Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Law and Economics pp 1–11Cite as

Negotiated Procedures in EU Competition Law

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 63 Accesses

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 via an institution.

References

  • 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 1:54–61

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):397–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cauffman C (2011) The interaction of leniency programmes and actions for damages. Comp Law Rev 7:181–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosnita-Langlais A, Tropeano J-P (2018) How procedures shape substance: institutional design and antitrust evidentiary standards. Eur J Law Econ 46(1):143–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E.U. Commission (2000) Proposal for a council regulation 2000/0243, COM (2000) 582 final, 27 Sep 2000, p 6

    Google Scholar 

  • E.U. Commission (2018) Report on competition policy, COM(2018) 482 final, 18 June

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Court of Justice (2010) case C-441/07P, Commission v Alrosa, judgment of 29 June

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 95–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Gautier A, Petit N (2018) Optimal enforcement of competition policy: the commitments procedure under uncertainty. Eur J Law Econ 45(2):195–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg DH, Wright JD (2012) Antitrust settlements: the culture of consent. In: William E. Kovacic: an antitrust tribute, liber amicorum. Concurrences, Paris, ed. 407p

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L, de Hauteclocque A (2011) Manufacturing the EU energy markets: the current dynamics of regulatory practice. Comp Regulat Netw Ind 11(3):307–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes N (2005) ‘The first hundred days’, Speech at the International forum on EC competition law, Brussels, 7 April 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezaguer M (2015) Les procédures transactionnelles en droit antitrust de l'Union européenne – Un exercice transactionnel de l'autorité publique, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 582p

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2018) Challenges and co-ordination of leniency programmes, DAF/COMP/WP3 (2018)1

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bael I (1986) The antitrust settlement practice of the EC commission. Common Market Law Rev 23:61–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller SW (2004) The antitrust legacy of Thurman Arnold. Saint John’s Law Rev 78:569–614

    Google Scholar 

  • Wils W (2008) The use of settlements in public antitrust enforcement: objectives and principles. World Comp 31(3):335–352

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNRS – GREDEG, Université Côte d’Azur, Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, Valbonne, France

    Frédéric Marty & Mehdi Mezaguer

Authors
  1. Frédéric Marty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehdi Mezaguer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frédéric Marty .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Montpellier, France

    Alain Marciano

  2. Dept DiGSPES, Univ del Piemonte Orientale Dept DiGSPES, Alessandria, Italy

    Giovanni Battista Ramello

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Marty, F., Mezaguer, M. (2018). Negotiated Procedures in EU Competition Law. In: Marciano, A., Ramello, G. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_662-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_662-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7883-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7883-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation