Competition journals: Jan. - April 2009

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article.

1. General - Scope of application

Competition law as an obstacle or remedy to the crisis La crise économique et financière, la régulation et la concurrence, F. Jenny (Les Échos, 19 March 2009, p. 11; Concurrences, No. 2-2009)

In the short article published in Les Echos, in tune with current events, at the very moment when voices are being raised on all sides calling for the rules of competition law to be put on hold while the economy recovers thanks to generously granted state aid and mergers giving rise to mastodons in the banking and financial sectors, Frédéric Jenny sets out his message: "The fight against the crisis, if it were to be freed from the rules of competition law, could in the long term hinder the return to growth. The advantages granted to some or the authorisation given to some operators to regroup to be stronger may pervert competition, he adds. Unfortunately, the consequences are all too well known: distortion of competition leads to the disappearance of the smallest operators, who can today be more efficient and far better off than the "big boys".

The author comes back in more detailed terms on this subject in the article published in this No. 2-2009 of Concurrences, commenting on the topics discussed at the February 2009 meeting of the OECD Competition Committee. The author first discusses the banking and financial sectors, where he emphasizes that the implementation of competition law is not contradictory with the objective of stability. He then discusses the role of competition authorities and the enforcement of competition law in times of crisis. With regard to the former, he concludes that there is a need for renewed activity in times of crisis in order to defend the competitive mechanism and to contain the development of legislative or regulatory initiatives that could ultimately jeopardize recovery. Regarding the second, while it is clear that a weakening of competition law could delay recovery, Frédéric Jenny suggests that in times of crisis, on the one hand, competition policy can be rehabilitated and, on the other hand, that the implementation of competition law must not find an intermediate path between rigidity and excessive flexibility and take into account the influence of macroeconomic conditions on the interplay of competition on the markets in order to maintain its relevance and, therefore, its legitimacy.

See also, Competition policy in times of crisis, D. Spector, A. Amelio, G. Siotis, A. Winckler, F-Ch. Laprévote, C. Winograd (Concurrences N° 2-2009, www.concurrences.com)

Reforms of French competition law: The big game? (I), E. Claudel (RTD com. Oct.-Dec. 2008, p. 698-719)

In this very comprehensive article devoted to the overall reform of competition law in 2008, Emmanuelle Claudel goes back over the premises of the reform and scrutinizes all the measures concerning competition law.

See also, La réforme du droit de la concurrence, A. Decocq (RJ com. 2008/6, p. 446).

The new face of competition regulation in France - The Autorité de la concurrence entre deux Europe, L. Idot & C. Lemaire (JCP éd. G, n° 12, 18 March 2009, Study, 125, p. 25)

According to an almost exhaustive study on the transformation of the Competition Council into a Competition Authority by the Economic Modernisation Act of 4 August 2008, Order No. 2008-1161 of 13 November 2008 and all the decrees adopted for their application, a process that was completed on 2 March 2009 when the new Authority took up its duties, the two authors note that the new French system of competition regulation reveals the influence of the two Europe: The Community Europe, which encourages the abandonment of the old dualist model in favour of a single authority, and the Europe of human rights, which requires a more balanced compromise between the rights of the defence and the effectiveness of regulation. For Laurence Idot and Christophe Lemaire, this division between the two Europes-Brussels and Strasbourg-that characterises the French reform, far from splitting the Authority apart, strengthens it. It is in the balance of powers and rights and duties that modern competition regulation is certainly to be found, and the authors express the hope that these reflections at national level will find an echo at Community level, where an initial assessment of the application of Regulation 1/2003 is being undertaken. They nevertheless underline the incomplete nature of the French reform - the most important that France has experienced since 1986 - which, according to them, is unquestionably moving in the right direction. They suggest that the Authority should be given some time to settle into its new clothes before considering further possible adjustments...

