Advertisement

Institutional Framework of the National Competition Authorities in the Central and Eastern European Countries

  • Jurgita Malinauskaite
Chapter

Abstract

There are myriad options of institutional settings in the field of competition law and find the optimal institutional design is a complex matter. Many jurisdictions have found success with very different designs and what works well in one country may not always work well in another. There is a wide diversity of institutional designs for the enforcement of competition law in the EU Member States. These are based on country-specific institutional traditions and legacies. While enforcement by multiple authorities with different institutional settings in the same or related cases creates a risk of overlapping and potentially inconsistent action that reduces legal certainty and creates unnecessary costs for businesses, the NCAs are national organs and their institutional design has been a matter of the Member States and their national law due to the principal of procedural and institutional autonomy. Recently many Member States have created “multi-function” agencies by merging the competition authority with the authorities responsible for other economic policy functions, such as consumer protection, sector regulation, technical regulation control or public procurement control, which will be explored in this chapter, namely in the context of the CEE countries. The NCAs (National Competition Authorities) developed in the CEE countries faced tasks unparalleled in the West: to create a competition regime capable of facilitating and enduring the transition from a socialist economy to a market-based one. Initially, the NCAs in most of these countries were structurally part of a ministry or fell under the remit of the government’s supervision, as they had broad oversight responsibilities during the economic reforms of the markets in transition (especially in the context of liberalisation and privatisation). Yet, it was not only about the development of institutions, but also about capacity building and changes in values and thinking. The regulators, who worked under the old regime with responsibility to control prices, had to change almost overnight into the protection of competitive process and adopt to a new system while developing their new regulatory skills.

