Hong Kong

Antitrust in Asia: ASEAN, China, Hong Kong...

This fourth edition of the Antitrust in Asia Conference was organized by Concurrences Review with the support of The Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Competition Association, in partnership with Allen & Overy, Baker McKenzie, Charles River Associates, Compass Lexecon, Goodmans, King & Wood Mallesons, Linklaters, O’Melveny & White & Case. Media partners for this event were MLex and PaRR.

Keynote Speech

Justice Godfrey Lam Wan-Ho

The Keynote Address was delivered by Justice Godfrey Lam Wan-Ho (President, Hong Kong Competition Tribunal), who discussed due process in competition law enforcement. He stressed the need for procedural fairness, and explained that often litigants focus less on the end result of the judicial process if they believe they have been treated fairly. Thus, the enforcement of competition law should inspire public confidence by ensuring fair hearings so as to maintain credibility.

Justice Lam then covered the concept of due process, first in the EU and then in Hong Kong. Competition law enforcement in EU is principally administrative. The European Commission investigates, determines if there is an infringement, and decides on the appropriate sanctions. It is possible to appeal to the European courts. The question whether such process satisfies the procedural guarantees of Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) has been widely discussed, raising the question of the intensity of the judicial review carried out by the General Court. In the Menarini case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had to examine a 6 million Euro fine imposed by the Italian competition authority for price fixing and market sharing. Appeals against the penalty had been rejected by the Italian courts and the Consiglio di Stato, and the case reached the ECtHR on the grounds that the administrative procedure violated the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. However, the case did not succeed, since the decision of the competition authority had been subject to review by courts exercising full jurisdiction and not a mere legality control.

Photos © Powerful Colour Image​

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

Speakers

  • Ant Financial Services Group
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • ESSEC Business School (Cergy)
  • Saint-Gobain (Paris)
  • The Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • University of Melbourne
  • Shue Yan University (Hong Kong)
  • Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore
  • Hong Kong Competition Commission
  • Ministry of Justice, Vietnam
  • University of Hong Kong
  • CRA International (London)
  • White & Case (Washington)
  • Allen & Overy (Hong Kong)
  • University Paris II Panthéon‑Assas
  • Hong Kong Competition Commission
  • Baker McKenzie (Hong Kong)
  • University of Hong Kong
  • Competition Consulting Asia
  • O’Melveny & Myers (Hong Kong)
  • Intel (Hong Kong)
  • Hong Kong Competition Tribunal
  • Coca-Cola (Drogheda)
  • Economics Partners (Hong Kong)

Testimonials