Description du produit
- Catégories: Droit de la Concurrence
- Editeur: Institut de droit de la Concurrence
- ISBN: 9781939007650
- Date de publication: 14/02/2024
- Reliure : Broché
- Nombre de page : 470
- Langue: Anglais
Résumé
EU antitrust enforcement has been radically transformed in the past thirty years. Following the decentralisation brought about by Regulation 1/2003, the European Commission now shares the public enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU with the competition authorities of the EU Member States. Public enforcement has furthermore changed through the use of leniency, settlements and prioritisation. Private antitrust enforcement, in particular in the form of follow-on actions for damages in cartel cases, has significantly increased, raising delicate questions as to the optimal balance and interaction between public and private enforcement. Increased antitrust enforcement has also brought renewed attention to the procedural rights of defendants and third parties in public antitrust enforcement, and the compatibility of the existing enforcement system and practices with the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Blending legal and economic analysis, and drawing on decades of practical experience, this book analyses in detail the main questions of law and policy raised by this historical transformation of EU antitrust enforcement and by its current state.
Table des matières
GO TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
EU Antitrust Enforcement – Law, Economics, History, Policy & Practice V
VIII. Recidivism in EU Antitrust Enforcement: A Legal and Economic
Analysis........................................................................................................... 139
A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 139
B. The concept of recidivism .................................................................... 141
C. Recidivism as an aggravating circumstance in setting the amount
of fines..................................................................................................... 143
1. The role of fi nes ......................................................................... 143
2. Four reasons for imposing higher fi nes on recidivists ............. 144
a. Higher than average propensity to commit infringements .... 145
b. Need to express increased moral condemnation ................. 146
c. Lower probability of detection............................................. 146
d. Discovery of the profi tability of infringements................... 146
3. Should contemporaneous infringements be treated
in the same way as recidivism? ................................................ 147
4. Should there be a limitation period for recidivism? ................. 148
5. By how much should fi nes be increased on account
of recidivism?............................................................................. 149
D. Recidivism and leniency....................................................................... 150
E. What conclusions can be drawn from the observed incidence
of recidivism? ........................................................................................ 154
IX. The Compatibility with Fundamental Rights of the EU Antitrust
Enforcement System in which the European Commission Acts
Both as Investigator and as First-Instance Decision Maker ......................... 157
A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 157
B. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights.................. 160
1. The Jussila judgment ................................................................. 160
2. The Menarini judgment ............................................................. 161
3. Conclusion from the Jussila and Menarini judgments ............. 162
C. Review as to the fi nding of the antitrust infringement ................... 163
D. Review as to the fi ne ............................................................................ 167
E. Internal checks and balances and procedural guarantees .............. 170
F. Summary and conclusions ................................................................... 173
X. Fundamental Procedural Rights and Effective Enforcement of Articles 101
and 102 TFEU in the European Competition Network ..................................... 175
A. Fundamental procedural rights applicable to the enforcement
of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by the European Commission ....... 175
1. The European Commission’s enforcement powers .................. 175
2. Enforcement only targets companies, not natural persons ....... 176
3. A (non-exhaustive) list of fundamental procedural rights........ 177
4. The source of fundamental procedural rights
in the EU legal order ................................................................. 178
5. The role of the EU Courts ......................................................... 179
6. The role of the Hearing Offi cer ................................................ 180
B. Striking the right balance between fundamental rights and effective
enforcement............................................................................................. 181
1. Procedural rights often contribute to effective enforcement…..... 181
2. …but not always: the example of legal professional privilege ...... 182
3. Reconciling fundamental rights and effective competition
enforcement ................................................................................ 184
a. A balancing exercise ............................................................ 184
b. Not the same balancing exercise as in traditional
criminal law .......................................................................... 187
C. The enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by EU Member
State competition authorities ............................................................... 189
1. Can EU Member States reduce fundamental rights protection
below the EU level? .................................................................. 190
a. The example of legal professional privilege ....................... 191
2. Can EU Member States grant procedural rights above
the EU level? ............................................................................. 192
a. The example of legal professional privilege for in-house
lawyers .................................................................................. 193
b. The example of the right to remain silent for legal persons.... 198
XI. The Role of the Hearing Offi cer in Antitrust Proceedings before
