Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:42:38.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breaking the Habits: The German Competition Law after the 7th Amendment to the Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Andreas M. Klees

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The amended German Act against restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen – GWB) has been in force since 1 July 2005. After a long and controversial debate, including a mediation procedure between the Bundestag (Lower House of the German Federal Parliament) and the Bundesrat (Upper House of the German Federal Parliament), and two and a half years after the adoption of Regulation No. 1/2003 in December 2002 the 7th Amendment to the Law against restraints of Competition was finally adopted in June 2005. Interestingly, the delay in passing the 7th Amendment – more than one year after Regulation No.1 came in force – was not so much caused by the fundamental changes that had become necessary in the light of Regulation No. 1. Rather, it was caused by those changes which did not become part of it: the proposed reform of merger control in the newspaper industry. Nonetheless, the latest amendment of the German competition law brought a greater number of fundamental changes than the six previous amendments adopted between 1958 and 1998. More specifically, the 7th Amendment abolished numerous specialties of the German antitrust law, which had been cultivated during previous decades. At the same time, it pointed to the increasing “Europeanization” (or, in other words, the decreasing relevance) of the national competition law that primarily covers the rules regarding anti-competitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices and is likely to extend to other areas in the future, such as unilateral conduct and merger control.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , 01 April 2006 , pp. 399 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Siebtes Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt, BGBl.) 2005, Part. I, 1954-1969, last amended by Gesetz zur Beschleunigung der Umsetzung von Öffentlich-Privaten Partnerschaften und zur Verbesserung gesetzlicher Rahmenbedingungen für Öffentlich-Private Partnerschaften, BGBl. 2005, Part I, 2676-2681. A non-official English version of the GWB is available at: http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wEnglisch/CompetitionAct/CompAct.shtml.Google Scholar

2 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on The Implementation of the Rules on the Competition Laid Down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, 2003 O.J. (L 1/1) [Regulation No. 1]. See Felix Müller, The New Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 on the Implementation of the Rules on Competition, 5 German Law Journal 722 (2004).Google Scholar

3 Schmidt, Ingo, Wettbewerbspolitik und Kartellrecht (7th ed., 2001) surveys the six amendments between 1958 to 1998.Google Scholar

4 The rules relating to the private antitrust enforcement were already addressed by Wolfgang Wurmnest, A New Era for Private Antitrust Litigation in Germany? A Critical Appraisal of the Modernized Law against Restraints of Competition, 6 German Law Journal 1174 (2005).Google Scholar

5 These are according to sec. 48 para. 1 GWB the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) and the highest administrative authorities of the states within the Federal Republic of Germany (oberste Landesbehörden). According to sec. 50 para. 1 GWB these authorities have jurisdiction over the application of Art. 81 and 82 EC Treaty (see also Art. 35 (1) Regulation No. 1).Google Scholar

6 This term is used instead of “agreements of undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices” in this article.Google Scholar

7 Hermann-Josef Bunte, Kartellrecht 142 (2003).Google Scholar

8 Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2790/1999 on the application of Article 81 (3) of the Treaty to Categories of Vertical Agreements and Concerted Practices, 1999 O.J. (L 336) 21.Google Scholar

9 Drucksachen des Bundesrates (BR-Drs.) No. 441/04, 40.Google Scholar

10 See sec. 23 of the draft of the 7th Amendment, BR-Drs. No. 210/05, 1, 9; BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 1, 53.Google Scholar

11 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.) 15/5430.Google Scholar

12 Knut-Werner Lange, Europäisches und Deutsches Kartellrecht 58 (2006).Google Scholar

13 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 39.Google Scholar

14 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 41.Google Scholar

15 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 76; Tobias Lettl, Kartellrecht 219 (2005).Google Scholar

16 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 77.Google Scholar

17 LANGE, supra note 12, at 58.Google Scholar

18 Harald Kahlenberg & Christian Haellmigk, Neues Deutsches Kartellgesetz, 60 Betriebsberater [BB] 1509, 1510 (2005).Google Scholar

19 Id., 1510.Google Scholar

20 If the national competition authority seeks to withdraw the benefit of a block exemption according to sec. 32d GWB (see below under B. II. 2.), it is on the authority to show that the agreement does not meet the conditions of sec. 2 para. 1 GWB. This shift in the burden of proof also applies in procedures according to Art. 29 Regulation No. 1, see Andreas Klees, Europäisches Kartellverfahrensrecht 57 (2005).Google Scholar

