Competition journals: April - June 2016

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. Articles and working papers published on the Internet only are also welcome. Authors, editors and publishers are welcome to send their papers to : aronzano@cci-paris-idf.fr for review in this section.

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

1. General - Scope of application

Brief Introduction to Behavioural Analysis of Law > A. Alemanno, G. Helleringer and A.-L. Sibony (D., Apr. 28, 2016, no. 16, p. 911)

The concept of demand elasticity in competitive economics > E. Frot (RLC 2016/50, No. 2976, p. 35) The elasticity of demand is a pervasive concept in competitive economics. It is used in particular to assess the harm suffered by consumers in the event of anti-competitive practices, or to define a relevant market. In this article, the author discusses the determinants of price elasticity of demand and the mechanisms that depend on it.

Competition Authority: opinion on the review of standardisation and certification activities > A. Penneau (JCP éd. E, No. 26, 30 June 2016, 560, p. 5) Colloque AFEC 2016 M. Chagny, V. Michel-Amsellem, D. Théophile, E. Thauvin, M. Cousin, T. Boillot, P. Rey, I. Luc, M. Ponsard and L. Arcelin (Contrats, conc., consom. juin 2016, n° 6, Dossier 10)

Practices related to the digital economy: the diversity of modes of regulation (Dossier) > G. Decocq, I. Falque-Pierrotin, I. Luc, M. Nussenbaum, C. Duparc and F. Dugrenot (Actualité juridique contrats d’affaires, avr. 2016, n° 4, p. 171-190)

E-commerce, digital platforms, big data... at the heart of the concerns of the Commission and national authorities > L. Idot (Europe, June 2016, n° 6, Alert 42, p. 1)

The Antitrust and Intellectual Property Intersection in European Union Law > N. Petit, in Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property and High Tech, Roger D. Blair & D. Daniel Sokol editors, Cambridge University Press (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2796670)

Multisided markets and the challenge of incorporating multisided considerations into competition law analysis > Gönenç Gürkaynak, Öznur Inanılır, Sinan Diniz and Ayse Gizem Yasar, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, June 30 2016, pp. 1-30.

The Application of EU Competition Rules in the Transport Sector > I. Rabinovici (JECLAP, vol. 7 n°4, April 2016, p.280)

Brexit and EU Competition Policy > R. Whish (JECLAP, vol. 7 n°5, May 2016, p.297)

Competition policy in modern retail markets > H.W. Friederiszick and E. Glowicka (Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, Vol. 4 n°1 April 2016, p. 42)

Brother, may I? The challenge of competitor control over market entry > M. K. Ohlhausen and G. P.Luib (Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, Vol. 4 n°1 April 2016, p. 111)

The Hidden Costs of Free Goods: Implications for Antitrust Enforcement > M. S. Gal and D. L. Rubinfeld (Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 80 Issue 3, p. 521)

The Antitrust Goal(s): Is There A Pattern? > M. Lopez-Galdos, George Washington University - Competition Law Center (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2809661)

Territoriality Isn’t Over > R. O’Donoghue (ICC Antitrust Chronicle, Summer 2016, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 39)

Activity of the courts of the European Union in competition law (October 2015) (November 2015) (December 2015) (January 2016) > P. Arhel (Petites affiches, 18 Apr. 2016, n° 77 p. 7; Small posters, 19 Apr. 2016, n° 78 p. 5; Small posters, 20 Apr. 2016, n° 79 p. 6; Small Posters, June 2. 2016, n° 110, p. 6; Small posters, June 22. 2016, n° 124, p. 9; Small posters, June 29. 2016, No. 129, p. 8)

Activity of the Paris Court of Appeal in the field of anti-competitive practices (Oct. 2015-Apr. 2016) > P. Arhel (Petites affiches, 8 Jul. 2016, n° 136, p. 13)

Chronique Concurrence > L. Idot (Europe, Apr. 2016, No. 4, comm. 140-141 and 145-147; May 2016, No. 5, comm. 165-169, 177, 178; Jun. 2016, No. 6, comm. 207 and 215-218; Jul. 2016, No. 7, comm. 243-246, 250, 251)

Competition Chronicle > D. Bosco and G. Decocq (Contracts, conc., consum. Apr. 2016, No. 4, comm. 98 to 102; May 2016, No. 5, comm. 122 to 127; Jun. 2016, No. 6, comm. 147 to 152; Jul. 2016, No. 7, comm. 170 to 175)

Competition Chronicle > E. Claudel (RTD com. Apr.-May 2016, n° 2, p. 279-286)

Chronique Concurrence > L. Idot (Revue des contrats, 2016-1 et 2016-2, p. 302-306)

