Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T12:11:38.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who will Protect Competition in Europe? From central enforcement to authority networks and private litigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Basedow Jürgen
Basedow Jürgen
Affiliation:
Director, Max-Planck-Institute of Foreign Private and Private International Law, Hamburg; Professor of Law, University of Hamburg; Member, German Monopolies Commission.
Get access

Extract

When the European Commission published its “White Paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty” in spring 1999 it triggered a broad discussion on the future legal framework of the enforcement of competition law in the European Union. The most important change, which the Commission suggested, consists in the decentralisation of the application of Article 81 section 3 EC. While anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices, which are prohibited by Article 81 section 1 can only be exempted, for the time being, by a Commission decision taken under Article 81 section 3 and Regulation 17/62 the Commission wants to give up that monopoly. According to the White Paper both national competition authorities and national courts of law will be in a position to directly apply Article 81 section 3. Among the first reactions to that proposal was that of ErnstJoachimMestmäcker to whom this paper is dedicated in longstanding respect and gratitude to celebrate his 75th Anniversary. He published an extensive, severe and outspoken critique as early as September 1999. His analysis has had a strong impact on academic discussions and public opinion in Germany, although it has not persuaded the European Commission which drafted a proposal for a regulation along the lines of the White Paper in late 2000. Again, Ernst-JoachimMestmäcker has reacted by a striking and even more elaborate critique which resumes and extends the discussion.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) , Volume 2 , Issue 3-4 , September 2001 , pp. 443 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press and the Authors 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Commission Programme No. 99/027, COM (1999) 101 fin.

2 First Regulation Implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty Issued by the Council on 6.2.1962, OJ(EC) [English Special Edition 1959-1962] No. 204/62, p. 87.

3 Ernst-Joachim, Mestmäcker, “Versuch einer kartellpolitischen Wende in der EU”, EuZW [1999] 523–529Google Scholar; id., “Begrenzt abschreckend”, WuW [2000] 683.Google Scholar

4 See the critical evaluations by Monopolkommission, , Kartellpolitische Wende in der Europäischen Union? (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1999)Google Scholar; also published in English translation: Cartel Policy Change in the European Union? (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2000)Google Scholar; Wissenschaftlicher Beirat beim Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie, Reform der europäischen Kartellpolitik, Gutachten vom 1.7.2000; Wernhard, Möschel, “Effizienter Wettbewerbsschutz in einer erweiterten Gemeinschaft durch Einbeziehung der nationalen Wettbewerbsbehörden und nationalen Gerichte?”, WuW [2001] 147–148Google Scholar; Fritz, Rittner, “Kartellpolitik und Gewaltenteilung in der EG”, EuZW [2000] 129Google Scholar; Jochen, Gröning, “Die dezentrale Anwendung des EG-Kartellrechts gemäß dem Vorschlag der Kommission zur Ersetzung der VO 17/62”, WRP [2001] 83–89Google Scholar; Wolfgang, Fikentscher, “Das Unrecht einer Wettbewerbsbeschränkung: Kritik an Weißbuch und VO-Entwurf zu Art. 81,82 EG-Vertrag”, WuW [2001] 446–458Google Scholar; Hartmut, Weyer, “Nach der Reform: Gestaltung der Wettbewerbspolitik durch die Kommission?” ZHR 164 (2000) 611–637, 634 et seq.Google Scholar; see also Florian, Bien, “Systemwechsel im europäischen Kartellrecht”, DB [2000] 2309–2312Google Scholar; Rainer, Bechtold, “Modernisierung des EG-Wettbewerbsrechts”, BB [2000] 2425–2431.Google Scholar

5 Proposal for a Council Regulation on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty and amending Regulations (EEC) No. 1017/68, (EEC) No. 2988/74, (EEC) No. 4056/86 and (EEC) No. 3975/87 (“Regulation implementing Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty”), COM (2000) 582 fin.

