1 / 24

European Antitrust Policy 1957-2004 An Analysis of Commission Decisions

European Antitrust Policy 1957-2004 An Analysis of Commission Decisions. EC Competition Enforcement Data, Amsterdam April 10, 2008 Martin Carree Andrea Guenster Maarten Pieter Schinkel. Agenda. European Antitrust Policy Commission Decisions over Time by Type and Origin

kyrie
Download Presentation

European Antitrust Policy 1957-2004 An Analysis of Commission Decisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. European Antitrust Policy 1957-2004 An Analysis of Commission Decisions EC Competition Enforcement Data, Amsterdam April 10, 2008 Martin Carree Andrea Guenster Maarten Pieter Schinkel

  2. Agenda • European Antitrust Policy • Commission Decisions over Time by Type and Origin • Commission Decisions by Type of Economic Conduct • Commission Decisions by Economic Sector • Enforcement of the Competition Rules • Findings of an Infringement • Remedies and Sanctions • Appeals before the CFI and the ECJ

  3. European Antitrust Policy • Literature Review Posner (1970, 2001) Gallo et al. (1985, 1986, 2000, 2001) Davies et al. (1999) and Lauk (2002) Gual et al., Harding et al. (2005) • Article 81, 82, 86 and Procedural Issues Reg. 17/62 • Data (538, 1964-04) • Reports of the Commission Decisions Relating to Competition, 1964-98 • Report on Competition Policy (1971) - XXXIV Report on Competition Policy (2004) • Harding et al. (2005), Ritter et al. (2005), Jones and et al. (2006), Geraldine et al. (2005)

  4. Negative Clearance Negative 15% Clearance 24% Infringement 48% Infringement 54% Exemption 31% Exemption 28% 1964-77 1978-90 Negative Clearance 7% Exemption 29% Infringement 64% 1991-04

  5. Commission Commission 21% 24% Complaint 9% Notification 58% Complaint Notification 18% 70% 1964-77 1978-90 Leniency 14% Notification 38% Commission 24% Complaint 24% 1991-04

  6. Procedural 6% Article 86 4% Joint Venture 11% Horizontal 41% Vertical 23% Dominance Licensing 9% 6%

  7. Procedural 7% Article 86 2% Joint Venture Horizontal 12% 37% Procedural 8% Joint Venture 7% Vertical 28% Dominance Horizontal Licensing 8% Vertical 48% 6% 22% 1978-90 Procedural 3% Licensing Article 86 Dominance 9% 8% 6% Joint Venture 1964-77 Horizontal 13% 41% Vertical 19% Dominance Licensing 12% 4% 1991-04

  8. Banking & Insurance Communication 8% 2% Food & Drinks Food & Drinks Communication 9% 11% Trade & Hotels 8% 9% Transport 3% Chemicals Chemicals 23% Trade & Hotels 20% 10% Metal products & Engineering 43% Plastics, Plastics, Rubber & Glass Metal products Rubber & Glass 12% & Engineering 14% 28% 1964-77 1978-90 Banking & Food & Drinks Insurance 8% 7% Chemicals 16% Communication 22% Plastics, Rubber & Glass 9% Metal products & Engineering Transport 13% 22% Trade & Hotels 3% 1991-04

  9. Vertical Vertical 25% 29% Horizontal Horizontal 49% Licensing 53% 6% Licensing 7% Dominance 16% Dominance 15% 1964-77 1978-90 Vertical 24% Licensing Horizontal 0% 55% Dominance 21% 1991-04

  10. Conclusion • Shows tendencies and changes in composition • Historical changes in legal or procedural settings can be seen • Case reduction and faster processing achieved • Efficiency versus effectiveness? • Network Analysis • Success of Appeal • Handbook DGComp

More Related