*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article.
1. General - Scope of application
The notions of enterprise in French competition law > L. Arcelin (RLC 2016/48, No. 2929, p. 18)
SMEs: the challenge of competition compliance > A.-S. Bodin (International Trade, Dec. 2015, No. 104, p. 11)
Towards a new reform of the Competition Authority? > G. Decocq (Contracts, conc., consom. Feb. 2016, No. 2, benchmark 2 )
The Macron law and economic activity (Proceedings of the Toulouse conference of 8 October 2015) > (RJ com. Nov.-Dec. 2015, No. 6, p. 655)
What behavioural economics can bring to lawyers: European illustrations > A. Biard and M. faure (RTD eur. Oct.-Dec. 2015, n° 4, p. 715)
The Images of the ’Consumer’ in EU Competition Law > A. Albors-Llorens and A. Jones (Legal Studies Research Paper Series, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, Paper n°17/2016, March 2016)
EU Competition Law in the Sharing Economy > G. Lougher and S. Kalmanowicz (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 2, Feb. 2016)
The Arbitrariness of Market Definition and an Evolutionary Concept of Markets > R. Podszun (The Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 61, Number 1, March 2016)
One year’s entitlement to public service delegation > G. Eckert (Contracts and Public Procurement No. 2, February 2016, chron. 1)
"Digital Single Market": European Commission presents first copyright measures > C. Castets-Renard (Recueil Dalloz, 18 Feb. 2016, p. 388)
Activity of the European Union courts in competition law (July 2015) (September 2015) > P. Arhel (Small posters, 11 Jan. 2016; 12 Jan. 2016; Small posters, 11 Feb. 2016; 12 Feb. 2016)
Competition Chronicle > L. Idot (Europe, Jan. 2016, No. 1, comm. 15-17 and 28-31; Feb. 2016, No. 2, comm. 60-64 and 75-78; March 2016, No. 3, comm. 103-108 and 113-116)
Chronicle European Competition Law > L. Idot (RTD eur. Oct.-Dec. 2015, No. 4, p. 807)
Competition Chronicle > D. Bosco and G. Decocq (Contracts, conc., consum. Jan. 2016, No. 1, comm. 14 to 19; Feb. 2016, No. 2, comm. 45 to 48; Mar. 2016, No. 3, comm. 70 to 75)
Economic Law Chronicle > S. Soltani and C. Rochette (RLDA 2015/109, Nov. 2015, No. S 5757 to 5758, p. 27; RLDA 2015/110, Dec. 2015, No. 5784, p. 22)
Competition Chronicle > E. Claudel (RTD com. Oct.-Dec. 2015, No. 4, p. 697)
Annual Chronicle of Competition Law > A. Lecourt (RLDA 2015/110, Dec. 2015, No. 5799, p. 49)
Competition rules applicable to undertakings > T. Fouquet, V. Giacobbo-Peyronnel, C. Remy and J. Sladic (JDE Feb. 2016, No. 226, p. 70)
Competition Chronicle > (RJDA, No. 2/2016, Feb. 2016, No. 152, p. 142; Mar. 2016, No. 231, p. 227)
2. Agreements
2.1. General
Standardization under the competition rules > H. Aubry (Contracts, conc., consom. March 2016, No. 3, study 3)
Lease agreement for the lease of commercial space and competition law: for an application of the cumulative effects theory > I. Luke (RJDA, No. 2/2016, Feb. 2016, Chron., p. 75) See also on this case, Le droit d’un locataire d’agréer les autres locataires dans un centre commercial : une restriction de concurrence ? C. Grimaldi (D. 4 Feb. 2016, no. 5, note ss. CJEU 26 Nov. 2015 (aff. C-345/14), p. 292) ;
The facilitator of a cartel may be held liable as a party to the agreement (note ss. CJEU, Oct. 22, 2015, No. C-194/14 P). > L. Idot (Revue des contrats, March 2016, No. 2016/1, p. 106)
Deterring Bidder Collusion: Auction Design Complements Antitrust Policy > H. Wang and H.-M. Chen (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12(1), pp. 31-68).
