiki antagonismou se nees baseis [Competition policy on a new basis]”, EEmpD (1994) 490.Google Scholar
18 The old version of § 26 of the German GWB and Art. 8(1) and (2) of the French Ordonnance no-86-1243 of 1.12.1986 provided for similar prohibitions of abuse of market power and economical dependence of one undertaking by another.
19 The institution of the prohibition of economical dependence was part of the Greek competition rules for 11 years before being abolished with the last amendment through Law 2837 of 3 August 2000. For an extensive presentation on this institution see Papathoma-Baetge, supra n. 5, at pp. 140-149; Kambouroglou, , “Das griechische Wettbewerbsrecht auf neuen Wegen: die beiden Novellen aus dem Jahre 1991”, RIW (1993) 631.Google Scholar
20 Law 2296/1995, published in the Government Gazette (FEK) Vol. I No. 43 of 24.2.1995.
21 For a detailed presentation of the amendment through Law 2296/1995 see Papathoma-Baetge, , “Neuregelung des Kartellrechts in Griechenland”, RIW (1996) 1013Google Scholar; Soufleros, , “Änderungen des griechischen Kartellrechts”, GRUR Int. (1995) 539Google Scholar; Breibart, and Paraskevas, , “The Control of Concentrations under Greek Law”, ECLR (1995) 483.Google Scholar
22 Independent administrative bodies exist also in other countries. In the USA, for instance, the Independent Regulatory Agencies have been known since the end of last century. The Interstate Commerce Commission, which was established in the USA in 1887, is an example of such a body. In Europe there are independent administrative bodies particularly in France in the form of Authorités Administratives Indépendent. And in the Scandinavian countries the comparative institution of the Ombudsman exists. See Dryllerakis, , “I (nea) epitropi antagonismou [The (new) Competition Authority]”, EEmpD (1995) 532.Google Scholar
23 See Report of 1996-1997, published in the Government Gazette (FEK) Vol. II No. 509 of 20.6.1997. Critical about the technical problems is Mpitros, “Pnigetai i Epitropi Antagonismou [The Competition Authority is drowning]” in the weekly newspaper To Bima of 1.12.1996, p. D10.
24 Law 2741/1999, published in the Government Gazette (FEK) Vol. I No. 199 of 28.9.1999.
25 Published in the Government Gazette (FEK) Vol. I No. 178 of 3.8.2000.
26 For the wide concept of an “undertaking” in European law see Koran, , EC Competition Law and Practice (Oxford: Hart 1997).Google Scholar
27 E.g., in Rai/Unitel (78/516/EEC, [1978] 3 CMLR 306, para. 6) world-class opera singers were treated as an undertaking by the Commission. In Italian Cast Glass (80/1334/EEC, [ 1982] 2 CMLR 61, para. 40) a trust company authorised to police a cartel was held by the Commission to be also an undertaking.
28 Case 19/61 Mannesman v. High Authority, [1962] ECR 357 at p. 371.
29 C-364/92 SAT v. Eurocontrol, [1994] ECR 1-43; 5 CMLR 208.
30 The literature also accepted a broad definition of an undertaking. See Liakopoulos, , Biomichaniki Idioktisia [Industrial property], Vol. II (1988) p. 208Google Scholar; Rokas and Perakis, supra n. 1, at § 3.02 [1] [b]; Papathoma-Baetge, supra n. 5, at p. 38.
31 See infra.
32 C-244/94 Fédération française des sociétés d‘ assurance v. Ministère de l‘ agriculture et de la pêche, [1995] ECR I-4013; [1996] 4 CMLR 536.
33 Ekdotikes Epicheiriseis Case, Arm. (1981) 1060.
34 Ibid. at p. 1061.
35 The courts also followed the functional interpretation of an undertaking. See Areopag 12/1987, NoB (1988) 77; Court of Appeals of Athens 414/1987, EEmpD (1988) 53; District Court of Larissa 557/1987, EEmpD (1988) 524; Adminstrative Court of Athens 7638/1982, EEmpD (1984) 151.
36 Goyder, , EC Competition Law (Oxford: Clarendon 1998) p. 87.Google Scholar
37 C-41/90 Höfner and Elser v. Macrotron, [1991] ECR I-1979.
38 About the problems of special and exclusive rights see Korah, supra n. 26, at p. 34; Gyselen, , “State Action and the Effectiveness of the EEC Treaty's Competition Provisions”, 26 CMLR (1989) 33.Google Scholar
39 Nomiko Deltion tou Nomikou Symbouliou tou Kratous (1994) 65.
40 The Legal Council is an advisory body to the Greek Government. It consists of legal experts that deliver non-binding expert opinions.