Panorama Competition-Distribution > D. Ferrier (D. 5 May 2016, n° 17, p. 965)

Competition Chronicle > (RJDA, No. 4/2016, Apr. 2016, No. 323 to 326, p. 310; No. 5/2016, May 2016, No. 400, p. 396; No. 6/2016, June 2016, No. 483 to 485, p. 487)

Unfair Competition Law > A. Ballot-Léna and G. Decocq (JCP éd. E, No 23, 9 June 2016, 1347, p. 39)

2. Agreements

2.1. General

Fine Schedule with Heterogeneous Cartels: Are the Wrong Cartels Deterred ? > S. Jensen and L. Sørgard (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12, 2, pp. 263-277, 2016)

The Economics of Pass-Through with Production Constraints > D. Rothman, P. Tillmann and D. Toniatti (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12, 2, pp. 279-285, 2016)

Cartels & Concerted Practices: From A to Z > (Antitrust Chronicle, 3, 1, 2016)

Special Issue: Cartel Stability: Determinants and International Evidence > R.M. Feinberg (Review of Industrial Economics, 48, 4, 2016)

Detecting Bidders Group in Collusive Auctions > T.G. Conley and F. Decarolis (American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 8, 2, pp. 1-38, 2016)

SIA Maxima Latvija: More on ’Object’ Restrictions in Vertical Relations > A. Chapman and J. Goyder (JECLAP, Vol. 7 No. 5, May 2016, p.318)

The Meaning of Vertical Agreement and The Structure of Competition Law > L. Kaplow (Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 80 Issue 3, p.563)

2.2. Distribution

Another look at electronic platforms in their relations with selective distribution > M. Malaurie-Vignal (JCP éd. E, n° 21, 26 May 2016, 1310, p. 30)

Chronicle Distribution and competitor protection > M. Malaurie-Vignal and N. Mathey (Contracts, conc., consum. Apr. 2016, No. 4, comm. 90 to 97; May 2016, No. 5, comm. 114 to 121; Jun. 2016, No. 6, comm. 139 to 146; Jul. 2016, No. 7, comm. 164 to 169)

Exclusive Dealing as a Barrier to Entry? Evidence from Automobiles > L. Nurski and F. Verboven (Review of Economic Studies, 83, 3, pp. 1156-1188, 2016)

3. Abuse of dominance

Abuse of a dominant position: new practices, new analyses (Feature) > L. Djavadi, J.-L. Fourgoux, N. Lenoir, A. Jacquin, M. Chagny and M. Ponsard (Actualité juridique contrats d’affaires, May 2016, No. 5, pp. 219-234)

An illustration of the confrontation between competition and intellectual property: FRAND > C licences. Grynfogel (RJDA, No. 5/2016, May 2016, Chron., p. 341)

When Abuse of Dominance Crosses the Brutal Break (note ss. Cass. com. Jan. 19, 2016) > F. Buy and J.-C. Roda (D. May 5, 2016, no. 17, p. 973)

Ownership of a patent essential to a standard and abuse of a dominant position or the delicate cohabitation between competition and intellectual property > R.-M. Borges (Petites affiches, June 9, 2016, No. 115, p. 12)

Is it appropriate to relax the abuse of economic dependence? > L. Vogel and J. Vogel (Actualité juridique contrats d’affaires, May 2016, No 5, p. 260)

Economic Dependence - An involuntary double topicality generating uncertainty > B. Marpeau (JCP éd. G, No. 25, 20 June 2016, 733, p. 1266)

Exclusionary Conduct of Dominant Firms, R&D Competition, and Innovation > J.B. Baker (Review of Industrial Economics, 48, 3, pp. 269-287, 2016)

Discounts as a Barrier to Entry > E. Ide, J-P. Montero and N. Figueroa (American Economic Review, 106, 7, pp. 1849-77, 2016)

The Application of Article 102 TFEU by the European Commission and the European Courts > R. Subiotto QC, D. R. Little and R. Lepetska (JECLAP, Vol. 7 No. 4, April 2016, p.288)

Beyond the ’more economics-based approach’: A legal perspective on Article 102 TFEU case law > P. I. Colomo (Common Market Law Review, Vol. 53 Issue 3, pp. 709-739)

The ECJ Ruling in Huawei and the Right to Seek Injunctions Based on FRAND-Encumbered SEPs under EU Competition Law: One Step Forward > R. Grasso (World Competition Law and Economics Review, Vol. 39 Issue 2, pp. 2013-238)