Collusion with Costly Consumer Search > V. Petrikaite (International Journal of Industrial Organization, 44, pp. 1-10)
Why the discriminatory application of criteria in selective distribution systems is blocked under Regulation 330/2010 > A. Eberhardt (European Competition Journal, Vol. 11 Issue 1, 2015)
Vertical Restraints: the European Part of the Policy Failure > R. Van den Bergh (The Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 61, Number 1, March 2016)
Vertical Restraints in On-line Sales: Comments on Some Recent Developments > J. Hederström and M. Truffier (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 1, Jan. 2016)
Courier companies. Arrangements. Competition authority. Fines. > P. Delebecque (Energy - Environment - Infrastructure No. 2, Feb. 2016, comm. 18) In its decision of 15 December 2015, No. 15-D-19, concerning certain practices in the courier and express delivery sector, the Competition Authority did not hesitate to impose a record fine on the 20 companies concerned, which it accused of two types of behaviour contrary to the requirements of free competition: a cartel on annual price increases and a cartel on the invoicing of the price of diesel fuel.
2.2. Distribution
Chronicle Distribution and competitor protection > M. Malaurie-Vignal and N. Mathey (Contracts, conc., consum. Jan. 2016, no. 1, comm. 6 to 13; Feb. 2016, no. 2, comm. 35 to 44; Mar. 2016, no. 3, comm. 64 to 69)
3. Abuse of dominance
Increasingly narrower latitude for companies described as "dominant" in their strategies to defend their market positions > M. Glais (RTD com. Oct.-Dec. 2015, No. 4, p. 649)
Undertaking in a dominant position and system of rebates (note ss. CJEU, 6 Oct. 2015, No C-23/14) > L. Idot (Revue des contrats, March 2016, No. 2016/1, p. 108)
"In Germany, the Bundeskartellamt will have to establish that Facebook’s use of illegal terms of use could constitute an abuse of its dominant position. > Mr. Giner Asins and Mr. Pflieger (JCP ed. G, No. 13, 28 March 2016, 386, p. 654)
Margin Squeeze: an Above-Cost Predatory Pricing Approach > G. Gaudin and D. MAntzari (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12(1), pp. 151-179)
The Meaning of "Anticompetitive Effects" Under Article 102 TFEU > Mr. Kadar (CPI Antitrust Chronicle, March 2016 (1))
Comparing Microsoft and Google: The Concept of Exclusionary Abuse > J. Temple Lang (World Competition, Vol. 39 Issue 1,pp. 5-28, 2016)
Making Sense of Post Danmark I and II: Keeping the Hell Fires Well Stoked and Burning > J. S. Venit (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 3, March 2016)
Post Danmark II: The Emergence of a Distinct ’Effects-Based’ Approach to Article 102 TFEU > P. Ibañez Colomo (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 2, Feb. 2016)
An Assessment of Injunctions, Patents, and Standards Following the Court of Justice’s Huawei/ZTE Ruling > M. Rato and M. english (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 2, Feb. 2016)
Excessive Royalty’ Prohibitions and the Dangers of Punishing Vigorous Competition and Harming Incentives to Innovate > D. Ginsburg, B.H. Kobayashi, K.W. Wong-Ervin and J.D. Wright (ICC Antitrust Chronicle, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2016)
Patents, Antitrust, and Preemption > M. Sipe (Yale University Law School, March 2016)
Excessive Pharmaceutical Prices and Competition Law: Doctrinal Development to Protect Public Health > F. M. Abbott (UC Irvine Law Review, Vol. 6, Issue 3, forthcoming Spring 2017)
ERDF’s monopoly on the public distribution of electricity is confirmed in deceptive terms. > J-S. Boda (Energy - Environment - Infrastructure No. 3, March 2016, comm. 22) Commentary on the TA Lyon judgment, 31 Dec. 2015, No. 1300440 and No. 1303542, Fintz / Chichereau, which reinforces the monopoly granted by law to ERDF to manage the public electricity distribution networks, without expressly settling the burning question of the validity of EDF’s monopoly for the activity of supplying electricity at regulated sales tariffs.
4. Restrictive practices
News on Restrictive Competition Practices (Proceedings of the Lyon colloquium of 25 September 2015) > (RJ com. Nov.-Dec. 2015, No. 6, p. 634)
No more obstacles to the arbitration clause or the inexorable rise of arbitration in the litigation of restrictive competition practices > R. Kaminsky and J. Rozier (JCP ed. E, No. 10, 10 March 2016, 1138, p. 32).
