Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:18:44.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS: I. COMPETITION LAW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Joe McMahon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

By any measure the single most important development across the field of Community competition law during the period under review (Spring 2001–Autumn 2003) is the adoption of Regulation 1/2003, by which the Pope abandoned the Vatican for the embrace of the Free Presbyterian Church. Regulation 17 has been the bedrock of the enforcement of the Community rules since 1962.1 Fundamental changes to it, first proposed by the Commission in 1999,2 were so startling as to be likened to ‘a lifelong devout Catholic suddenly converting him/herself to Protestantism’.3 Yet they were adopted by the Council in late 2002, and published early in 2003 as Regulation 1/20034—the Council here, maybe, missing a trick in not waiting a fortnight so as to adopt it as Regulation 17/2003. The new regulation is to apply from 1 May 2004—the date also scheduled for the formal accession of the ten new Member States.

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 465 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 JO (1962) 204.Google Scholar

2 White Paper on Modernization of the Rules Implementing Arts 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, OJ (1999) C132/1.Google Scholar

3 Nazerali, J and Cowan, D ‘Modernising the Enforcement of EU Competition Rules—Can the Commission Claim to be Preaching to the Converted?’ [1999] ECLR 422, at 422.Google Scholar

4 OJ (2003) Ll/1.Google Scholar

5 (2000) 49 ICLQ 232–4.Google Scholar

6 Regulation 1/2003, Art 1(2).Google Scholar

7 Art 11.Google Scholar

8 Art 16.Google Scholar

9 Case C-344/98 Masterfoods v HB Ice Cream [2000] ECR1–11369.Google Scholar

10 OJ (2003) C243/3. The regulation will replace Regulation 2842/98 OJ (1998) L354/18, which itself replaced the original procedure regulation, Regulation 99/63 JO (1963) 2268.Google Scholar

11 Stellungnahme der Bundesregierung zum Weissbuch der Europäaischen Kommission üuber die Modernisierung der Vorschriften zur Anwendung der Artikel 81 und 82 EGV, 29 Okt 1999; ÖOsterreichische Position zum Weissbuch der Europaischen Kommission üuber die Modernisierung der Anwendung der Art 81 und 82 EG-V, undated.Google Scholar

12 Art 83 EC.Google Scholar

13 Notice on the non-imposition or the mitigation of fines in cartel cases, OJ (1996) C207/4.Google Scholar

14 Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ (2002) C45sol;3.Google Scholar

15 European Commission, XXXIInd Report on Competition Policy 2002, para 34.Google Scholar

16 Decision 2003sol;2 (Vitamins) OJ (2003) L/1.Google Scholar

17 Plasterboard cartel, decision of 27 Nov 2002, not yet published.Google Scholar

18 Carbonless paper cartel, decision of 20 Dec 2001, not yet published.Google Scholar

19 Decision 2003/675 (Nintendo) OJ (2003) L255/33.Google Scholar

20 Guidelines on the method of setting fines pursuant to Art 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Art 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty, OJ (1998) C9/3.Google Scholar

21 Regulation 1400/2002 OJ (2002) L203/30, replacing Regulation 1475/95 OJ (1995) L145/25.Google Scholar

22 Regulation 2790/1999 OJ (1999) L336/21.Google Scholar

23 Regulation 358/2003 OJ (2003) L53/8, replacing Regulation 3932/92 OJ (1992) L398/7.Google Scholar

24 Regulation 2204/2002 OJ (2002) L337/3.Google Scholar

25 Regulation 240/96 OJ (1996) L31/2, Art 13.Google Scholar

26 Case C-41/90 Hofner & Elser v Uacrotron [1991] ECR1–1979, at para 17.Google Scholar

27 Bundeskartellamt, Jahresbericht (1961), S 61.Google Scholar

28 Case T-319/99 FENIN v Commission, judgment of 4 Mar 2003, not yet reported.Google Scholar

29 Ibid, paras 36–7.

30 See, eg, the discussion of A-G Jacobs in Case C-67/96 Albany International [1999] ECRI-5751, at paras 132–94 of his opinion, wherein he considers the difficulties in applying Art 81 to occupational pension schemes.Google Scholar