See also, La nouvelle "Autorité de la concurrence": création d’une autorité de concurrence "unique" ?, L. Donnedieu de Vabres-Tranié (Rev. de l’avocat conseil d’entreprises, déc. 2008, n° 106, p. 41); La nouvelle autorité de la concurrence est née!O. Dufour (Petites affiches, 19 Jan. 2009, No. 13, p. 4); Les défis de la nouvelle Autorité de la concurrence, D. spector (La Tribune, 28 Jan. 2009, p. 8); Dernières turbulences pour la naissance de l’Autorité de la concurrence, C. Vilmart (JCP éd. E, n° 7, 12 Feb. 2009, Actualités 73, p. 3); La nature juridique de l’Autorité de la concurrence, R. Poesie (AJDA, n° 7/2009, 2 March 2009, p. 347); Chronique Procédures: Publication of all the regulatory texts necessary to complete the reform of competition law, L’Autorité de la concurrence revisions ses règles de fonctionnement; L’Autorité de la concurrence publie deux nouveaux communiqués de procédure en matière d’engagements et de lémence, 3 notes C. Momege (Concurrences No 2-2009, www.concurrences.com)

See also, in relation to the micro-PAC procedure, Le nouveau traitement des micro-pratiques anticoncurrentielles en droit français, D. Ferré, K. Biancone & L. François-Martin (RLDA Feb. 2009, No. 2138, p. 45).

See also, regarding Order No. 2008-1161 of 13 November 2008 on the modernisation of competition regulation, Le droit de la concurrence se doter d’une nouvelle ordonnance, P. Arhel (Petites affiches, 27 Jan. 2009, No. 19, p. 3).

V. also, regarding the decrees issued for the application of the LME and Order 2008-1161 of 13 November 2008 on the modernisation of competition regulation, Anticompetitive practices and merger control: Précisions sur le nouveau dispositif, (BRDA, 4-2009, n° 24, p. 26); LME: the reform in the process of being completed, C. Vilmart (JCP éd. E, n° 8-9, 19 Feb. 2009, Actualités 90, p. 3)

See also, on the "payment periods" section of the LME, LME of 4 August 2008, J.-C. Grall, N. Kouchnir Cargill & E., The application to international contracts of the provisions of the French Commercial Code relating to payment periods, J.-C. Grall, N. Kouchnir Cargill & E. Camilleri (RLDA Jan. 2009, No. 2058)

The stochastic relationship between patents and antitrust, A. Devlin (Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2009, Vol. 5, Issue 1, p. 75).

See also, more broadly, one of the main themes of the second issue of GCP (The online magazine for global competition policy) in March 2009, entitled The intersection of Antitrust & Patent Law, very much oriented towards American law, but a rather broad case law review: Recent devopments in the United States, EU, and Asia at the intersection of Antitrust and Patent Law, J. Zoetti, S. Evrard, G. Oliver, J. B. McDonald,

Sectoral survey in the pharmaceutical industry: Impact on intellectual property rights, E. Diény (Contracts, conc., consom Jan. 2009, Focus 1, p. 2)

See here again one of the publications of GCP (the online magazine for global competition policy), the second one in February 2009, whose theme is The EC Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry. D. Schnichels & E. Kamilarova present the preliminary findings of this inquiry (Pharmaceuticals Sector inquiry: the European Commission presents its preliminary findings). Other articles and comments often offer a critical view of the inquiry and its conclusions: Solving the wrong problem - The preliminary report on the EC pharmaceutical sector inquiry: what have we really learned, K. Bernard, or question - again - the relationship between competition and intellectual property in the sector concerned: DG Competition’s preliminary report on the pharma sector inquiry: a need for clear signals at the IP/Competition intersection, D. Hull.

S. Harris, S. Watanabe, H. Miyakawa, P. Wang & Y. Zhang. Le consommateur, bénéficiaire et acteur de la concurrence, Competition Workshop, 6 May 2008 (Competition & Consumer Affairs, Dec. 2008, No. 162, p. 21).

The "end" of undistorted competition after the Reform Treaty, N. E. Farantouris (RMCUE, Jan. 2009, No. 524, p. 41).

A balance of the impact of economic analysis on the EU Competition Policy, J. Briones (World Competition, March 2009, Vol. 32, Issue 1, p. 27).