4. Restrictive practices

The significant imbalance again before the Court of Cassation > M. Chagny (RTD com. Jan-March 2016, No. 1, p. 81)

The Significant Imbalance in the Civil Code > M. Behar-Touchais (JCP éd. G, No. 14, 4 Apr. 2016, 391, p. 662) See also, Reform of contract law: the significant imbalance in ordinary law, (BRDA. 12/ 2016, 30 June 2016, No. 26, p. 20

Abrupt severance of trade relations : return on article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the commercial code (Cass. com., Sept. 15, 2015) > P.-L. Niel (Petites affiches, March 23, 2016, No. 59, p. 10)

Notification of abrupt termination by e-mail (note ss. Cass. com. 8 Dec. 2015) > N. Mathey (JCP ed. G, No. 14, 7 Apr. 2016, 1201, p. 40)

5. Concentrations

Canal+/BeIN Sports agreement rejected by the Authority of the competition > J. Vayr (Small Posters, 23 June 2016, No. 125, p. 1)

A Retrospective on Merger Retrospectives in the United States > M.B. Coate (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12, 2, pp. 209-232, 2016)

The Hypothetical Monopolist Test in Sysco: a Litigation Muddle Needing Analytic Clarity > G.J. Werden (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12, 2, pp. 341-350, 2016)

Ex post Merger Evaluation in the U.K. Retail Market for Books > L. Aguzzoni, E. Argentesi, L. Ciari, T. Duso and M. Tognogi (Journal of Industrial Economics, 64, 1, pp. 170-200, 2016)

Merger Externalities in Oligopolistic Markets > K. Gugler and F. Szücs (Journal of Industrial Economics, 47, pp. 230-254, 2016)

Does Merger Simulation Work? Evidence from the Swedish Analgesics Market > J. Björnerstedt and F. Verboven (American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 8, 3, pp. 125-64, 2016)

Pricing Strategies and Litigation Risks: an Economic Analysis of the Downstream Petroleum Industry > M.D. Noel (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12, 2, pp. 287-311, 2016)

Recent Developments in EU Merger Remedies > C. Cook, V. Novak and S. Frisch (JECLAP, Vol. 7 No. 5, May 2016, p.349)

Nuking Misconceptions: Hinkley Point, Chinese SOEs and EU Merger Law > A. Riley, Institute for Statecraft (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2778229)

Early Settlement in European Merger Control > L. Garrod and B. Lyons, in The Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 64, Issue 1, pp. 27-63, 2016. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2771445)

The Role Of Innovation In Merger Control - A Hot Topic > R. Brandenburger, L. Breed and F. Schöning (CPI Antitrust Chronicle, Summer 2016, Vol. 1 n°1, p. 25)

6. State aid

Affecting trade between Member States and the objectives of State aid control: a look at two topical issues in State aid law > B. Cheynel, J.-S. Duprey and O. Sautel (RLC 2016/51, No 2990, p. 13)

Capacity mechanism and State aid control: which strategy for the Commssion > A. de Hauteclocque (RLC 2016/51, No 2993, p. 32)

The challenges of implementing a more economic approach to State aid: the case of the net avoided cost method for public service compensation > O. Sautel (RLC 2016/51, n° 2994, p. 42)

Lessons from the Mory case: when the discipline of State aid catches up with political voluntarism> L. Idot (Actualité des procédures collectives civile et commerciale, 1 April 2016, n° 7, 82, p. 1)

A breath of fresh air for the EPICs? > D. Berlin (JCP éd. G, n° 24, June 13, 2016, 693, p. 1188)

State aid law (decisions from September to December 2015) > M. Karpenschif and J.-L. Sauron (JCP éd. Administrations et collectivités territoriales, n° 25, 27 June 2016, 2178, p. 14)

State Aid > M. Dony (Journal of European Law, No. 229, May 2016, p. 186)

Airports and State aid > A. Subrémon (European Union Review, No 599, June 2016, p. 375)

HSH Nordbank v Commission: Action for Annulment by Minority Shareholders Against State Aid Decisions Approving Aid in the Form of a Capital Increase > P. Werner (JECLAP, vol. 7 n°4, April 2016, p.259)

State Aid in Energy under the Spotlight: The Implications of the Hinkley Point Decision > N. Robins and T. Chakma (EStAL Vol. 15, Issue 2, 2016, pp. 247-257)

Investor-State Arbitrations and EU State Aid Rules: Conflict or Co-existence? > K. Struckmann, G. Forwood and A. K. Struckmann, G. Forwood and A. Kadri (EStAL Vol. 15, Issue 2, 2016, pp. 258-269))

7. Public sector and competition

The Competition Authority publishes its notaries’ installation card > J. Vayr (Petites affiches, 28 June 2016, No. 128, p. 1)

Public procurement and anti-competitive practices > S. Grandvuillemin (Le Moniteur, special edition, public procurement supplement, June 2016) This document is useful in reminding the public purchaser of the content of the various prohibited anti-competitive practices (including "micropacs"), the key elements of their detection and the implementation, where applicable, of the legal treatment of such practices, with in particular a numerical example of the calculation of the penalty applicable in the event of a cartel between two candidate companies, relating to exchanges of information prior to the submission of bids, with the submission of a bid to cover one of them and the payment of financial compensation to it.