31 Case C-205/03P Federatióon Españnola de Empresas de Tecnologíia Sanitaria v Commission, pending.Google Scholar

32 Competition Act 1998, s 60.Google Scholar

33 BetterCare Group Ltd v Director General of Fair Trading [2002] CompAR 299.Google Scholar

34 Case 56/65 STM v Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 235; Case 5/69 Vöolk v Vervaecke [1969] ECR 295; see n 45 below and accompanying text.Google Scholar

35 Case T-112/99 Méetropole Téeléevision v Commission [2001] ECR 11–2459, at paras 72 and 74.Google Scholar

36 Case C-309/99 Wouters v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advokaten [2002] ECR1–1577.Google Scholar

37 Ibid para 86.

38 Ibid para 94.

39 Ibid para 97; emphasis added.

40 Ibid para 107.

41 Case T-65/98 van den Bergh Foods v Commission, judgment of 23 Oct 2003, not yet reported, at para 106.Google Scholar

42 Cases C-159 and 160/91 Poucet et Pistre v Assurance Generates de France [1993] ECRI-637.Google Scholar

43 Case C-343/95 Diego Call e Figli v Servizi Ecologici Porto di Genova [1997] ECR 1–1547.Google Scholar

44 Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentrale v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein [1979] ECR 649.Google Scholar

45 OJ (2001) C368/13.Google Scholar

46 Regulation 4064/89 OJ (1990) L257/13.Google Scholar

47 Decision 2000/276 (Airtours/First Choice) OJ (2000) L93/1.Google Scholar

48 Tetra Laval/Sidel, decision of 30 Oct 2001, not yet published.Google Scholar

49 Schneider/Legrand, decision of 10 Oct 2001, not yet published.Google Scholar

50 Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR 11–2585.Google Scholar

51 Respectively Cases C-68/94 & 30/95 France and ors v Commission [1998] ECR 1–1375 and Case T-102/96 Gencor v Commission [1999] ECR 11–753.Google Scholar

52 Above n 50, para 61.Google Scholar

53 Ibid para 62.

54 Ibid para 63.

55 Ibid para 294.

56 Case T-5/02 Tetra Laval v Commission [2002] ECR 11–4381.Google Scholar

57 Case T-77/02 Schneider Electric v Commission [2002] ECR 11–4201.Google Scholar

58 Green Paper on review of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, COM (2001) 745 final.Google Scholar

59 Proposal for a Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ (2003) C20/4.Google Scholar

60 Art 1(2–3).Google Scholar

61 Art 2(3–4).Google Scholar

62 Art 2(2).Google Scholar

63 Preamble, 21st indent.Google Scholar

64 Arts 4(4–5), 22.Google Scholar

65 Art 26(2).Google Scholar

66 Case C-12/03P Commission v Tetra Laval, pending.Google Scholar

67 Tetra Laval/Sidel, decision of 13 Jan 2003, not yet published.Google Scholar

68 Case T-212/03 MyTravel Group v Commission, pending.Google Scholar

69 Case T-351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission, pending.Google Scholar

70 Decision 1999/243 (Transatlantic Conference Agreement) OJ (1999) L95/1.Google Scholar

71 Ibid para 525.

72 Cases T-191 etc/98 Atlantic Container Line and ors v Commission, judgment of 30 Sept 2003, not yet reported, paras 579–757.Google Scholar

73 Cases C-396 & 396/96P Compagnie Maritime Beige v Commission [2000] ECR1–1365.Google Scholar

74 Above n 72, para 1646.Google Scholar

75 Rules of Procedure of the CFI, Art 87(3).Google Scholar

76 Wettbewerbsgesetz-WettbG und ÄAnderung des Kartellgesetzes 1988, des Strafsgesetzbuches und des Bundesfinanzgesetzes 2002, BGB11 Nr 62/2002.Google Scholar

77 See, eg, in Denmark, Konkurrenceloven, §23; in Spain, Ley 16/1989, Art 10; in Italy, legge No 287 del 10 ottobre 1990, Art 15; in the Netherlands, Mededingingswet, Arts 56–68; in Sweden, Konkurrentslaget (1993:20), § 26.Google Scholar