References

  1. Ābrama S (2018) Latvia: competition council. The European, Middle Eastern and African Antitrust Review 2019. https://globalcompetitionreview.com/insight/the-european-middle-eastern-and-african-antitrust-review-2019/1171940/latvia-competition-council. Accessed 28 May 2019
  2. Alves S, Capiau J, Sinclair A (2015) Principles for the independence of competition authorities. Compet Law Int 11:1Google Scholar
  3. Barnard C (2010) The substantive law of the EU: the four freedoms. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernatt M (2019) Illiberal populism: competition law at risk? Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  5. Brezezinski C (1994) Competition and antitrust law in Central Europe: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. Mich J Int Law 15(4):1129Google Scholar
  6. Cengiz F (2016) An academic view on the role and powers of National Competition Authorities: background to the ECN plus project. European Parliament Study IP/A/ECON/2016-06Google Scholar
  7. Clark J (2005) Competition advocacy: challenges for developing countries. OECD J Compet Law Policy 6(4):69–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Commission (2015) Better Regulation “Toolbox”. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/docs/br_toolbox_en.pdf
  9. Commission - Press release, Antitrust: Commission proposal to make national competition authorities even more effective enforcers for the benefit of jobs and growth, Brussels, 22 March 2017Google Scholar
  10. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Ten Years of Antitrust Enforcement under Regulation 1/2003: Achievements and Future Perspectives. COM(2014) 453Google Scholar
  11. Competition and Markets Authority (2018) Competition and Markets Authority Annual Plan 2018 to 2019. Corporate report, 29 Mar 2018Google Scholar
  12. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. Official Journal of the European Union L1/1, p 1–25Google Scholar
  13. Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market (Text with EEA relevance.) OJ L 11, 14.1.2019, p 3–33Google Scholar
  14. Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 349, 5.12.2014, p 1–19 Google Scholar
  15. Dunne N (2016) Convergence in competition fining practices in the EU. Common Market Law Rev 53(2):453–492Google Scholar
  16. Dutz M, Khemani S (1996) Competition law and policy: challenges in South Asia. The World Bank, Washington, p 28Google Scholar
  17. Eggertsson T (2013) Quick guide to new institutional economics. J Comp Econ 4(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EU Council, EU Commission (2002) Joint State of the Council and of the Commission on the functioning of the Network of Competition Authorities. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/joint_statement_en.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  19. European Commission (2017a) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/proposed_directive_en.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  20. European Commission (2017b) Antitrust: Commission proposal to make national competition authorities even more effective enforcers for the benefit of jobs and growth. Press release, Brussels, 22 Mar 2017Google Scholar
  21. European Competition Network (2013) ECN Recommendation on the Power to Set Priorities. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/recommendation_priority_09122013_en.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  22. Faundez J (2016) Douglass North’s theory of institutions: lessons for law and development. Hague J Rule Law 8(2):373–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferro MS (2017) Institutional design of National Competition Authorities: EU requirementsGoogle Scholar
  24. Fessenko D (2007) The Bulgarian competition and state aid law and institutions. https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/assets/0d358061e11f2708ad9d62634c6c40ad/Bulgaria%20(Dec.%202007).pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  25. Furuboton EJ, Richter R (2005) Institutions and economic theory: the contribution of new institutional economics, 2nd edn. The University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gal MS (2010) When the going gets tight: institutional solutions when antitrust enforcement resources are scarce. Loyola Univ Chicago Law School 41(3):417, 439Google Scholar
  27. Gerber DJ (2009) Competition Law and the institutional embeddedness of economics. In: Gerber DJ (ed) Economic theory and competition law. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  28. Hungarian Competition Authority (2006) The Charter document 1 January 2006. http://www.gvh.hu/en/gvh/legal_status_of_the_gvh/charter_document. Accessed 28 May 2019
  29. Hungarian Competition Authority (2017) All About the Hungarian Competition Authority http://www.gvh.hu/en//data/cms1037182/Mindent_a_GVH_rol_szines_2017_angol_webre.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  30. Institute of European Media Law (2003) Media market definitions – comparative legal analysis. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/media/documents/2003_media_market_definition_study_en.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  31. Izdebski H (1989) Legal aspects of economic reforms in socialist countries. Am J Comp Law 37(4):703, 722–703, 740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jasser A (2015) Independence and accountability. J Eur Compet Law Practice 6(2):71–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jennings H (2015) Prioritisation in antitrust enforcement – a finger in many pies. Compet Law Int 11(1):29–39Google Scholar
  34. Jenny F (2012) Competition authorities: Independence and Advocacy. In: Lianos I, Sokol DD (eds) The global limits of competition law, 1st edn. Stanford University Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  35. Jenny F (2016) The institutional design of competition authorities: debates and trends. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/100755/Frederic%20Jenny%20The%20institutional%20design%20of%20Competition%20Authorities.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2019
  36. Kersting C (2018) Transposition of the antitrust damages directive into German Law. In: Rodger B, Ferro MS, Marcos F (eds) The EU antitrust damages directive: transposition in the member states, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Keserauskas S (2017) Fair competition – more opportunities. http://kt.gov.lt/en/news/fair-competition-more-opportunities. Accessed 28 May 2019
  38. Kovacic WE (1997) The quality of appointments and the capability of the Federal Trade Commission. Adm Law Rev 49(4):915–961Google Scholar
  39. Kovacic WE, Hyman DA (2012) Competition agency design: what’s on the menu?. GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Paper 628Google Scholar
  40. Krasnodębska-Tomkiel M (2008) Competition Policy in Poland. The online magazine for global competition policy. https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/assets/0d358061e11f2708ad9d62634c6c40ad/Krasnodebska-Tomkiel%20GCP%20Aug-08(2).pdf. Accessed 20 June 2019
  41. Laszczyk A, Podlasin W (2018) Poland. In: Synnott A (ed) The public competition enforcement review, 10th edn. The Law Reviews, Law Business Research Ltd, London, pp 246–258Google Scholar
  42. Leftwich A (2007) The political approach to institutional formation, maintenance and change. Paper prepared for the DFID-funded Research Programme, Institutions and Pro-Poor Growth (IPPG). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08bf940f0b64974000eec/IPPGDP14.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2019
  43. Letwin O (1988) Privatising the World: a study of international privatisation in theory and practice. Cassell Education Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Lipton D, Sachs J (1991) Creating a market economy in Eastern Europe: the case of Poland. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 75Google Scholar