Special Issue "Concessions" Order L. Richer, C. Cabanes, M. Collet, J-P. Gohon, B. Neveu, O. Raymundie and F. Troger (Le Moniteur, complément services publics, n°22, April 2016). See in particular the developments relating to the diversity of types of in house relationships as well as those relating to the numerous exceptions (non-concessive contracts, those linked to the status of the operator or resulting from the application of specific rules or the purpose of the concession).

The decree of 25 March 2016 relating to public contracts G. Clamour, D. Soland and G.°Barnier, G.°Chamming’s and L.°Scialom (JCP contrats et marchés publics, No. 5, May 2016, 12, p. 7). See in particular the table presenting a synoptic presentation of the main provisions of this new decree.

Update on SEMOPs > M. Marques and P.°Gonzague (JCP contrats et marchés publics, No. 6, June 2016, 3, p. 6) As the first SEMOPs have just been created, this article provides a first step on this particular form of public-private partnership.

8. Procedures

8.1. General

The ineffectiveness of the guarantees granted with regard to home visits > L. Milano (JCP ed. E, No. 26, 30 June 2016, 1390, p. 49) In this article, the author offers a critical analysis of two judgements of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, in which the Court held that in the context of home visits, the occupant of the premises does not have to receive any information about the possibility of recourse to the liberty and detention judge and that he cannot directly refer the matter to that judge. In that regard, it considers that the Court of Cassation adopts a restrictive interpretation of the guarantees that may be enjoyed by the persons who are the subject of such visits, raising questions as to the conventionality of the solutions adopted.

New on the litigation of the regulatory authorities: the Council of State opens the appeal for excess of power against acts of "soft law" > R. Vandermeeren (RJDA 6/2016, June 2016, Chron., p. 419)

See also, Le recours en annulation contre les actes de "droit souple" est recevable, R. Vandermeeren (BRDA 7/ 2016, 15 Apr. 2016, No 23, p. 19); L’élargissement de la recevabilité contentieuse du droit souple des autorités de regulation (CE, 21 Mar. 2016), A. Taibi (Gaz. Pal. 17 May 2016, No 18, p. 20)

The unbreakable computer file and the impossibility of directly contacting the JLD > B. Bouloc (RLC 2016/50, n° 2977, p. 39)

New methods of investigation by competition authorities: the IT manager at the heart of the action > M. Giner Asins and Y. M. Giner Asins and Y. Anselin (Contracts, conc., consom. Apr. 2016, n° 4, Alert 25)

Chronicle International Aspects of Distribution Law > F. Leclerc (Contracts, conc., consom. Jul. 2016, no. 7, chron. 3)

The ’Tangible’ Examination of Inspections and Seizures: A requirement After the ECtHR Vinci Judgment? > P. Goffinet and T. P. Goffinet and T. Bontinck (JECLAP, Vol. 7 No. 4, April 2016, p.243)

AC-Treuhand: Substantial Fines for Facilitators of Cartels > A. Vallery, C. Schell (JECLAP, vol. 7 n° 4, April 2016, p.254)

Crédit Agricole: Complaint to the European Ombudsman for Public Statements About Ongoing Investigations > B. Keane (JECLAP, Vol. 7 No. 5, May 2016, p.315)

Competition litigation before the General Court: Quality if not quantity? > M. Prek, S. Lefèvre (Common Market Law Review, Vol. 53 Issue 1, pp. 65-90)

Interim Relief and Protection Of Confidential Information In EU Cartel Decisions: A New Love Story > K. Fountoukakos and C. Puech-Baron (CPI Antitrust Chronicle, Summer 2016, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 45)

Arbitration and European Union law - A look back at some recent developments > L. Idot (Rev. de l’arbitrage 2016, n° 2, forthcoming)

8.2. Sanction Policy - Clemency - Settlement -

What safeguards for the EU competition law commitments procedure? > F. Marty and M. Mezaguer (International Journal of Economic Law, 2016/1, t. XXX, pp. 55-89) Together with the effects-based approach, negotiated procedures are one of the two pillars of the modernisation of European competition policy. This modernisation seeks to increase legal certainty for all stakeholders, by limiting both the risk of false positives and the risk of annulment of decisions in the context of judicial review, and to achieve efficiency gains, in particular in procedural terms. The use of these procedures, which is very significant in the energy and software industries, has however attracted a lot of criticism. These criticisms relate in particular to the risk of imposing disproportionate or imperfectly related remedies to the competition problem or depriving stakeholders of some of their fundamental rights, in particular by limiting the scope of judicial review. This article analyses these risks and proposes some ways of dealing with them.