41 Goyder, supra n. 36, at p. 87.
42 Opinion of the Competition Authority 10/1984, Syllogi I, 95.
43 Decision K6-73471984, Syllogi I, 187.
44 For a detailed definition and analysis of a group of companies see Emmerich, in: Immenga, and Mestmäcker, (eds.), EG-Wettbewerbsrecht (München: Beck 1997), Art. 85 Abs. 1 para. 43.Google Scholar
45 Goyder, supra n. 36, at p. 91.
46 Emmerich, supra n. 3, at pp. 411 et seq.; Papathoma-Baetge, supra n. 5, at p. 53.
47 [1970] CMLR D19.
48 Case 48/69 Imperial Chemical Industries v. Commission, [1972] ECR 619; Cases 15 and 16/74 Centrafarm BV v. Sterling Drug Inc. and Winthrop BV, [1974] ECR 1147 at p. 1183; 2 CMLR 480; Case 30/87 Corine Bondson v. SA Pompes funébres des régions libérées, [1988] ECR 2479; C-73-95P Viho Europe v. Commission, [1996] ECR I-5457; [1997] 4 CMLR 419.
49 See Soufleros, , “I efarmogi tou arthrou 2 tou N. 703/1977 stin praktiki tis EPA kai tis EA [The implementation of Article 2 in the practice of the Competition Authority]”, in: Schinas, (ed.), Prostasia tou eleftherou antagonismou [Protection of free competition] (Athens: Sakkulas 1992) 188Google Scholar; Kotsiris, , Dikaio antagonismou [Competition law] (1986) p. 238Google Scholar; Tzouganatos, , I katachrisi despozousas thesis tou arthrou 2 n. 703/1977 [Abuse of dominant position according to Article 2 of Law 703/1977] EEmpD (1984) 234.Google Scholar
50 Opinion of Competition Authority 29/85, Syllogi I,134 et seq. In this case the parent company owned 80% of the subsidiary. The subsidiary served the only task of promoting and selling the products of the parent company. Both companies conceited their prices towards their clients. They divided their clients into three categories (big supermarkets, agricultural associations and wholesalers) giving each of them a different discount.
51 Joint Cases 40 - 48, 50, 54 - 56, 111, 113 and 114/73 Suiker Unie v. Commission, [1975] ECR 1916; [1976] 1 CMLR 405. See also the commentary of Koch in: Grabitz, and Hilf, (eds.), Kommentar zur Europäischen Union (München: Beck 1998- looseleaf) Article 85 para. 26Google Scholar; Grill, in: Lenz, (ed.), EG-Vertrag Kommentar (Köln 1999) Article 81 para. 5.Google Scholar
52 See Kontobazenitis, “Enarmonismeni praktiki [Concerted practice]”, in: Schinas, supra n. 49, at p. 78.
53 Goyder, supra n. 36, at p. 101.
54 [1995] 3 CMLR 474.
55 Contrary to this, the European Court of Justice ultimately overruled the Commission's findings. It argued that concertation was not the only plausible explanation for the parallel conduct of the parties. It could be seen as a rational response to the fact that the pulp market was a long-term one. Cases 89, 104, 114, 116-17, and 125-29/85 Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v. Commission, [1993] ECR I-1307; 4 CMLR 407.
56 In Greece it is usual that associations of undertakings hand out price lists to their members or initiate and actively support the communication of such sensitive information among them. See Triantafyllakis, “Orizonties sympraxeis epicheiriseon [Horizontal collusions of undertakings]” in: Schinas, supra n. 49, at p. 55; Papathoma-Baetge, supra n. 5, at p. 60.
57 The exchange of information about prices among the members of an association also exists in other European countries. The Commission found, for example, in its decision about the Agricultural Tractor Registration Exchange ([1992] L 68/19) in England that the English association handed out regular lists to its members with information concerning quantities of products and prices. Also in the VCH case (Case 8/72 Vereniging van Cementhandelaren v. Commission, [1972] ECR 977; [1973] CMLR 7) the European Court was concerned with the rules imposed by the association of cement dealers in Holland. This association imposed extremely tight rules on its members, including mandatory pricing for sales of less than 100 tonnes and target pricing for quantities over 100 tonnes.
58 Opinion 83/89, Syllogi II, 129.
59 T-29/92 Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijver-heid v. Commission, [1995] ECR II-289.
60 The new Dutch competition law closely adopted the framework of Arts. 81 and 82 EC Treaty and came into force on 1 January 1998.
61 Opinion of Competition Authority 62/1988, Syllogi II, 57.
62 Decision of Competition Authority 3484/1989, Syllogi II, 157.
63 Goyder, supra n. 36, at p. 178.
64 Case 56/65, [1966] ECR 234.
65 [1978] ECR 131.
66 The de minimis rule was accepted by the European Court in Case 5/69 Völk v. Vervaecke, [1969] ECR 295.
67 Opinion of Competition Authority 63/88, Syllogi II, 65.
68 Syllogi II, 67.