Exchanges of information between non-competitors, D. Lescop (D. 2009, Études et commentaires, n° 3, p. 187)

L’influence du droit européen de la concurrence sur l’organisation des systèmes de soins de santé nationaux, F. Louckx (Cah. dr. Eur., 2008/3-4, p. 339)

Salles de cinéma et concurrence - "Les liaisons contentieuses", C. Courtil & F. Reneaud (JCP éd. E, n° 11, 12 March 2009, Études, 1251, p. 37)

Activity of the Community Courts in competition law (October-November 2008), P. Arhel (Petites affiches, 2 Feb. 2009, No 23, p. 6, and 3 Feb. 2009, No 24, p. 6)

Competition Chronicle, L. Idot (Europe, Jan. 2009, comm. 33-47, p. 28; Feb. 2009, comm. 85-116, p. 35; March 2009, comm. 130-140, p. 19)

Chronique droit de la concurrence, L. Idot & C. Prieto (DRC Dec. 2008, p. 1201)

Chronique concurrence, M. Bazex, G. Decocq, M. Malaurie-Vignal & D. Bosco (Contracts, conc., consom Jan. 2009, comm. 13 to 28, p. 22; Feb. 2009, comm. 49 to 59, p. 33, March 2009, comm. 77 to 83; April 2009, comm. 104 to 113)

Chronique de droit économique, C. Anadon (RLDA Jan. 2009, n° 2059 to 2065, p. 42)

Competition Chronicle (RJDA, Feb. 2009, p. 132; March 2009, p. 239; April 2009, p. 347)

2. Agreements

2.1. General

Continuous practices and complex offences, J. Théry-Schultz (Contracts, conc., consom. March 2009, Studies, 3)

Exclusivity on the marketing of the iPhone struck - temporarily? - of competitive turmoil, Mr. Chagny (ECC, Feb. 2009, Comm. 16, p. 35)

Anticompetitive practice: Voluntary saturation of market access, E. Diény (JCP éd. E, n° 4, 22 Jan. 2009, Studies, 1078, p. 30)

The Irish beef case: Competition authority v beef industry development society and Barry Brothers (Carrogmore) meats (C-209/07), European Court of Justice, T. Van Der Vijver (ECLR, April 2009, Vol. 30, Issue 4, p. 198)

2.2. Distribution

Who’s afraid of the Internet? Time to put consumer interests at the heart of competition, S. Kinsella & H. Melin (GCP, the online magazine for global competition policy, March 2009, Release 1)

The first issue of GCP in March 2009 focuses on the forthcoming reform of the Block Exemption Regulation 2790/99 on vertical restraints and on one of the current distribution issues, namely Internet sales. Four of the five articles presented are more or less entirely devoted to this subject. The article by Kinsella and Melin is one of them and attempts to place the terms of the debate in the context of the creation of an internal market for the benefit of the consumer.

V. on the same subject, Distribution of cosmetic and personal hygiene products sold on pharmaceutical advice, P. Arhel (RLC 2009/18, No. 1272, p. 21).

Regulation 1400/2002 and access to technical information: necessity of convergent interpretation with the principles etablished by the relevant case law, G. Karydis & N. Zevgolis (ECLR, Feb. 2009, Vol. 30, Issue 2, p. 95).

Chronique droit de la distribution, S. Lebreton-Derrien (RJ com 2008/6, p. 457)

Chronique distribution, M. Malaurie-Vignal & N. Mathey (Contracts, conc., consum. Jan. 2009, comm. 5 to 12, p. 16; Feb. 2009, comm. 42 to 44, p. 30; March 2009, comm. 72 to 76; April 2009, comm. 97 to 103)

3. Abuse of dominance

First views on the Commission’s guidance on the application of Article 82 EC to exclusionary conduct, A.-S. Choné (Europe, March 2009, Study 3, p. 4).

In this well-documented paper, Anne-Sophie Choné offers a synthetic presentation of the Commission’s communication of 9 February 2009, whose precise title is as follows: "Guidance on the Commission’s priorities for the application of Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings", which confirms the new approach of competition authorities in their apprehension of abuses of dominant positions, more marked by an effects-based approach. The author first looks at the criteria used by the Commission to identify exclusionary abuses and discusses in particular the test adopted by the Commission for price-based practices, namely the "at least as effective competitor" test. It then examines the application of these tests to the main exclusionary abuses.

