Wouter Wils

This paper deals with the readoption by the European Commission of decisions imposing fines on undertakings found to have participated in cartels in violation of Article 101 TFEU (cartel decisions) following the annulment of those decisions by the EU courts (General Court and Court of Justice) (...)

This paper deals with the publication by the European Commission of its decisions adopted in the enforcement of the competition rules laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (antitrust decisions). The paper examines the legal basis of such publication and the interests justifying publication; (...)

This paper deals with the fundamental procedural rights of companies that are targeted in the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by the European Commission or the competition authorities of the EU Member States. The paper first provides a (non-exhaustive) list of such rights as (...)

At the end of 2018, the European Parliament and Council adopted Directive (EU) 2019/1, often referred to as the “ECN+ Directive,” which, among other things, contains provisions ensuring the independence of the competition authorities of the EU Member States (national competition authorities or (...)

Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003 obliges the competition authorities of the EU Member States (national competition authorities or NCAs) to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (EU antitrust law) whenever they apply national competition law to conduct falling within the scope of EU antitrust law. (...)

This paper discusses the law, policy and procedure of legal professional privilege in EU antitrust enforcement. It focuses primarily on the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by the European Commission, but also touches briefly on the enforcement of EU antitrust law by the competition (...)

This paper contains my contribution to the panel “Competition authorities: Towards more independence and prioritisation?” at the 8th International Concurrences Review Conference “New Frontiers of Antitrust” (Paris, 26 June 2017). It focuses in particular on the European Commission’s “ECN+” (...)

This paper provides a short history of private enforcement of EU antitrust law and its relationship with public enforcement, from the 1957 EEC Treaty over Regulation 17 and Regulation 1/2003 until Directive 2014/104 and the current outlook. I. Introduction 1. This article provides a short (...)

Since 1996, the European Commission has been operating a leniency programme, under which companies cooperating with its cartel investigations can obtain immunity from fines or a reduction of fines. Leniency plays a prominent role in EU cartel enforcement today. This paper assesses the positive (...)

This first roundtable of the “New frontiers of Antitrust” conference, Paris, 15 June 2015, was dedicated to the commitment decisions as « tool of choice or poison » for antitrust enforcement. After an introduction of Bruno Lasserre, President of the French Competition Authority describing the (...)

This paper discusses the judgment of the EU General Court of 12 June 2014 in the Intel case. It argues that the EU case-law on the use of exclusivity rebate systems by undertakings occupying a dominant position is economically sound, and that the criticism directed at this case-law is (...)

Introduction Under the system initially set up by Regulation 17, and maintained under Regulation 1/2003, the European Commission both investigates suspected infringements of the antitrust prohibitions contained in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and takes decisions finding such infringements, (...)

This third roundtable of the conference “New frontiers of Antitrust” (Paris, 21 February 2014) was dedicated to “European Competition Network 10 years after & EC Regulation 1/2003: Can cooperation be extended to merger control and advocacy?”. The objectives for the authors of this (...)

Should companies that have antitrust compliance programmes be granted a reduction in the amount of fines or even immunity from fines when they are found to have committed antitrust infringements? Should the absence of a compliance programme constitute an aggravating factor leading to higher (...)

Recidivism has in the last few years attracted much attention and controversy in the context of EU antitrust enforcement. The treatment of recidivism by the European Commission and the EU Courts has often been criticised, and the observed incidence of recidivism has led to some questioning of (...)

This paper discusses discretion and prioritisation in public antitrust enforcement, in particular in the enforcement of EU antitrust law. First, the paper defines the notion of discretion and discusses the rationale of discretion. Second, it examines the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 (...)

Cet article traite des pouvoirs de la Commission européenne et des autorités de concurrence des États membres dans l’application des articles 101 et 102 du TFUE ainsi que des droits et garanties qui encadrent ou limitent ces pouvoirs. L’auteur se concentre en particulier sur l’interaction (...)

This fourth roundtable of the conference "New frontiers of Antitrust", Paris, 11 February 2011, is dedicated to the procedural fairness. In the first contribution, Nils Wahl, Judge of the General Court of the European Union examines the judge’s role in the competition proceedings. In the (...)

The EC antitrust prohibitions are regularly invoked in private litigation as a shield. Private parties also play an important role in public antitrust enforcement through complaints to the competition authorities. However, in marked contrast with the situation in the US, private actions for (...)

This article analyses, from a legal and economic perspective, the ways in which the European Commission and the competition authorities of the Member States can obtain intelligence and evidence of violations of Articles 81 or 82 EC from the undertakings that committed these violations or from (...)

Sanctions: Is more always better? Introduction Laurence IDOT Professeur à l’Université Paris II-Panthéon Assas Présidente du comité scientifique de Concurrences 1. Après les enquêtes et le rôle de l’économie comportementale dans l’appréciation des comportements, voici venu le temps des (...)

Cet article traite de la relation entre la mise en œuvre publique du droit de la concurrence et les actions privées en réparation, en particulier dans le cas de la mise en oeuvre des articles 81 et 82 du Traité CE. Dans la première partie de l’article, l’auteur examine respectivement le rôle (...)

This paper discusses two general questions concerning the use of settlements in public antitrust enforcement, namely under which conditions the use of settlements contributes to optimal antitrust enforcement, and under which conditions self-incrimination and waivers of procedural rights by (...)

La Commission européenne a publié le 1er septembre 2006 de nouvelles lignes directrices sur la méthode de fixation des amendes pour les entreprises ayant violé les règles de concurrence prévues aux articles 81 et 82 du Traité CE. L’auteur de cet article s’interroge sur le but de ces lignes (...)

This paper discusses the theory and practice of leniency in antitrust enforcement, i.e. the granting of immunity from penalties or the reduction of penalties for antitrust violations in exchange for cooperation with the antitrust enforcement authorities. After a description of the practice of (...)

L’article 9 du règlement 1/ 2003 prévoit la possibilité d’engagements pour mettre terme aux enquêtes engagées par la Commission européenne en cas d’infractions présumées aux articles 81 ou 82 du Traité CE. Cet article analyse l’origine et l’utilisation optimale de cette disposition, ainsi que (...)

Le présent article traite de la question générale de l’utilisation des amendes infligées aux entreprises ou aux autres entités juridiques sanctionnant le non-respect des règle de concurrence, telles que celles prévues aux articles 81 et 82 du traité CE ou aux articles 1 et 2 du Sherman Act. (...)

Cet article traite des pouvoirs d’enquête de la Commission européenne et des autorités de concurrence des Etats membres quant à l’application des articles 81 et 82 du traité CE, ainsi que des droits et garanties procédurales quant à la mise en œuvre de ces pouvoirs. L’auteur analyse en (...)

Dans cet article, l’auteur répond en cinq parties à la question : « La pénalisation du droit communautaire de la concurrence est-elle la solution ? ». Tout d’abord, qu’entend-on par «pénalisation», ou mise en œuvre pénale du droit de la concurrence (par opposition à la mise en œuvre publique (...)

This report, prepared for the 2004 FIDE Conference, consists of two parts. The first part gives an overview of the main content of Regulation No 1/2003, in its historic context. The second part deals with a number of areas of potential concern, i.e. issues regarding which questions have been (...)

In the current system of EC antitrust enforcement, the European Commission combines the investigative and prosecutorial function with the adjudicative or decision-making function. The purpose of this article is to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of this system, in comparison with a (...)

This article deals with the application of the principle of ne bis in idem in EC antitrust enforcement. The principle of ne bis in idem, laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights and in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European (...)