Autonomy of EU and Member States’ leniency programmes: still no one-stop shop > D. Roskis and C. Macé de Gastines (RLC 2016/50, No. 2973, p. 16)

See also, L’arrêt DHL ou les pièges des clémences multiples, R. Saint-Esteben (Actualité juridique contrats d’affaires, avr. 2016, n° 4, p. 196)

The Orange affair, or the unsuspected consequences of the new settlement procedure: a sanction that has become opaque? > E. Claudel (RTD com. Apr.-May 2016, n° 2, p. 279)

The competition law transaction, a new idea in Europe > N. Lenoir, D. Roskis and J.-P. Tran-Thiet (Echanges internationaux, n° 105, Apr. 2016, p. 7)

See also, Loi Macron: les questions soulevées par la procédure de transaction en matière de pratiques anticoncurrentielles, B. Ruy (RLC 2016/49,Apr. 2016 , No. 2952, p. 19).

The Use of Leniency in EU Cartel Enforcement: An Assessment after Twenty Years > W. P. J. Wils, in World Competition: Law and Economics Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2016 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2793717)

Remedies for Breaches of EU Antitrust Law > C. Ritter, European Commission - DG for Competition (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2781441)

Cartel Punishment and the Distortive Effects of Fines > E. Dargaud, A. Mantovani and C. Reggiani (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12, 2, pp. 375-399, 2016)

8.3. Actions for damages

Ending the monopoly of national associations: towards democratic group action? > L.-J. Aleman (Contracts, conc., consom. Apr. 2016, No. 4, Study 4)

Will its Provisions Serve Its Goals? Directive 2014/104/EU on Certain Rules Governing Actions for Damages for Competition Law Infringements > E. Truli (JECLAP, vol. 7 n°5, May 2016, p.299)

International jurisdiction in competition damages cases under the Brussels I Regulation: CDC Hydrogen Peroxide > W. Wurmnest (Common Market Law Review, Vol. 53 Issue 1, pp. 225-247)

9. Regulations

Insurance Block Exemption Regulation: EU Commission challenges statistics and co-(re)insurance exemptions > B. B. Batchelor and J. Kreseken (ECLR, volume 37, issue 7, 2016, p. 261) On the report published last March by the European Commission on the functioning of the Insurance Block Exemption Regulation, whose conclusions - apparently based on partial data and ignoring key elements - would call into question the renewal of this regulation which expires on 31 March 2017.

Whistleblowers under the protection of the Defender of Rights > M.-C. de Montecler (AJDA, No. 22, June 20, 2016, p. 1204)

Current developments in competition law and regulation > P. Idoux, S. Nicinski and E. Glaser (AJDA, n°°21, June 13, 2016, p.1159)

Recalcitrant consumers concerned by the disappearance of regulated electricity sales tariffs are now strongly encouraged to comply with their legal obligation > R. Coin (Energie - Environnement - Infrastructures, n°°5, May 2016, p. 40)

The legality of a mechanism of the obligation to purchase electricity produced by wind power plants confirmed by the Council of State > Y. Simonnet and J.-S.°Boda (Energy - Environment - Infrastructures, n°°6, June 2016, p. 41)

10. International policy

Chinese State Capitalism and Western Antitrust Policy > N. Small (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2798162)

Cartel regulation in new Zealand: undermining the per se rule? > Dr. Anna Kingsbury (ECLR, volume 37, issue 7, 2016, p. 282)

Merger Control in China: Procedural Rights > A. Emch, W. Han and C. Ingen-Housz (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2775485)

Who Confesses for Leniency ? Evidence from Korea > N. Kim and Y. Kim (Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 12, 2, pp. 351-374, 2016)

PDF Version

Authors

Quotation

Alain Ronzano, Mathilde Brabant, Christelle Adjémian, Emmanuel Frot, Bastien Thomas, Competition journals: April - June 2016, September 2016, Concurrences Nº 3-2016, Art. N° 80738, pp. 222-226

Visites 596

All reviews