On the same subject, we will also see, in the present review ConcurrencesN° 2-2009, the crossed views of eminent competition law practitioners, whose reading can only be recommended: The EU Commission’s guidance on exclusionary abuses: A step foward or a missed opportunity? F. Rosati, F. Ninane, H. Bourgeois, N. McCarty, J. Peyre, J. Killick, A. P. Komninos, G. D. Oliver, P. Choné & I. Lianos. The authors provide a very detailed analysis of the basic principles and practical implementation of the recent Commission Notice on exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. With the possible exception of Philippe Choné, the authors conclude negatively and express concern about this new Commission text. For them, suspicion continues to hang over the practices of dominant companies, even if the Commission’s new approach based in particular on the effects of abusive practices is affirmed. On the one hand, they are critical of "forms and methods": they regret that the Commission has too often used imprecise terms in its communication but, above all, they consider that this text exposes operators to considerable legal uncertainty in the absence of clear rules or the presence of too many exceptions to the rules set out. They also criticise the import of the analysis of Article 81(3) at the stage of qualification under Article 82 EC. On the other hand, on the substance, the authors consider that there are a number of contradictions in the notice, such as the end of prohibition per se and the maintenance of the special liability of undertakings in a dominant position. Likewise, the cost tests and, more generally, the Commission’s position on rebates, refusal to sell or predation, the maintenance of the prohibition of discrimination, the lack of development of remedies for abuse of a dominant position and, lastly, the divergences now asserted between the US and European positions are criticised.

See also, Competition: the new approach of the European Commission in the implementation of Article 82 EC, M. Chammas (JDE, March 2009, n° 157, p. 69) as well as the theme of the first issue of GCP (the online magazine for global competition policy) in February 2009, entitled Analyzing the Article 82 guidance paper. The first article in this dossier is none other than a presentation of the communication by the Commission’s Director General for Competition, P. Lowe: The European Commission formulates its enforcement priorities as regards exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. Nine articles then provide an opportunity to study more specifically a certain number of practices (exclusivity and rebates, predation, etc.), to question the progress or retreat to which the Notice leads or to note the uncertainties, and even contradictions, that still exist. Of all these articles, one will notably retain Schizophrenia in the Commission’s Article 82 guidance paper: formalism alongside increased recourse to economic analysis, J. Killick & A. Komninos and Guidance on enforcement priorities exclusionary abuses: a comparative, in which Y. Botteman & K. P. Ewing engage in an interesting and synthetic comparison of European and American approaches.

"Consumer welfare and article 82EC: practice and rhetoric, P. Arkman (World Competition, March 2009, Vol. 32, Issue 1, p. 71).

The author of this paper denounces an important gap between the rhetoric that puts the consumer at the centre of competition policy and the reality of the Commission’s decision-making practice in the field of abuse of a dominant position. He attributes this discrepancy to the absence of a unified test of assessment, in particular with regard to the question of whether an object, actual effects, the likelihood of effects or potential effects are taken into account. On this point, the author stresses that if the standard is indeed consumer welfare, then the test of abuse should consist of an impairment of competition resulting in harm to the consumer and considers for its part that a probability of effects is therefore not sufficient, particularly in the case of abuse of exploitation. In any event, it considers it essential that a standard be clearly defined.

Article 82 EC and refusal to license intellectual property rights: new perspectives after the Microsoft judgment, G. Coppo (EUDR, 4/2008, p. 783)

See also the issue of the Antitrust Law Journal, almost entirely dedicated to the end of the Microsoft case and analysing the different lessons, for the new technologies sector or in terms of remedies. See in particular, The Microsoft judgment and its implications for competition policy towards dominant firms in Europe, C. Ahlborn & D. S. Evans (Antitrust Law Journal, 2009, Vol. 75, Issue 3, p. 887). V. again, around the same case, Are competition policies reducible to applied economic theory? Réflexions autour de l’affaire Microsoft, M. Deschamps & F. Marty (Rev. de recherche prospective - Droit prospectif 2008, Cah. de méthodologie juridique n° 22, PUAM, p. 2571)

Le médicament, le droit de la concurrence et les exportations parallèles, C. Robin (RLC 2009/18, No. 1273, p. 24).

V. also, Stop Sot. Lélos kai Sia EE and others v. GlaxoSmithKline AEVE, A. Dawes (RDUE, 4/2008, jurispr., p. 843); Finally a bit of clarity for pharmaceutical companies; but incertainties remain: Judgment of ECJ in Sot. Lélos Kai Sia EE v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE, P. Turner-Kerr (ECLR, Feb. 2009, Vol. 30, Issue 2, p. 57); and Dominant companies may not refuse ordinary orders with the aim of restricting parallel trade: the European Court of Justice judgment in GlaxoSmithKline, T. Grad & S. Hallouet (ECLR, April 2009, Vol. 30, Issue 4, p. 194).