  45. Liszt M (2015) Croatia: overview. The European Antitrust Review 2016. http://globalcompetitionreview.com/reviews/72/sections/243/chapters/2907/croatia-overview. Accessed 28 May 2019
  46. Maggetti M (2012) Regulation in practice: the de Facto Independence of Regulatory Agencies, 1st edn. ECPR Press, ColchesterGoogle Scholar
  47. Malinauskaite J (2010) Merger control in post-communist countries: EC merger regulation in small market economies. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Malinauskaite J (2016) Public EU competition law enforcement in small ‘newer’ Member States: addressing the challenges. Compet Law Rev 12(1):19–52Google Scholar
  49. Martyniszyn M, Bernatt M (2019) Implementing a competition law system – three decades of Polish Experience. Journal of Antitrust EnforcementGoogle Scholar
  50. Mateus A (2007) Why should national competition authorities be independent and how should they be accountable? Eur Compet J 3(1):17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Meicklejohn R (2014) The effectiveness of competition authorities: four questions. Compet Policy Int 10(1):110–132Google Scholar
  52. Monti G (2014) Independence, interdependence and legitimacy: the EU Commission, National Competition Authorities and the European Network. European University Institutes Working Papers 2014(1):1–3Google Scholar
  53. Nagy CI (2016) Hungary (Competition law). Wolters Kluwer, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  54. Nakrošis V (2003) Assessing Governmental capacities to manage European Affairs: the case of Lithuania. In: Pettai V, Zielionka J (eds) The Road to the European Union, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Manchester University press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  55. National Audit Office of Lithuania (2010) Report No. VA-P-20-10-26 “Protection of Freedom of Competition”, 2010-12-30. Available at: http://www.vkontrole.lt/audito_ataskaitos.aspx?tipas=2
  56. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. OECD (2014a) Competition law and policy in Romania: a peer review. https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/Romania-Competition-Law-Policy-2014-EN.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  58. OECD (2014b) The Governance of regulators: creating a Culture of Independence practical guidance against undue influence. https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/Culture-of-Independence-Eng-web.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  59. OECD (2014c) The Governance of Regulators, OECD best practice principles for regulatory policy. OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264209015-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. OECD (2014d) Competition law and policy in Romania: a peer review. https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/Romania-Competition-Law-Policy-2014-EN.pdf
  61. OECD (2014e) Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities. Note by Estonia, 17–18 December 2014, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)91Google Scholar
  62. OECD (2016a) Key points of the Roundtables on Changes in Institutional Design. DAF/COMP/M(2015)1/ANN9/FINAL. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DAF/COMP/M(2015)1/ANN9/FINAL&docLanguage=En. Accessed 28 May 2019
  63. OECD (2016b) Independence of competition authorities - from designs to practices. DAF/COMP/GF(2016). http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=daf/comp/gf(2016)3&doclanguage=en. Accessed 28 May 2019
  64. OECD (2016c) Independence of competition authorities – from designs to practices: contribution from Romania. Global Forum on Competition DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2016(58). https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2016)58/en/pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  65. OECD (2016d) The Governance of regulators creating a culture of Independence Practical Guidance against undue influence. https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/Culture-of-Independence-Eng-web.pdf
  66. OECD (2017) The Governance of regulators. Creating a culture of Independence - Practical Guidance against undue influenceGoogle Scholar
  67. OECD (2019) Annual Report on Competition Policy Developments in the Slovak Republic. DAF/COMP/AR(2019)29. https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/AR(2019)29/en/pdf. Accessed 1 July 2019
  68. Ottow A (2015) Market and competition authorities: good agency principles, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Pecotić-Kaufman J, Butorac-Malnar V (2016) The interaction between EU regulatory implants and the existing Croatian Legal Order in competition law. In: Kovac M, Vandenberghe AS (eds) Economic evidence in EU competition law. Intersentia, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780687407.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Petit N (2010) How much discretion do, and should, competition authorities enjoy in the course of their enforcement activities? A multi-jurisdictional assessment. Concurrences 1:44–62Google Scholar
  71. Petrov A (2017) Bulgaria. In: Piszcz A (ed) Implementation of the EU damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries, 1st edn. University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press, Warszawa, pp 25–55Google Scholar
  72. Poldroos J (2008) Latest developments in competition supervision. Paper presented at the 15th The New Competition Authority – New Challenges conference, Tallinn, 11 Nov 2008Google Scholar
  73. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. COM(2017) 142 finalGoogle Scholar
  74. Quemada JMM (2016) Spain: National Authority for markets and competition. The European Antitrust Review 2016Google Scholar
  75. Riley A (2017) Reform of Regulation 1/2003: effectiveness of the NCAs and beyond. Yearb Antitrust Regul Stud 10(15):287–295Google Scholar
  76. Romanian Competition Council (2011) Functional review of the competition council. http://sgg.gov.ro/docs/File/UPP/doc/rapoarte-finale-bm/etapa-I/03_RO%20FR_Competition_%20Final%20Report.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  77. Slater D, Thomas S, Waelbroeck D (2009) Competition law proceedings before the European Commission and the RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL: NO NEED FOR REFORM? Eur Compet J 5(1):97–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. The KT (Konkurencijos Taryba) (2011) Assessing the impact of the work of the competition council: benefits to consumers are obvious, Newsletter. 6 October 2011Google Scholar
  79. Tóth T (2018) Life after Menarini: the conformity of the Hungarian Competition Law enforcement system with human rights principles. Yearb Antitrust Regul Stud 11(18):35–60Google Scholar
  80. UNCTAD (2008) Independence and accountability of competition authorities. TD/B/COM.2/CLP/67. http://unctad.org/en/docs/c2clpd67_en.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019
  81. Verhoest K, Peters G, Verschuere B et al (2004) The study of organisation autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Adm Dev 24(2):101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wils W (2017) Competition authorities: towards more independence and prioritisation?. Paper presented at the 8th International Concurrences Review Conference on the New Frontiers of Antitrust, Paris 26 Jun 2017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jurgita Malinauskaite
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Brunel Law SchoolBrunel University LondonUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.Vytautas Magnus UniversityKaunasLithuania

Personalised recommendations