e-Competitions Authors Guidelines

You will find below guidelines and examples for submitting a case summary to the e-Competitions Bulletin. Standard length is 4.000 to 8.000 signs. You are welcome to send your contribution directly to bulletin@concurrences.com.

- 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 publishes also 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

I. CHECK-LIST

1. Before writing your contribution

• Is the case/text still available for comment?

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

• 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 an 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

• How long should my comment be?

> Comments should be between 4.000 to 8.000 signs with spaces, depending on 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.

• 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 complained, 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 wish your article look out-dated.

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

> Do not comment in the same article more than one case or decision, except in case of a strong link between the two, such as decision and appeal decision, bill and implementing decree... The reason for this is that a database 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.

II. FRAMEWORK TO FOLLOW FOR EACH CASE SUMMARY

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 the date of publication)

> DD/MM/YYYY

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)

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

11. Economic sector

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