A dominant position is not necessarily illegal (note ss. CE 17 Oct. 2008, Société OGF) (concl. by the Government Commissioner), F Séners (AJDA, 19 Jan. 2009, p. 56).

See also, Les conditions d’application de la théorie de l’abus de position dominante automatique, M. Bazex & S. Blazy (D. Adm. n° 1, Jan. 2009, p. 21)

Glaxo case: predation by reputation, É. Chevrier (D. 2009, jur., p. 867).

A proposed test for separating pro-competitive conditional rebates from anti-competitive ones, D. Gérardin (World Competition, March 2009, Vol. 32, Issue 1, p. 41).

Tacit collusion as economic links in article 82 EC revisited, F. E. Mezzanotte (ECLR, March 2009, Vol. 30, Issue 3, p. 137).

Condemnation of NMPPs for abuse of dominant position, E. Derieux (JCP éd. E, No. 11, March 12. 2009, 1239, p. 27)

Audiovisual Exclusivities and Electronic [...]Communications , F. Fontaine & A. Veron (RLDI, n° 47, March 2009, p. 33)

4. Restrictive practices

The prohibition of discrimination after the repeal of Article L. 442-6-I, 1° of the Commercial Code, E. Diény (Concurrences, n° 2-2009, www.concurrences.com)

The relationship established is not the juxtaposition of independent contracts, E. Chevrier (D. 2009, n° 4, p. 225)

La rupture des relations commerciales ou l’influence de l’ordre public de protection sur le droit des contrats, J.-L. Fourgoux (Concurrences, n° 2-2009, www.concurrences.com)

Reforming the Negotiability of Terms and Conditions and Prices: Why and How, M-D. Hagelsteen (RJEP, No. 660, Jan. 2009, p. 3).

La mort soudaite du contrat de coopération commerciale, B. Grimonprez (Contracts, conc., consom. Jan. 2009, Études, 1, p. 7)

5. Concentrations

Concentration control : La fin de l’exception française, S. Martin (JCP éd. E, n° 5, 29 Jan. 2009, 1117, p. 36)

In this short but dense article, Stanislas Martin deals with the institutional aspects of French merger control following its transfer to the French Competition Authority. In particular, he examines in detail the so-called "power of evocation", which the Minister regains after the Authority’s decision, which allows him to rule on the transaction "for reasons of general interest other than competition". The author sees this as more than an exit from politics, a return to politics, inasmuch as, freed from his role as competition authority, the Minister will certainly be less inhibited from using his powers to "make" economic policy.

See also, Le transfert du contrôle des concentrations à l’Autorité de la concurrence, C. Vilmart (Contrats, conc., consom., Feb. 2009, Focus, 10, p. 3); Le pouvoir d’intervention du ministre de l’économie en matière de contrôle des concentrations, F. de Bure & I. Girgenson (RLC 2009/18, No. 1265, p. 9)

Retail therapy: A cross-country comparison of merger control remedies practice and experience in the wholesaling and retailing sectors of France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdoms, T. Hoehn, S. Rab & G. Saggers (ECLR, April 2009, Vol. 30, Issue 4, p. 153).

This article is based on the conclusions of the research programme The Merger Remedies Matrix, the results of which are available on the journalConcurrences’s website. See also, on the French dimension of this subject, the proceedings of the annual conference of the journal, "Remedies and commitments in the new merger control", published in the electronic supplement of this No. 2-2009 on www.concurrences.com.

Merger efficiencies at the Federal Trade Commission 1997-2007, M. Coate & A. Heimert (GCP, The online magazine for global competition policy, February 2009, Release 2)

Concentration between competitors : Avoid the pitfalls of gun jumping and smoking guns, N. Jalabert-Doury & N. Robertson (Option Finance, No. 1020, March 16, 2009, p. 33)

6. State aid

State aid: The European Commission and systemic risk, L. Wagner (Europe, Jan. 2009, Survey 1, p. 4).