the European Commission .............................................................................. 203
A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 203
B. History .................................................................................................... 203
C. Status ...................................................................................................... 204
D. General mission..................................................................................... 205
E. Direct role in the conduct of competition proceedings .................... 207
1. Oral hearing................................................................................ 207
2. Decisions on applications to be heard by interested
third persons ............................................................................... 207
F. Independent review of issues concerning the effective exercise
of procedural rights .............................................................................. 209
1. Decisional powers ...................................................................... 209
a. Extension of the time limit for replying to a decision
requesting information in antitrust proceedings .................. 209
b. Right to be informed of one’s procedural status ................ 211
c. Extension of the time limit for replying to a statement
of objections or for making known one’s views ................ 212
d. Access to the file or access to documents or information .... 213
e. Disclosure of business secrets and other confi dential
information ........................................................................... 215
2. Recommendation powers ........................................................... 217
a. Legal professional privilege ................................................. 217
b. Privilege against self-incrimination ..................................... 219
3. Reporting powers ....................................................................... 220
a. Commitment and settlement procedures .............................. 220
b. Other issues regarding the effective exercise of procedural
rights in antitrust proceedings.............................................. 220
G. Verification of the respect for procedural rights on the Hearing
Offi cer’s own initiative......................................................................... 221
1. General reporting powers .......................................................... 221
2. Specific reporting obligation as to whether the draft decision
deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have
been afforded the opportunity of making known their views ...... 222
H. Advice to the Competition Commissioner on any matter arising
out of any antitrust proceeding .......................................................... 223
XII. The Oral Hearing in Antitrust Proceedings before the European
Commission............................................................................................................... 225
A. Legal basis ............................................................................................. 225
B. The nature and purpose of the oral hearing..................................... 226
1. The purpose of the oral hearing ................................................ 226
2. Administrative proceedings ....................................................... 227
3. Primarily written proceedings.................................................... 227
4. Hearing primarily of the addressees of the statement
of objections ............................................................................... 227
5. Not an investigative hearing ...................................................... 228
C. Who can request an oral hearing, and when or how? .................... 228
1. Only addressees of a statement of objections ........................... 228
2. Request in the written reply to the statement of objections .... 229
3. Second oral hearing ................................................................... 230
D. Who attends or can attend the oral hearing?................................... 230
1. Oral hearings are not public ...................................................... 230
2. Addressees of the statement of objections ................................ 231
a. Hearing in the presence of other addressees of the statement
of objections .......................................................................... 231
b. Who can appear on behalf of an addressee of the statement
of objections? ......................................................................... 232
3. Commission ................................................................................ 233
a. Hearing Offi cer ..................................................................... 233
b. Commission services ............................................................ 234
4. Other (competition) authorities.................................................. 235
5. Complainants .............................................................................. 236
6. Interested third persons .............................................................. 237
7. Other third persons .................................................................... 239
E. Who speaks at the oral hearing? – Presentations and questions...... 239
1. Presentations............................................................................... 239
2. Questions .................................................................................... 241
F. Some further issues ............................................................................... 242
1. Timing ........................................................................................ 242
2. Languages................................................................................... 242
3. Recording ................................................................................... 243
4. Obligation to provide accurate information .............................. 243
5. Use of information obtained at the oral hearing ...................... 243
6. New documents .......................................................................... 243
G. After the oral hearing .......................................................................... 244
1. Further written comments .......................................................... 244
2. Interim report and observations by the Hearing Offi cer .......... 244
3. State of play meeting ................................................................. 244