6 Ernst-Joachim, Mestmäcker, “The EC Commission's Modernisation of Competition Policy: a Challenge to the Community's Constitutional Order”, 1 EBOR (2000) 401–444.Google Scholar

7 Ever since Cases 56 and 58/64 Consten & Grundig v. Commission, [1966] ECR 299, at 347; a revision of that case law is recommended by Ehlermann, Claus D., “The Modernisation of EC Antitrust Policy: A Legal and Cultural Revolution”, 37 C.M.L.Rev. (2000) 537, 559.Google Scholar

8 See supra n. 4.

9 Claude, Fourgoux, “La proposition de Règlement d'application des articles 81 et 82 du Traité CE – Réflexions provisoires pour un texte incomplet”, JCP éd. E 2000, 1973-1975Google Scholar; David, Gerber, “Modernising European Competition Law: A Developmental Perspective”, Eur.Compet.L.Rev. [2001] 122–130Google Scholar; Katherine, Holmes, “The EC White Paper on Modernisation”, 23 World Compet. (2000) 51–79Google Scholar; Laurence, Idot, “Le futur «règlement d'application des articles 81 et 82 CE»: chronique d'une révolution annoncée”, Dalloz [2001] Chr. 1370-1376Google Scholar; Mok, M.R., “De toekomst van het Europees Kartelrecht”, Ondernemingsrecht [2000] 448–453Google Scholar; Luca, Nivarra, “II «Libro Bianco sulla modernizzazione delle norme per l'applicazione degli articoli 85 e 86 del Trattato CE»: Quale futuro per il diritto europeo della concorrenza?” Europa e diritto privato [2000] 1001–1016Google Scholar; Michael, Paulweber, “The End of a Success Story? The European Commission's White Paper on the Modernisation of the European Competition Law”, 23 World Compel. (2000) 3–48.Google Scholar

10 See e.g. Mario, Monti, “Perspectives of European Competition Law”, in: Zukunft der Wettbewerbsordnung und des Kartellrechts – Referate des XXXIII. FlW-Symposiums (Köln: Heymanns 2001) 9–13Google Scholar; id., “The application of Community competition law by the national courts in a directly applicable exception system”, in: ERA-Forum (scripta iuris europaei) [I-2001] 3–6Google Scholar; see also “Monti beharrt auf grundlegender Reform des europäischen Kartellrechts”, Handelsblatt 10/11.11.2000.Google Scholar

11 Alexander, Schaub, Die Zunkunft des europäischen Kartellrechts. Zentrum für europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Vorträge und Berichte No. 112 (Bonn 2000)Google Scholar; id., “EC Competition System – Proposals for Reform”, [1999] Fordham Int'l L. J. (2000) 853.Google Scholar

12 Case 14/68 Walt Wilhelm v. Bundeskartellamt, [1969] ECR 1, paras. 4-5.

13 Mestmäcker, supra n. 6, 1 EBOR (2000) 427 et seq.

14 Groning, supra n. 4, WRP [2001] 87 et seq.

15 Cf. “EU-Kommission kommt Kartellamt entgegen”, Handelsblatt 22.12.2000.Google Scholar

16 See the Explanatory Memorandum of the draft Regulation, supra n. 5, section 2 C 2 (b).

17 See Reiner, Schmidt, Öffentliches Wirtschaftsrecht – Allgemeiner Teil (Heidelberg: Springer 1990) 214–216Google Scholar, with further references; Klaus, Vogel, “Administrative Law, International Aspects”, in: Rudolf, Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. I (Amsterdam: North Holland 1992) 22, 24.Google Scholar

18 Abkommen zwischen der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Regierung der Französischen Republik über die Zusammenarbeit in bezug auf wettbewerbsbeschränkende Praktiken, BGBl. 1984-II, 758-762; see Peter, Mozet, Internationale Zusammenarbeit der Kartellbehörden (Heidelberg: Müller 1991) 64–70.Google Scholar

19 COM (94) 29 fin.

20 For an excellent survey see Eberhard, Schmidt-Aßmann, “Verwaltungskooperation und Verwaltungskooperationsrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft”, EuR [1996] 270–301.Google Scholar

21 Case C-251/89 Athanasopoulou, [1991] ECR I-2848, para. 75.

22 See art. 16 of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 27.9.1968, as amended, OJ(EC) [1998] C 27/1, recently transformed into Regulation 44/2001 of 22.12.2000, OJ(EC) [2001] L 12/1, see Art. 22.