V. also, How far should state aid to banks be controlled? D. Spector (La Tribune, 6 April 2009, p. 8); Les aides d’état s’adaptent à la crise, F. Hastings (La Tribune, 9 Feb. 2009, p. 9); Crise et aides d’État : L’opportune résurgence de l’article 87-3-b CE, N. Lenoir & M.-L. Combet (Concurrences, n° 2/2009, www.concurrences.com)

Le refus de notifier une aide d’État n’est pas un acte de Gouvernement, E. Geffray & S.-J. Liéber (AJDA, 22. déc.2008, Chron. gen. de jurispr. adm. française, p. 2384)

See also, Control of the national judge over the refusal of notification (note ss. CE, 7 Nov. 2008, Comité national des interprofessions des vins à appellations d’origine et a.). (Concl. of the Government Commissioner), E. Glaser (RJEP, n° 661, Feb. 2009, p. 22)

Les mesures de soutien à l’industrie automobile française au regard du droit européen de la concurrence et du droit de l’OMC, P.-E. Dupont (JCP éd. E, n° 14, 2 April 2009, Études, 1340, p. 21)

Application of Community law by the administrative courts, G. Kalflèche (Europe, Feb. 2009, Chron., p. 7)

State aid: Annulment of the Ryanair decision by the Court of First Instance, J. De Beys (JDE, No 157, March 2009, p. 74)

Defence procurement: the most effective way to grant illegal State aid and get away with it... or is it?, B. Heuninckx (CMLR, Feb. 2009, Vol. 46, Issue 1, p. 191)

7. Public sector and competition

3rd Franco-German Competition Day - The action of competition authorities in the energy sector in Germany and France (Strasbourg, 19 June 2008, Minutes); A. Krenzer (RLC 2009/18, No. 1322, p. 121)

Chronique concurrence : Interventions économiques des personnes publiques, M. Bazex, F. Rolin & P. Subra de Bieusses (Contrats, conc., consom., feb. 2009, chron., 1, p. 21)

Chronicle of public procurement in Community case-law (1 July 2007-31 December 2008), S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz (RMCUE, No. 526, March 2009, p. 189)

Telaustria: Which perimeter?, C. Bardon & Y. Simonnet (D. Adm. n° 1, Jan. 2009, p. 14); see also Jurisprudence Telaustria et contrat in house (note ss. CJCE, 13 Nov. 2008, aff. C-324/07, Coditel Brabant), R. Caranta (D. Adm. n° 2, Feb. 2009, p. 19)

La publicité et la mise en concurrence dans la délivrance des titres d’occupation domaniale, C. Vautrot-Schwarz (AJDA, No. 11-2009, 30 March 2009, p. 568)

8. Procedures

8.1. General

Saisies informatiques : Le régime français à l’épreuve des impératifs des conformité et de cohérence, N. Jalabert-Doury (Concurrences, n° 2-2009, www.concurrences.com; see also on this subject, in the same issue, note C. M. in the column ’Procedures’’ on Cons. conc. dec. no. 09-D-05 of 2 February 2009 relating to practices implemented in the temporary work sector).

At a time when the Competition Authority is beginning to exercise its powers of investigation in competition matters, Nathalie Jalabert-Doury wonders about possible changes in practices and methods. In terms of possible developments, the author insists on the urgency for the Authority, and more broadly for French practice, to address the subject of computer seizures. For the time being, French practice seems to be quite different from that of other authorities, and in particular that of the European Commission, whether in terms of the legal framework within which computer seizures are carried out or the seizure technique used, which is based on the principle of the aggregation of the data seized, which prohibits a prior selection of only useful documents, even though technical solutions enabling the securitization of data exist and practices that are more respectful of the rights of the persons under investigation are implemented, in particular by the European Commission.

La réforme des visites domiciliaries en matière de concurrence, B. Hatoux (RJDA, Feb. 2009, studies and doctrine, p. 63).

See also, Une ordonnance pour soigner les droits de la défense en matière de droit de la concurrence, M. Dany & P. Goossens (Petites affiches, 16 Jan. 2009, No. 12, p. 5).

My travel judgment, C. Freitas Da Costa (RDUE, 4-2008, jurispr., p. 850).