21 See the Statement by the German Delegation on Article 2 of the Regulation No. 1, 25 November 2002, available at: http://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/Inhalte/Pdf/Wettbewerbspolitik/protokollerklaerungbundesreg-kvo,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf; BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 39, 76.Google Scholar

22 See e.g. the Commission Notice Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, 2000 O.J. (C 291) 01.Google Scholar

23 BR-Drs. 441/04, 76.Google Scholar

24 See supra note 8.Google Scholar

25 2004 O.J (L 123) 11.Google Scholar

26 See Ehricke, Ulrich & Blask, Holger, Dynamischer Verweis auf Gruppenfreistellungsverordnungen im neuen GWB?, 58 Juristenzeitung [JZ] 722 (2003).Google Scholar

27 Regulation No 26 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products, 1962 O.J. 993.Google Scholar

28 See Rainer Bechtold & Martin Buntscheck, Die 7. GWB-Novelle und die Entwicklung des deutschen Kartellrechts, 58 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 2966 (2005).Google Scholar

29 See recital 8 of Regulation No. 1.Google Scholar

30 See Klees supra note 20, at 73.Google Scholar

31 See Rainer Bechtold & Ingo Brinker & Wolfgang Bosch & Simon Hirsbrunner, EG-Kartellrecht Art. 3 VO 1/2003 no 21 (2005); Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker & HeikE Schweitzer, Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht 149 (2nd ed. 2004).Google Scholar

32 BR-Drs. No. 441/04Google Scholar

33 This has already been certain – at least in the question of whether a merger creates or reinforces a dominant position on the market – since the judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice – BGH) in the case “Staubsaugermarkt“ in 2004, 57 NJW 3711 (2004). The BGH abandoned in this judgment his former opinion whereas the relevant market had been limited to the scope of the GWB.Google Scholar

34 Id. 3711; Lange, supra note 12, at 105.Google Scholar

35 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 78.Google Scholar

36 BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 73.Google Scholar

37 Critical Florian Wagner-von Papp, Empfiehlt sich das Empfehlungsverbot? 55 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb [WuW] 379 (2005).Google Scholar

38 Kahlenberg, & Haellmigk, , supra note 18, at 1511.Google Scholar

39 Even the reform of the rules regarding the private antitrust enforcement (see below under C.) aims at this.Google Scholar

40 Klees, supra note 20, at 12.Google Scholar

41 Klees, supra note 20, at 25.Google Scholar

42 Id., 32.Google Scholar

43 See the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities 2004 O.J. (C 101) 43.Google Scholar

44 BR-Drs. No. 441/04,76.Google Scholar

45 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 89.Google Scholar

46 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 89.Google Scholar

47 See BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 57 and recital (13) of Regulation No. 1 within the scope of Article 9 Regulation No. 1.Google Scholar

48 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 90.Google Scholar

49 Klees, supra note 20, at 177.Google Scholar

50 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 90.Google Scholar

51 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 57.Google Scholar

52 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 57.Google Scholar

53 Kahlenberg, & Haellmigk, , supra note 18, at 1510; Lange, supra note 12, at 71.Google Scholar

54 BR-Drs. No. 497/05, 4.Google Scholar

55 Before, the national competition authorities had such competence limited to vertical restraints, see Klees, supra note 20, at 59.Google Scholar

56 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 90.Google Scholar

57 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 58. See in terms of Art. 29 Regulation No. 1, Bechtold & Bosch & Brinker & Hirsbrunner supra note 31, annotation 13.Google Scholar

58 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 91.Google Scholar

59 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 91. Furthermore, a few amendments took place in sec. 59 GWB (Requests for Information), e.g. it is clarified that this competence also applies for appellate procedures (see already before the judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof in the case HABET/Lekkerland, 49 Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis [WRP] 1248 (2003).Google Scholar

60 Case 68/88, Commission v. Greece, 1989 E.C.R. 2965, paras. 23-25.Google Scholar

61 Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities 2004 O.J. (C 101) 43, 44.Google Scholar

62 Deselears, Wolfgang, Uferlose Geldbußen bei Kartellverstößen nach der neuen 10% Umsatzregel des sec. 81 Abs. 4 GWB? 56 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb (WuW) 118 (2006); Bechtold, & Buntscheck, , supra note 28, at 2970.Google Scholar