78 Regulation 17, Art 15(4).Google Scholar

79 Regulation 1/2003, Art 23(5).Google Scholar

80 Code de Commerce, Art L420–6.Google Scholar

81 Enterprise Act 2002, s 188.Google Scholar

82 Ibid, s 190(1).

83 Ibid, s 188(1).

84 Competition Act, 2002, s 6(2)Google Scholar

85 Enterprise Act 2002, s 188(1).Google Scholar

86 See Guidance as to the Appropriate Amount of a Penalty, OFT423.Google Scholar

87 Enterprise Act 2002, s 190(4); see The Cartel Offences: Guidance on the Issue of No-action Letters for Individuals, OFT513. No-action letters do not (and cannot) pre-empt prosecution in Scotland, but the Lord Advocate may take the cooperation into account.Google Scholar

88 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, s 9A (as amended by the Enterprise Act); see Competition Disqualification Orders, OFT510.Google Scholar

89 OFT510, paras 4.27, 4.12.Google Scholar

90 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, s 9A(9).Google Scholar

91 Competition Act, 2002 (No 14 of 2002), ss 6(1) and 7(1).Google Scholar

92 Ibid, s 8(2).

93 Ibid, ss 6(1), 6(2) and 8(l)(ii).

94 Ibid, s 8(3).

95 Ibid, s 3(3)(a).

96 Ibid, s 6(2).

97 Competition (Amendment) Act, 1996 (No 19 of 1996), s 2(c)(i).Google Scholar

98 See Cases 100–103/80 Musique Diffusion Frangaise v Commission [1983] ECR 1825, per A-G Slynn, at 1930–1 and Case C-199/92P Hüuls v Commission [1999] ECR 1–4287.Google Scholar

99 Competition Act, 2002, s 11.Google Scholar

100 Enterprise Act 2002, s 190(3).Google Scholar

101 Competition Act, 2002, ss 6(1) and 7(1).Google Scholar

102 Constitution of Ireland, Art 15.2.1°.Google Scholar

103 §142 KartG.Google Scholar

104 §186b StGB.Google Scholar

105 §2IIWettbG.Google Scholar

106 §44 KartG.Google Scholar

107 §50 KartG.Google Scholar

108 §35 KartG.Google Scholar

109 §143 KartG.Google Scholar

110 Competition Act, 2002, ss 16–28 (replacing the Mergers, Take-overs and Monopolies (Control) Act, 1978) and Enterprise Act 2002, ss 22–130 (replacing (what is left of) the Fair Trading Act 1973).Google Scholar

111 §§42a–42e KartG; § 17 WettbG.Google Scholar

112 Competition Act, 2002, s 29; Enterprise Act 2002, s 1.Google Scholar

113 Competition Act, 2002, s 45.Google Scholar

114 Enterprise Act 2002, ss 192–202; see Powers of Investigating Criminal Cartels, OFT505.Google Scholar

115 Competition Act 1998, s 47A.Google Scholar

116 Cf the Competition Act, 2002, s 14, which provides expressly for a right of action for injunction, declaration or damages, including exemplary damages, for injury caused by an infringement of Irish or EC competition rules. See also Competition Act 1998, s 58A.Google Scholar

117 See Case C-128/92 Banks v British Coal Corporation [1994] ECR 1–1209, per A-G van Gerven.Google Scholar

118 Competition Act, 2002, s 46; § 10 WettbG.Google Scholar

119 Competition Act, 2002, s 4(2, 5).Google Scholar

120 Ibid, s 4(3).

121 Ibid, ss 6(1), 7(1), 8(9), 14(2).

122 §§ 2 II, 3 WettbG; § 42f KartG.Google Scholar

123 Regulation 1/2003, Arts 5 and 35.Google Scholar

124 Lov nr 416 af 31. maj 2000 (Lov om ajndring af konkurrenceloven); Lag (1994:1845) om tilläampningen av Europeiska gemenskapernas konkurrens- och statsstöodsregeler, § 2 (ÄAndring 2000:1023).Google Scholar

125 Enterprise Act 2002, s 209.Google Scholar

126 Modernisation—consultation on the government's proposals for giving effect to Regulation 1/2003 EC and for re-alignment of the Competition Act 1998, 008/03 (Apr 2003).Google Scholar