Redefining the scope of Article L. 442-6, I, 5 of the Commercial Code to preserve company law > C. Mouly-Guillemaud (RLDA 2015/109, Nov. 2015, No. 5767, p. 56)
Article L. 442-6, I, 5, of the Commercial Code is not applicable to the lawyer: commerciality or trust? > C. Mouly-Guillemaud (D. 25 Feb. 2016, No. 8, p. 462)
abrupt termination of an established business relationship and influence of the conversion of the rejected partner > C. Grimaldi (JCP ed. G, No. 11, March 14, 2016, 288, p. 509)
5. Concentrations
Takeover of companies in difficulty and competition law (Proceedings of the colloquium organised on 9 October 2015 by the Business Law Centre of the University of Toulouse 1 and the Association des Juristes de la Failure Economique) > L. Idot (Rev. Collective Proceedings, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2015, 57, p. 71)
The Council of State, judge of concentrations > G. Odinet (RLC 2016/47, No. 2904, p. 21).
Simulation of unilateral effects of a horizontal concentration > A. Charpin and A. Munoz (RLC 2016/48, No. 2930, p. 22)
Macron law under the constitutionality review: the late structural injunction? > E. Claudel (RTD com. Oct.-Dec. 2015, No. 4, p. 699)
Dallas s/ Seine in the world of publishers: the end of a saga of almost 15 years? > D. Berlin (JCP éd. G, n° 6, Feb. 8, 2016, 168, p. 294)
Modeling the Duration of Merger Reviews in New Zealand > Q.G. Yang and M. Pickford (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12(1), pp. 69-97)
Adding Dimension to Merger Analysis > M.A. JAmison and J.A. Hauge (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12(1), pp. 99-112)
Unilateral Effects Analysis in Differentiated Product Markets: Guidelines, Policy, and Change > M.B. Coate and S.W. Ulrick (Review of Industrial Organization, 48(1), pp. 45-68).
Domestic-to-Domestic Transactions (2014-2015) - A Narrowing Gap in China’s Merger Control Regime > Y. Yan Sobel (The Antitrust Source, Feb. 2016)
Horizontal Mergers in Homogeneous Goods Industries: When Is Spare Capacity Sufficient to Offset Unilateral Effects? > T. Buettner, A. Cilean and M. Kadar (World Competition, Vol. 39 Issue 1,pp. 57-65, 2016)
IAG/Aer Lingus: Clearance of a Transaction Involving EEA Carriers > G. Deasy (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 3, March 2016)
Should the Acquisition of Non-controlling Minority Shareholdings be Treated as Concentrations? > F. Badtke and R. Diamantatou (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 1, Jan. 2016)
EU Merger Control 30 Years after the Commission’s White Paper on the Completion of the Single Market: Case Study of the Automobile Industry > C. C. Talbot (King’s Inns Law Review, Vol V (2015), pp.93-110)
6. State aid
The concept of State aid: between rigidity and flexibility (on the CJEU judgment of 14 January 2015, Case C-518/13, Eventech Ltd) > A. Soloshchenkov (RTD eur. Oct.-Dec. 2015, No. 4, p. 757)
The Role of Competitors in State Aid Procedures > J. L. Buendia Sierra (EStAL 4/2015, Vol. 14)
7. Public sector and competition
Competition, Regulation and the Public Sector Column > S. Naugès, L. Vidal and L. Ayache (Contracts, conc., consum. March 2016, no. 3, Chron. 2)
Order no. 2016-65 of January 29, 2016 on concession contracts > C. Bihan-Graf and I. Haouas (Energy - Environment - Infrastructures n° 3, March 2016, alert 78) This order, together with its implementing decree No. 2016-86 relating to concession contracts, were published in the Official Gazettes of January 30 and February 2, 2016. They entered into force on April 1, 2016 and apply to concession contracts for which a consultation is initiated or a concession notice is sent for publication as of that date. With this order, the Government has fulfilled its task of transposing Directive 2014/23/EU of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts. It also took advantage of this opportunity to redefine the legal framework applicable to concession contracts by "unifying and simplifying the rules common to these contracts", while adopting special rules for some of them according to their purpose. The ordinance repeals the provisions relating to public service delegations that appeared in the famous Sapin law of 29 January 1993, as well as those relating to public works concessions from ordinance no. 2009-864 of 15 July 2009. With regard to the general code of territorial authorities, the ordinance removes the chapter relating to works concessions and carries out an in-depth overhaul of its title relating to local public services, notably by creating a preliminary chapter on the general rules applicable to concession contracts. See also the dossier devoted to this ordinance > F. Lindtich, W. Zimmer, G. Eckert, P. Delelis and J. martin (Contracts and Public Procurement No. 3, March 2016, file 1) See also, Le droit des concessions: ni tout à fait le même, ni tout à fait un autre... L’ordonnance et le décret relatifs aux contrats de concession > C. Frackowiak (BJCP No. 104, Jan. - Feb. 2016, p. 5)
Dossier: Digital space and the protection of personal data > J. Boyadjian, A. Debet, E. Geffray, H. Oberdorff, S. Peyrou, M. Quemener, J. Richard and J-J. Urvoas (RDP, No. 1, Jan. 2016, p. 7 ff.)
