e-Competitions Authors Guidelines

In addition to the guidelines below, please see 3 examples of articles published in e-Competitions:

- Michele Giannino, The EFTA Court clarifies the applicable legal regime for private enforcement and margin squeeze (Fjarskipti / Siminn), 30 May 2018, e-Competitions Bulletin May 2018, Art. N° 87185

- Michael A. Carrier, The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California sets student-athletes’ antitrust case for trial (NCAA), 28 March 2018, e-Competitions Bulletin March 2018, Art. N° 87066

- Alexandre G. Verheyden, Yvan N. Desmedt, The EU Court of Justice provides new guidance on price discrimination by dominant market players (MEO / Autoridade da Concorrencia), 19 April 2018, e-Competitions Bulletin June 2018, Art. N° 87159

e-Competitions also published Special issues introduced by a Foreword.
See for example Alec J. Burnside, Adam Kidane, Interim Measures: An overview of EU and national case law, 7 June 2018, e-Competitions Bulletin Interim measures, Art. N° 86718

For more information contact the editorial team at bulletin@concurrences.com


1. Before writing your contribution

• Is the case / text still available for comment?

> Check on-line on the e-Competitions database that the case or text you whish to comment has not yet been commented; Duplicate comments may be published if they offer alternative point of view. Cross links will be added.

• Can I choose any area of competition law?

> e-Competitions bulletin has 7 different sections:

  • Anticompetitive practices
  • Unilateral practices
  • State Aids
  • Procedures
  • Mergers
  • Regulated sectors (telecom, audiovisual, postal...)
  • Public sector

You can write in any of these sections

• Should I comment Courts’ decisions, NCA’s decisions or regulatory texts?

> You should primarily comment Courts’ decisions. Why ? Courts’ competitions decisions are less common and then of greater value. NCA’s decisions are usually easier to find on the Net. Courts’ competitions decisions usually require more research skill to find – especially inferior courts’ decisions - this gives added-value to the project.

> However, there may not be any Court’s decision for a given period for a given State. In such a case, you should by order of importance:

  • Go back as far as 6 months in order to check if any interesting Court’s decision has not yet been commented - Comment a NCA’s decision
  • Comment a regulatory text, as recent as possible, but again, you may have to go back as far as 6 months.

2. Writing your contribution

• What information should I mention?

> Be sure to make readers know in the very first paragraph, what is the case about, its date, the institution author of the case/text, names of the parties, who complaint, who win/lost... At the end of your comment, make sure to mention the amount in euros of a fine if any, remedies if any... Mention if the case is being appealed or if the decision is final.

> If the case presents some links with a previous text commented in e-Competitions, mention it; the Editor will add cross-links between the articles.

> It is merely a case/text comment, so do not spend time in a lengthy introduction, go straight to the point. Comments, critics, approval of the solution should appear at the end of your article

> Avoid reference to present such as “a recent decision” or “this year”: readers may find your article in two years time and you do not whish your article look out-dated.

• Can I comment together more than one case or regulatory text?

> Do not comment in a same article more than one case or decision, except in case of strong link between the two, such as decision and appeal decision, bill and implementing decree... The reason for this is that a data base works better on the basis of one comment per document. You are welcome to make two, three etc. comments of two cases/texts, even with similar wordings; the Editor will cross-link them.

• How long should my comment be?

> Comments should be between 4.000 to 8.000 signs with spaces, depending of the interest of the case. However, electronic publication makes space requirement flexible. The aim is to avoid full doctrinal articles but also too short comment such as news or briefs (not “Global Competition Review” or “Practical Law Company” type).


Each case summary must contain the following information (1 single Word document)

1. Author(s) of the case summary

> Name and first name

> e-mail (new author only)

> Mini-CV: (new author only) one paragraph, no bullet-points, check format on the website

> Photo (new author only) with full head and shoulders

2. State

> For editorial reasons, in this instance, the European Union and other international organisations are considered as States

3. Date of the commented text

> Date of decision (not date of publication)


4. References of the commented text

> Name of the institution (Please, provide original name and English version) > Names of the parties if any

> Nickname of the case if any

> National reference or number if any

> Previous related e-Competitions articles if relevant

5. Text of the commented case

> Hyperlink or pdf

6. Title of the case summary

The title is an abstract by itself. Make sure it is not too long, not too short and fully informative. Follow this format : “The EU General Court rejects actions brought against the recalculated fines imposed by the Commission in the gas insulated switchgear cartel (Toshiba / Mitsubishi)”, i. e.:

> Which institution is the author of the decision/text commented ;

> What the decision is about (too long titles do not fit in the IT system and must be cut !) ;

> The nickname of the case and / or the names of the parties.

Please note that the Editor may need to adapt himself the title if your title does not follow this format.