V. also, Errors of assessment by the Commission with subtly measured consequences: Les apports de l’affaire Airtours/Mytravel Group, C. Grynfogel (Contrats, conc., consom., mars 2009, Focus, 14)

Inciting Damages Actions in Competition Law; The Viewpoint of a Proceeder (Part 1), S. Amrani-Mekki (Gaz. Pal, 22-24 March 2009, p. 5)

This article is extracted from the proceedings of the colloquium on the white paper organised on 13 June 2008 at the Institute of Comparative Law of the University of Paris II, under the direction of Professor Laurence Idot: ’’The White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules’’. All these documents are published in the electronic supplement of this N° 2-2009 Concurrenceson www.concurrences.com.

Power and duties of arbitrators in the application of competition law: An EC approach in the light of recent developments, E. Stylopoulos (ECLR, March 2009, Vol. 30, Issue 3, p. 118).

8.2. Sanction Policy - Clemency - Settlement - Undertakings

The relationship between public antitrust enforcement and private actions for damages, W.P.J.Wils (World Competition, March 2009, Vol. 32, Issue 1, p. 3).

La compliance ou le rôle moteur du droit dans la stratégie de l’entreprise), O. Chambaud (Petites affiches, 22 Dec. 2008, No. 255, p. 4)

La procédure d’engagements devant la Cour de cassation: particulière "ma non troppo" ..., M. Chagny (Comm. com. électr., March 2009, comm. 27)

Competition: New settlement mechanism to end a procedure before the Commission, F. Puel (EDJ, No. 155, Jan. 2009, p. 7)

Competition: Towards a dizzying increase in fines, F. Brunet (La Tribune, Jan. 29, 2009, p. 8)

9. Regulations

Legal uncertainty and competition policy in European deregulated electricity markets: the case of long-term exclusive supply contracts, A. de Hautecloque (World Competition, March 2009, Vol. 32, Issue 1, p. 91).

L’analyse concurrentielle de la rente du nucléaire, G. Dezobry (Contrats, conc., consom., n° 4, avril 2009, p. 8)

La soft law ou l’ambiguë souplesse du droit..., P. Lombart (RJEP, No. 661, Feb. 2009, p. 1)

10. International policy

Chronique "politiques de concurrence", N. Jalabert-Doury, L. Nouvel, D. Le Marec, P. Le More & A. Tercinet (RDAI/IBLJ, 5/2008, p. 655)

This column is devoted to the analysis of international competition law news. As usual, issue 6/2008 covers the latest developments in EU and national competition law, as well as international developments in the field. At the Community level, it deals in particular with the Commission’s annual report, the Commission’s private action for damages, the judgments of the CFI of 8 July 2008 on the organic peroxides cartel, Sony BMG of the ECJ of 10 July 2008 and Chronopost of the ECJ of 1 July 2008. An item is also devoted to national news with the Civil Justice Council’s report on class actions in the United Kingdom, the decision of the Court of Appeal of The Hague on the criminalisation of cartels and the LME in France. At the international level, the first decisions of the new Pakistani competition authority, the new merger control thresholds in China, the US presidential candidate programme, the pass-on defense in California, the OECD report on Ukraine and the Chile/Australia free trade agreement are discussed. All these comments and many more are available online on the journal’s website at http://www.iblj.com/fr-0-10/afarticle-1/62008779-795/politiques_de_concurrence.html.

Managing antitrust compliance through the continuing surge in global enforcement, A. B. Lipsky Jr. (Antitrust Law Journal, 2009, Vol. 75, Issue 3, p. 965)

OECD Competition Committee of 16 and 20 February 2009, F. Souty (Concurrences No. 2-2009, www.concurrence.com)


LIST OF PERIODIC REMAINS

A.

LEGAL NEWS - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (AJDA)

NEWS FROM THE NETWORK INDUSTRIES IN EUROPE

ADMINISTRATION AND TERRITORIAL COLLECTIVITIES

AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW

AMERICAN LAW AND ECONOMIC REVIEW

ECONOMIC ANALYSES

ANTITRUST

(THE) ANTITRUST BULLETIN

ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL

SOURCE ANTITRUST

B.

BANK

BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY GAZETTE

ILEC NEWSLETTER

RAPID BUSINESS LAW BULLETIN (BRDA)

C.

