Write for e-Competitions Bulletin

You will find below examples and guidelines 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.

EXAMPLES

- PJ Kaur, Adrian Emch, Eugene Low, Stephanie Tsui, The Hong Kong Competition Authority commences a public consultation on the commitments offered by three online travel agents to remove certain parity clauses in their contracts with accommodations providers (Booking.com / Expedia / Trip.com), 31 March 2020, e-Competitions March 2020, Art. N° 95768

- Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ceren Özkanlı Samlı, The Ankara Administrative Court reassesses the Competition Authority’s decision on price squeezing allegations in the telecommunications sector (Türk Telekom / TTNET decision), 12 March 2020, e-Competitions March 2020, Art. N° 96318

- Denis Waelbroeck, Donald Slater, The EU General Court quashes a €13 billion tax ruling fine on a multinational technology company (Apple), 15 July 2020, e-Competitions July 2020, Art. N° 96107

e-Competitions publishes also Special issues introduced by a Foreword. See for example Florian Wagner-von Papp, Commitment decisions: An overview of EU and national case law, 30 May 2019, e-Competitions Commitment Decisions, Art. N° 90109

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

I. GUIDELINES

• 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 comments 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. INFORMATION TO PROVIDE

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. Date of the commented text

> Date of decision (not the date of publication)

3. 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

4. Text of the commented case

> Hyperlink or pdf

5. 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 the title if your title does not follow this format.

6. Economic sector

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

7. Keywords of the commented text (choose at least 3 relevant keywords)

Abusive pricing Exclusive right (art. 106 TFEU) Price increase
Access to facilities Exclusivity clause Prices
Access to file Exemption (individual) Principle of effectiveness
Access to information Exhaustion principle Principle of equal treatment
Act of State Extraterritoriality Principle of equivalence
Admissibility (complaint) Failing firm defence Principle of proportionality
Agency agreement Fine mitigating Principle of transparency
Agreement (notion) Foreign investment Privacy
Amicus curiae / Assistance Foreword Private enforcement
Ancillary restriction Formalisation of the commercial relationship Privatisation
Annulment Franchising Procedural autonomy
Anticompetitive object / effect FRAND Professional association
Applicable law Free temporary access Public loan guarantee (State aid)
Arbitration Geographic market Public order
As efficient competitor Group purchasing organization Public Procurement
Barriers to entry Gun jumping Public undertaking
Behavioural remedies Hardcore restriction Purchase obligation
Below-cost resale price High market shares Rebates
Bid rigging Institutions Reduction of capacities
Block Exemption (Regulation) Intellectual property Reform
Boycott Interim measures Refusal to deal
Branch manager International Competition Network Regulated prices
Brokerage Intra brand competition Relevant market
Burden of proof Investigations / Inquiries Remedies (antitrust)
Business secrets Joint control Remedies (mergers)
Buyer power Joint selling Request for information
Cartel Joint tender submissions Res judicata
Change of control Joint-venture Resale price maintenance
Class action Judicial review Right against self-incrimination
Collecting societies Legal privilege Rights of Defence
Collective dominance Leniency Rule of reason
Commercial agency Liability (group) Salesman
Commissioner Liability (personal) Sanctions / Fines / Penalties
Competence Licensing Sector inquiry
Competition policy Limitation of supply Selective distribution
Compliance Limitation period / Prescription Service of general economic interest
Compulsory license Local market Settlement
Concerted practices Long-term contract Severability
Concession Low prices SIEC test (Merger)
Concurrent jurisdictions Management mandate Significant imbalance
Consumer protection Mandatary (Distribution) Single-branding
Consumer welfare Margin squeeze Social services of general interest
Consumers’ association Market definition Sole control
Control (notion) Market economy investor Spill over effect
Cooperation agreement Market inquiry Standard essential patent
Cooperation between NCAs Market power State action defence
Coordinated effects Market sharing State aid (existing)
Copyrights Media pluralism State aid (National enforcement)
Corporate group Merger (notion) State aid (new)
Corruption Merger (prohibition) State aid (notification)
Cost-oriented prices Merger (referral back to the NCA) State aid (notion)
Covid-19 Merger (unilateral effects) State aid (tax exemption)
Criminal sanctions Merger (withdrawal) State aid (Tax ruling)
Cross subsidisation Merger clearance (Phase I) State aid compatibility
Damages Merger clearance (Phase II) State aid legality
Dawn raids Merger notification State aid modification
De minimis MFC Clause State aid recovery
Deceiving consumers tariffs Minority shareholdings State aid scheme
Direct effect Misinformation State intervention
Discriminatory practices Modernisation State resources
Distribution agreement Ne bis in idem State’s liability
Dominance (abuse) Network access charges Structural remedies
Dominance (notion) Non-competition clause Sudden break of established business relationships
ECHR Nullity / Voidness Taxes
Economic analysis Objective justification Termination of supply
Economic efficiency Obligation to supply Test SLC (Merger)
Effect on competition Oligopoly Third parties
Effect on interstate trade Parallel imports Thresholds
Effective judicial protection Passing-on Transfer of technology
Environment protection Pay-for-Delay Transfer pricing
Essential facility Periodic penalty Trustee (mergers)
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