63 According to sec. 81 para. 7 GWB, the Bundeskartellamt is currently working on guidelines on the method of setting fines.Google Scholar

64 BT-Drs. No. 15/5049, 50.Google Scholar

65 BT-Drs. No. 15/5049, 50.Google Scholar

66 That limit seeks to ensure that the fines are not excessive or disproportionate, see Judgment of the Court, 28 June 2005, joined cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P, Dansk R⊘rindustri v. Commission (recital 280). However, this can be an enormous amount since it is not limited to turnover in the market affected by the infringement, nor to the turnover in the EU see Richard Wish, Competition Law 267 (5th ed., 2003).Google Scholar

67 See Deselaers, , supra note 62, at 118.Google Scholar

68 See 54 NJW 1779 (2002).Google Scholar

69 With the exception of decisions pursuant to sec. 32 in conjunction with sec. 19 para. 4 No. 4 GWB regarding the abuse of a dominant position in the energy sector. This exception, however, seems to be obsolete due to the precedence of the Energiewirtschaftsgesetz (sec. 111 EnWG) BGBl. 2005, Part. I, 1970 (3621); Kahlenberg, & Haellmigk, , supra note 18, at 1513.Google Scholar

70 Recital (15) and Art. 11 (1) Regulation No. 1.Google Scholar

71 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 109.Google Scholar

72 BR-Drs. No. 441/04, 109.Google Scholar

73 Case T-353/94, Postbank v. Commission, 1996 E.C.R. II-921, paras. 86 and 87; case 145/83, Adams v. Commission, 1985 E.C.R. 3539, para. 34.Google Scholar

74 See Commission Notice on the cooperation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of Articles 81 and 82 EC, O.J. 2004 (C 101) 54, para. 25.Google Scholar

75 Case C-453/99, Courage and Crehan 2001 E.C.R. I-6297.Google Scholar

76 COM (2005) 672 final (19 December 2005).Google Scholar

77 See Wurmnest, , supra note 4, at 1180.Google Scholar

78 Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/actions_for_damages/study.html.Google Scholar

79 Green Paper “Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules” note 76, para. 1.3Google Scholar

80 See Daniel Zimmer, Significant Impediment to Effective Competition, 2 Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht [ZWeR] 250 (2004); Lars Hendrik Röller& Andreas Strohm, Ökonomische Analyse des Begriffs “significant impediment to effective competition”, available at GD Competition's website.Google Scholar

81 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 On the Control of Concentrations Between Undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) 2004 O.J. (L 24) 1. Critical to the new substantive test Ulf Böge, Reform der europäischen Fusionskontrolle, 54 WuW 138 (2004).Google Scholar

82 See Röller, & Strohm, , supra note 80.Google Scholar

83 See the preliminary assessment of the Chief Competition Economist Lars-Hendrik Röller, The Impact of the New Substantive Test in European Merger Control, 22 January 2006, available at: http://europe.eu.int/comm/dgs/competition/new_substantive_test.pdf Google Scholar

84 BT-Drs. No.15/5049, 50.Google Scholar

85 Bechtold, & Buntscheck, , supra note 28, at 2970.Google Scholar

86 B 8 – 113/03 – 1, 13 January 2006, available at: http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wDeutsch/download/pdf/Kartell/Kartell06/B8-113-03.pdf.Google Scholar

87 B 6 - 92202 - Fa – 103/05, 19 January 2006, available at: http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wDeutsch/download/pdf/Fusion/Fusion06/B6-103-05.pdf.Google Scholar

88 Financial Times Deutschland, 1 February 2006.Google Scholar

89 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [FAZ], 24 February 2006.Google Scholar

90 Critical on this the Chairman of the Monopoly Commission (Monopolkommission), Jürgen Basedow, FAZ, 4 March 2006 and the President of the Bundeskartellamt, Ulf Böge, FAZ, 8 February 2006.Google Scholar

91 BT-Drs. No. 16/365.Google Scholar

92 BT-Drs. No. 16/236.Google Scholar

93 Available at: http://www.bundesregierung.de/Anlage920135/Koalitionsvertrag.pdf, (page 112).Google Scholar

94 See Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, 2004 O.J. (C 101) 43, 49.Google Scholar