23 For a comprehensive explanation and survey see Ivo, Schwartz/Jürgen, Basedow, “Restraints on Competition”, in: Int. Encycl. Comp. L. vol. III, ch. 35 (1995) sec. 10 and 60 et seq.Google Scholar

24 See Art. 3 of the Brussels Convention and of Regulation 44/2001, supra n. 22.

25 Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschrankungen in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 26.8.1998, BGBl. I, p. 2546.

26 Joined cases 89/85 Ahlström – Wood pulp, [1988] ECR 5193, paras. 16-18.

27 See art. 11 (6) of the draft regulation, supra n. 5.

28 See infra 2.2.3 and 2.2.4.

29 It emerges from an internal staff paper that the Commission is not unaware of the problem; it suggests to proceed on a case by case basis, but has no clear criteria for the decision.

30 For a closer analysis and further references see Mozet, supra n. 18, in particular pp. 82 et seq.; Schwartz/Basedow, supra n. 23, sec. 91; Jürgen, Basedow, Weltkartellrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1998) 33 et seq.Google Scholar

31 See the Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, comment on Art. 11 para. 3.

32 See art. II (1) of the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Commission of the European Communities regarding the application of their competition laws of 23.9.1991, OJ(EC) [1995] L 95/45, corn in OJ(EC) [1995] L 131/38.

33 Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, comment on Art. 12.

34 Ibid.

35 See supra n. 21.

36 See the Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, sec. 2 C 2 (b).

37 See supra section 2.2.2.

38 See Art. 13 sec. 1, second sentence.

19 Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, comment on Art. 11 para. 6.

40 Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, comment on Art. 13.

41 Lennart, Pålsson, “The Institute of lis pendens in International Civil Procedure”, 14 Scandinavian Studies in Law (1970) 59–108, e.g., p. 77Google Scholar with regard to the Scandinavian legal systems.

42 BGH 10.10.1985, NJW [1986] 2195 = IPRspr. [1985] Nr. 167 sub I 1; Haimo, Schack, Internationales Zivilprozeßrecht, 2nd ed. (München: Beck 1996) no. 754, p. 295.Google Scholar

43 See art. 7 Legge 31.5.1995 n. 218 – Riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato, Gazz. Uff. 3.6.1995 n. 128, Supplemento ordinario n. 68.

44 Cass. 26.11.1974. Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. [1975] 491 (note: Dominique Holleaux); see also Hélène, Gaudemet-Tallon, Les conventions de BruxeUes et de Lugano, 2nd ed. (Paris: Montchrestien 1996) 204 et seq., no. 281.Google Scholar

45 Lawrence, Collins in Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, vol. 1, 11th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell 1987) pp. 395 et seq.Google Scholar

46 STS 19.12.1985 Aranzadi [1986] 6600; critical Miguel Virgós, Soriano/Francisco Garcimartín, Alferez, Derecho procesal civil internacional (Madrid: Civitas 2000) p. 255 no. 385.Google Scholar

47 H.R. 22.12.1989 Ned. Jur. [1990] No. 689 p. 2783 approved by J.C.S(chultsz) in his annotation which refers to Dutch writers who take a different view.

48 This context is very ably elaborated by Virgós Soriano/Garcimartín Alferez, supra n. 46, p. 255 no. 386.

49 See Werner, Meng, “Recognition of Foreign Legislative and Administrative Acts”, in: Rudolf, Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. IV (Amsterdam: North Holland 2000) pp. 50, 51 et seq.Google Scholar

50 See Schmidt-Aßmann, supra n. 20, EuR [1996] 293, who refers to Art. 250 of the Community customs code and to the licenses granted, under the relevant Community regulation, for the export of cultural goods.

51 Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28.5.2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, OJ(EC) [2001] L 149/34.

52 Case 6/64 Costa v. Enel, [1964] ECR 585, 594.

53 On that principle see Helmut, Steinberger, “Sovereignty”, in: Rudolf, Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. IV (Amsterdam: North Holland 2000) pp. 500, 511, 515.Google Scholar

54 Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, sec. 2 C 1 (a).

