Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

Living Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Negotiated Procedures in EU Competition Law

  • Frédéric Marty
  • Mehdi Mezaguer
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_662-1

Definition

The enforcement of EU competition law in the field of antitrust, e.g., the sanction of abuse of dominant position and collusive agreements, increasingly uses negotiated procedures. Negotiating remedies with incriminated undertakings is a well-known practice in the field of merger control. The practice of settlements is also significantly developed in the United States. However, it remains a relative new approach under the EU competition law enforcement. This chapter presents the three main tools at the disposal of the EU Commission: the leniency program, the direct settlement, and the commitment procedures. It analyses their main challenges and issues in both legal and economic fields.

Negotiated Procedures Under EU Competition Law: An Introduction

Negotiated procedures under EU competition law mainly encompass three procedures: leniency, commitments, and direct settlements. We mainly consider the negotiated procedures implemented for the application of Articles 101 and 102...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bellis J-F (2013) Article 102 TFEU: the case for a remedial enforcement model along the lines of section 5 of the FTC Act. Concurrences 1:54–61Google Scholar
  2. Brisset K, Thomas L (2004) Leniency program: a new tool in competition policy to deter cartel activity in procurement auctions. Eur J Law Econ 17(1):5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bueren E, Smuda F (2018) Suppliers to a sellers’ cartel and the boundaries of the right to damages in U.S. versus EU competition law. Eur J Law Econ 45(3):397–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cauffman C (2011) The interaction of leniency programmes and actions for damages. Comp Law Rev 7:181–220Google Scholar
  5. Cosnita-Langlais A, Tropeano J-P (2018) How procedures shape substance: institutional design and antitrust evidentiary standards. Eur J Law Econ 46(1):143–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. E.U. Commission (2000) Proposal for a council regulation 2000/0243, COM (2000) 582 final, 27 Sep 2000, p 6Google Scholar
  7. E.U. Commission (2018) Report on competition policy, COM(2018) 482 final, 18 JuneGoogle Scholar
  8. EU Court of Justice (2010) case C-441/07P, Commission v Alrosa, judgment of 29 JuneGoogle Scholar
  9. Farrell J (2003) Negotiation and merger remedies: some problems. In: Lévêque F, Shelanski H (eds) Merger remedies in American and European Union competition law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 95–105Google Scholar
  10. Gautier A, Petit N (2018) Optimal enforcement of competition policy: the commitments procedure under uncertainty. Eur J Law Econ 45(2):195–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ginsburg DH, Wright JD (2012) Antitrust settlements: the culture of consent. In: William E. Kovacic: an antitrust tribute, liber amicorum. Concurrences, Paris, ed. 407pGoogle Scholar
  12. Hancher L, de Hauteclocque A (2011) Manufacturing the EU energy markets: the current dynamics of regulatory practice. Comp Regulat Netw Ind 11(3):307–334Google Scholar
  13. Kroes N (2005) ‘The first hundred days’, Speech at the International forum on EC competition law, Brussels, 7 April 2005Google Scholar
  14. Mezaguer M (2015) Les procédures transactionnelles en droit antitrust de l'Union européenne – Un exercice transactionnel de l'autorité publique, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 582pGoogle Scholar
  15. OECD (2018) Challenges and co-ordination of leniency programmes, DAF/COMP/WP3 (2018)1Google Scholar
  16. Van Bael I (1986) The antitrust settlement practice of the EC commission. Common Market Law Rev 23:61–90Google Scholar
  17. Waller SW (2004) The antitrust legacy of Thurman Arnold. Saint John’s Law Rev 78:569–614Google Scholar
  18. Wils W (2008) The use of settlements in public antitrust enforcement: objectives and principles. World Comp 31(3):335–352Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS – GREDEGUniversité Côte d’Azur, Université Nice Sophia AntipolisValbonneFrance