(LES) CAHIERS DE DROIT EUROPEEN

CORPORATE LAW BOOKLETS (FROM THE LAW WEEK)

CHICAGO LAW REVIEW (UNIVERSITY OF)

COMMON MARKET LAW REVIEW

COMMUNICATION - ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

COMMUNICATION & STRATEGIES

COMPETITION AND REGULATION IN NETWORK INDUSTRIES

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY

COMPETITION POLICY NEWSLETTER

COMUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW REVIEW

PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROCUREMENT

CONTRACTS-COMPETITION-CONSUMER

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

D.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

PROCUREMENT LAW

COMPANY LAW

CRIMINAL LAW

E.

(LES) ECHOS/ ISSUES LES ECHOS

ECONOMIC INTUITION

(THE) ECONOMIST

EMORY LAW JOURNAL

EUROPE

(THE) EUROPEAN ANTITRUST REVIEW

EUROPEAN COMPETITION JOURNAL

EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAW REVIEW

EUROPEAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERY REVIEW

EUROPEAN LAW REPORTER

EUROPEAN LAW REVIEW

EUROPEAN VOICE

F.

FAIR TRADING

FORDHAM LAW REVIEW

G.

(THE) PALACE GAZETTE

GLOBAL ANTITRUST WEEKLY

GLOBAL COMPETITION REVIEW

H.

HARVARD LAW REVIEW

I.

INSTITUTE ANTITRUST LAW AND POLICY FORDHAM CLI

INTERNAT. COMPANY AND COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW

INTERNAT. ENERGY LAW AND TAXATION REVIEW

INTERNAT. JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION

INTERNAT. TRADE LAW AND REGULATION

J.

COURT JOURNAL. EUROPEAN LAW

INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL CLUNET

JOURNAL OF INTERNAT. BANKING LAW AND REGULATION

JOURNAL OF COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS

JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

JOURNAL OF LAW ECONOMICS & ORGANIZATION

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES

JOURNAL OF REGULATORY ECONOMICS

K.

L.

ECONOMIC LAW

LAMY PUBLIC BUSINESS LAW

M.

(THE) MONITOR (OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDING)

N.

NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND BUSINESS

O.

OREGON LAW REVIEW

P.

(THE) SMALL POSTERS

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS

PROCEDURES

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY

Q.

R.

RAND JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS

DALLOZ COLLECTION

REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW

CASE LAW REVIEW

CASE LAW REVIEW OF BUSINESS LAW

OECD REVIEW ON COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER REVIEW

ENERGY REVIEW

LEGAL RESEARCH JOURNAL - PROSPECTIVE LAW

JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL SCIENCE AND COMPARATIVE LAW

EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW

CONTRACT REVIEW

REVIEW OF COLLECTIVE PROCEDURES

PUBLIC LAW REVIEW

REVIEW OF THE COMMON MARKET AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

EUROPEAN UNION LAW REVIEW

(THE) ECONOMIC JOURNAL

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JOURNAL

FRENCH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JOURNAL

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LAW.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPETITION

PUBLIC ENTERPRISE LAW REVIEW

LAMY COMPETITION REVIEW

LAMY DROIT DE L’IMMATERIEL MAGAZINE

LAMY BUSINESS LAW REVIEW

QUARTERLY CIVIL LAW REVIEW

QUARTERLY REVIEW OF COMMERCIAL AND ECONOMIC LAW

QUARTERLY REVIEW OF EUROPEAN LAW

S.

LEGAL WEEK - COMPANY EDITION

LEGAL WEEK - GENERAL EDITION

T.

TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW

TULANE LAW REVIEW

U.

(THE) NEW PLANT

V.

W.

WORLD COMPETITION

X.

Y.

YALE LAW JOURNAL

YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNAT. LAW

Z.

— This section of the review Concurrences selects articles and working papers on themes related to competition laws and economics, mainly, but not only, in the English and French languages. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey on themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publications over the last three months after release of the latest issue of Concurrences (February 2009 - April 2009). Articles and working papers published on the Internet only are also welcome. Authors, editors and publishers are welcome to send their papers to aronzanoATccip.fr for review in this section. The list of periodicals reviewed can be checked at the end of the article.

PDF Version

Authors

Quotation

Umberto Berkani, Alain Ronzano, Christelle Adjémian, Competition journals: Jan. - April 2009, May 2009, Concurrences N° 2-2009, Art. N° 26134, pp. 242-246

Visites 5469

All reviews