55 Case C-234/89 Delimitis v. Henninger Bräu AG, [1991] ECR I-935, paras. 51-54.

56 See Leo, Rosenberg/Karl-Heinz, Schwab/Peter, Gottwald, Zivilprozeßrecht, 15th ed. (München: Beck 1993) pp. 424 seq.Google Scholar

57 See Delimitis, supra n. 55, para. 53; Case C-2/88 Imm, (Zwartveld), [1990] ECR I-4405, para. 10.

58 Preliminary consideration no. 7 of the draft regulation, supra n. 5.

59 See e.g. Karsten, Schmidt in: Immenga, / Mestmäcker, (ed.), EG-Wettbewerbsrecht, vol. I (München: Beck 1997) p. 318Google Scholar no. 71 with further references.

60 See Stephen, Kon, “The Commission's White Paper on Modernisation: The Need for Procedural Harmonization”, in: Barry, Hawk (ed.), 1999 Fordham Corp. L. Inst. (2000) 233, 247Google Scholar citing in turn a Commission paper prepared by A. J. Braakman, cf. Kon at p. 240 n. 30.

61 BGH 10.11.1987, NJW [1988] 2175, 2177; BGH 23.10.1979, MJW [1980] 1224, 1225; see Hartmut, Weyer, “Gemeinschaftsrechtliches Verbot und nationale Zivilrechtsfolgen – Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Artikel 81, 82 EG-Vertrag”, ZEuP [1999] 424, 439 and 447Google Scholar with further references.

62 Karsten Schmidt, supra n. 59, pp. 320 et seq. at no. 79.

63 Case C-177/88 Dekker, [1990] ECR I-3941, paras. 23-25; Case C-180/95 Draehmpaehl v. Urania, [1997] ECR I-2195, para. 21; see also Joint Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, [1996] ECR I-1029, paras. 76, 78.

64 See Volker Emmerich in: Immenga/Mestmäcker, supra n. 59, vol. I, p. 152 no. 103, who describes both agreements and concerted practices as two forms of an “intentional coordination of behaviour”.

65 BGH 23.10.1979, NJW [1980] 1224, 1225; Karsten Schmidt, supra n. 59, p. 322 no. 85.

66 See the opinion of Advocate General van Gerven in case C-128/92 Banks, [1994] ECR I-1209, paras. 36 et seq.; contra Weyer, supra n. 61, ZEuP [1999] 437-439.

67 Under section 33 of the German Statute against Restrictions of Competition, industry associations have standing to apply for injunctions, but not for damages; consumer associations are not mentioned.

68 Rosenberg/Schwab/Gottwald, supra n. 56, pp. 670 et seq.

69 See Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 USCA 26.

70 A limited legislative competence is laid down in Art. 65 (c) EC.

71 BGH 19.6.1986, VersR [1986] 1019, 1020 et seq.; OLG Nurnberg 10.12.1992, TranspR [1993] 138, 139; see also Jürgen, Basedow in: Münchener Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch, vol. VII (München: Beck 1997) p. 1189Google Scholar; Art. 29 CMR no. 38.

72 RG 8.6.1895, RGZ 35,63 (67ff.); RG 31.12.1898, RGZ 43,56 (58f.); BGH 6.3.1980, NJW [1980] 2522, 2524; Wolfgang, Bernhardt/Rudolf, Kraßer, Lehrbuch des Patentrechts, 4th ed. (München: Beck 1986) 629Google Scholar; Heinrich, Hubmann/Heinz-Peter, Götting, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, 6th ed. (München: Beck 1998) p. 213.Google Scholar

73 Dagmar, Coester-Waltjen, Internationales Beweisrecht (Ebelsbach: Gremer 1983) pp. 276 et seq.Google Scholar

74 See the White Paper, supra n. 1, p. 29 no. 78.

75 Cf. Jürgen, Basedow, “Rechtssicherheit im europäischen Wirtschaftsrecht. Ein allgemeiner Rechtsgrundsatz im Lichte der wettbewerbsrechtlichen Rechtsprechung”, ZEuP [1996] 570, 571–574.Google Scholar

76 OJ(EC) [2000] C 118/3.

77 Mestmäcker, supra n. 6, 1 EBOR (2000) 425.

78 Section 4 Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730 (1914), codified as amended, 15 USCA § 15, grants the plaintiff treble damages for violation of the “antitrust statutes” which include the Sherman Act, see the definition in section 1 Clayton Act.

79 Directive of 29.6.2000, OJ(EC) [2000] L 200/35.

80 Ibid., preliminary consideration no. 16.