8. Procedures
8.1. General
The Tribunal’s investigative powers: a new range of tools for a strengthened jurisdiction > G. Muguet-Poullennec and C. Calvi (RLC 2016/48, No. 2930, p. 22)
Mystery Shopping in Competition Law and Fairness of Evidence > H. Sefiane (Contracts, conc., consom. Jan. 2016, No. 1, Study 1)
Fundamental rights invoked by companies before the European courts > R. Pierre (JDE Feb. 2016, No. 2016, p. 46)
Nexans, Deutsche Bahn, and the ECJ’s Refusal to Follow ECHR Case Law on Dawn Raids > A. Steene (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 3, March 2016)
Privilege in competition investigations > C. Passmore and P. Boylan (Competition Law Journal, Issue 1, 2016)
8.2. Sanction Policy - Clemency - Settlement - Undertakings
Timab industries and CFPR v. Commission" case > N. Tuominen (RDUE 2/2015, p. 326)
Timab Industries et al: General Court’s Ruling on the First Hybrid Settlement Case > N. Lenoir and M. Truffier (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 1, Jan. 2016)
Compliance programmes: A cross look at ISO 19600:2014 and competition law practice > E. Diény (RLDA 2015/110, Dec. 2015, No. 5800, p. 57)
The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure: Latest Developments > F. Laina and A. Bogdanov (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 1, Jan. 2016)
Interim measures versus commitment decisions in fast-developing markets > L. Solek (Competition Law Journal, Issue 1, 2016)
Fresh Del Monte: Liability for an 80 per cent-Owned Indirect Subsidiary and Formalistic Application of the Leniency Notice > L. Atlee and C. Keres (JECLAP, Vol. 7, Number 1, Jan. 2016)
How High (and Far) Can You Go? On Setting Fines in Cartel Cases Involving Vertically-Integrated Undertakings and Foreign Sales > M. Martyniszyn (ECLR, Vol. 37, Issue 3 2016)
8.3. Actions for damages
The international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States to hear actions for compensation brought by the victims of an unlawful agreement > G. Decocq (RJ com. Sept.-Oct. 2015, No. 5, p. 506)
Compensation for competitive damage before the Court of Cassation ... when the Directive is transposed > M. Chagny (RJ com. Nov-Dec 2015, No. 6, p. 558)
Litigation in damages actions for breach of European competition law > P. Van Cleynenbreugel (JDE Dec. 2015, No. 224, p. 386)
AC-Treuhand, the Scope of Article 101 TFEU, and the Future of Actions for Antitrust Damages > C. C. Talbot (Commercial Law Practitioner, 2016, 23(1), 9-14)
Group action for health products: a complex procedure with uncertain efficiency > K. Hami and B. Javaux (Recueil Dalloz, 11 Feb. 2016, p. 330)
9. Regulations
Rethinking ERDF’s mission at a time of energy transition > M. Derdevet (Energy - Environment - Infrastructure January 2016, No 1, file 5 )
The framework of the powers of the Energy Regulatory Commission in setting tariffs for the use of natural gas transmission networks > J-S. Boda (Energy - Environment - Infrastructure No. 1, January 2016, comm. 3) Commentary on the Société Storengy judgment (EC, 25 Sept. 2015, No. 369055), which clarifies the conditions under which the Energy Regulatory Commission sets the tariffs for the use of natural gas transmission networks, under the supervision of the administrative judge.
10. International policy
Choice of court clauses: the fighter’s journey (note ss. Cass. 1st civ. Oct. 7, 2015) > M.-E. Ancel and L. Marion (JCP ed. E, No. 6, 11 Feb. 2016, 1087, p. 30).
Chinese competition law: a look back at the year 2015 > A. Emch and J. Zhang (RLC 2016/47, No. 2903, p. 12)