7. Subject (choose the relevant section)

  • Anticompetitive practices
  • Unilateral practices
  • Mergers
  • State Aids
  • Regulated sectors
  • Procedures
  • Public procurement

8. Institution author of the commented text (choose the relevant institution)

EU Court of Justice French Commercial Courts French Audiovisual Regulation Authority
EU General Court French Civil Claims Courts Other regulatory Body
EU Commission French commercial practices review panel Other French Institutions
EU Parliament US Supreme Court Other National Institutions
EU Council National Competition Authority WTO
European Court of Human Rights French Competition Authority OECD
National Court Parliament or Administration UNCAD
French Constitutional Council French Parliament EFTA
French Conflict Tribunal French Government / Administration ECN
French State Council French fiscal administration ICN
French Civil Supreme Court National sectorial regulator COMESA
Paris Court of Appeal French Post and Communications Regulation Authority WAEMU
Courts of Appeal (except Paris) French Energy Regulation Authority Other international institutions
French Administrative Appeal Courts French Rail and Road Regulation Authority

9. Nature of the commented text (choose relevant)

  • Case law
  • Law, decree or regulation
  • Press release
  • AG Opinion
  • Report
  • Guidelines/Notices
  • Consent order
  • Other

10. Keyword of the commented text (choose at least 3 relevant keywords)

Absolute territorial protection Exclusive purchasing agreement Price squeeze
Abuse of dominance Exclusive right Prices
Abuse of economic dependence Exclusive right (art. 106 TFEU) Principle of effectiveness
Abusive pricing Exclusivity clause Principle of equal treatment
Access to facilities Exemption (individual) Principle of equivalence
Access to file Exhaustion principle Principle of proportionality
Access to information Existing State aid Principle of transparency
Act of State Extraterritoriality Private enforcement
Admissibility (complaint) Failing firm / industry defence Privatisation
Agency agreements Fine mitigating Procedural autonomy
Agreement Foreign investment Professional association
Agreement (notion) Foreword Prohibition (mergers)
Amicus curiae / Assistance Franchising Public loan guarantee (State aid)
Ancillary restriction FRAND Public order
Annulment Geographic market Public Procurement
Anticompetitive object / effect Gun jumping Public undertaking
Applicable law Hardcore restriction Purchase obligation
Arbitration High market shares Rebates
Association of undertakings Institutions Recovery (State aid)
Barriers to entry Intellectual property Reduction of capacities
Below-cost resale price Interim measures Referral back to the NCA (merger)
Bid rigging Intra brand competition Reform
Block Exemption (Regulation) Investigations / Inquiries Refusal to deal
Boycott Joint control Regulated prices
Burden of proof Joint selling Relevant market
Business secrets Joint tender submissions Remedies (antitrust)
Buyer power Joint-venture Remedies (mergers)
Cartel Judicial review Request for information
Change of control Legal privilege Res judicata
Class action Leniency Resale price maintenance
Clearance Phase I (merger) Liability (group) Right against self-incrimination
Clearance Phase II (merger) Liability (personal) Rights of Defence
Collecting societies Licensing agreement Rule of reason
Collective dominance Limitation of supply Sanctions / Fines / Penalties
Competence Limitation period / Prescription Sector inquiry
Competition policy Long-term contract Selective distribution
Compulsory license Low prices Selective price-cutting
Concerted practices Margin squeeze Self-incrimination
Concerted practices (notion) Market definition Service of gn. eco. interest
Concession Market economy investor Settlement
Concurrent jurisdictions Market inquiry Severability
Consumers association Market power Single-branding
Consumers protection Market sharing SLC/SRC Test (mergers)
Control (notion) Media pluralism Sole control
Cooperation agreement Merger (notion) Spare parts
Cooperation between NCAs MFC Clause Spill over effect
Coordinated effects Minority shareholdings Standard essential patent
Copyrights Misinformation State action defence
Cost-based access Modernisation State aid (notion)
Cost-oriented prices Ne bis in idem State aid compatibility
Criminal sanctions Negative clearance State aid illegality
Cross subsidisation Network access charges State aid modification
Damages New State aid State aid scheme
De minimis Non-competition clause State intervention
Deceiving consumers tariffs Notification (mergers) State resources
Direct effect Notification (State aid) State’s liability
Discriminatory practices Nullity / Voidness Substantive test (mergers)
Distribution agreement Objective justification Tax exemption (State aid)
Dominance Obligation to supply Taxes
Dominance (notion) Oligopoly Termination of supply
ECHR Online platforms Third parties
Economic analysis Parallel imports Thresholds
Economic efficiency Passing on defence Transfer of technology
Effect on competition Pay-for-Delay Transfer pricing
Effect on interstate trade Periodic penalty Trustee
Effective judicial protection Predatory pricing Tying
Environment protection Preliminary ruling (Art. 267 TFEU) Undertaking (notion)
Essential facility Price coordination Unfair competition
Ex ante price control Price discrimination Unilateral effects (mergers)
Excessive prices Price fixing Universal service
Exchange of information Price increase Vertical restrictions
Exclusive distribution Price regulation Withdrawal (mergers)

11. Economic sector

Advertising Financial services Publishing industry
Agriculture / Food products Healthcare Regulated services
All business sectors Heavy industry Services
Audiovisual Information technology Social services of general interest
Automobile Insurance Sports
Chemical Industry Internet Telecommunications
Coal and steel Manufacturing Tobacco and alcohol
Construction Media Transport (air)
Distribution/Retail Online platforms Transport (rail)
Electricity Other services Transport (road)
Energy Pharmaceutical Transport (sea)
Entertainment Postal services Transports
Environment Press Utilities

Please send your contribution to bulletin@concurrences.com