H. State of play meetings and other ways of hearing parties orally ..... 245
I. Why ask for an oral hearing? .............................................................. 245
XIII. Legal Professional Privilege in EU Antitrust Enforcement:
Law, Policy and Procedure .......................................................................... 249
A. Introduction and overview .................................................................. 249
B. Legal nature, legal basis and rationale .............................................. 250
C. First cumulative condition: Communications made for the purpose
and in the interests of the client’s rights of defence ............................. 251
D. Second cumulative condition: Independent (not in-house) lawyers,
entitled to practise their profession in an EU (or EEA)
Member State ......................................................................................... 252
1. The exclusion of in-house lawyers............................................ 253
2. The exclusion of non-EEA lawyers .......................................... 257
E. Internal preparatory documents and internal documents
summarising advice from external lawyers ....................................... 259
F. Procedure and practice ........................................................................ 259
1. Inspections .................................................................................. 259
2. Requests for information ........................................................... 261
3. The role of the Hearing Offi cer ................................................ 262
G. Enforcement of EU antitrust law by the competition authorities
of the EU Member States ..................................................................... 263
H. Private enforcement ............................................................................. 265
XIV. Procedural Rights and Obligations of Third Parties in Antitrust
Investigations and Proceedings by the European Commission............... 267
A. Who are third parties? ........................................................................ 267
1. Natural or legal persons, undertakings and associations
of undertakings other than those under investigation............... 267
2. The concept of an undertaking in EU competition law
and the need to conduct proceedings against companies
or other persons ......................................................................... 267
3. Who are the undertakings/companies under investigation
depends on the scope of the investigation ............................... 270
4. How to fi nd out who are the undertakings/companies
under investigation ..................................................................... 271
B. Overview of the European Commission’s antitrust procedures ..... 272
C. Informing the European Commission about a suspected
infringement and triggering an investigation ................................... 276
1. Informing the European Commission about a suspected
infringement ............................................................................... 276
a. Anyone can provide information in any way or form ........ 276
b. Informants can remain anonymous ...................................... 276
c. Informants can strengthen their procedural position
by lodging a complaint ........................................................ 278
(1) Substantive and procedural requirements to become
a complainant ......................................................................... 279
(2) Procedural rights of complainants................................... 280
2. No right to trigger an investigation, let alone an infringement
decision ....................................................................................... 281
a. The European Commission has a wide discretion to set
its enforcement priorities ..................................................... 281
b. Complainants are entitled to a reasoned and reviewable
decision settling the fate of their complaint........................ 282
D. Responding to requests for information, participating in interviews
and submitting to inspections................................................................ 286
1. Responding to requests for information .................................... 287
2. Participating in interviews ......................................................... 292
3. Submitting to inspections .......................................................... 292
E. Obtaining information about and expressing one’s views
in pending proceedings......................................................................... 294
1. Possibilities available to any third party ................................... 294
a. Press releases and publications on the website
of the European Commission .............................................. 294
b. Market test notice ................................................................. 294
c. No access to (documents in) the European Commission’s
investigation file .................................................................... 295
2. Third parties can strengthen their procedural position
by requesting to be heard as an interested third person........... 296
a. Substantive and procedural requirements to be heard
as an interested third person................................................ 296
b. Procedural rights of interested third persons whose
application to be heard has been granted ............................ 298
3. Third parties can further strengthen their procedural position
by lodging a complaint................................................................ 300
F. Use of languages .................................................................................... 301
G. Confi dentiality and use of information.............................................. 302
1. Protection of confi dential information of third parties ............. 302
2. Third parties have no access to business secrets or other
confi dential information of the undertakings/companies
under investigation ..................................................................... 306
3. Restrictions on the use of information obtained by third parties
through their participation in the European Commission’s
proceedings................................................................................. 306
XV. Publication of Antitrust Decisions of the European Commission ............ 307
A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 307
1. The main types of antitrust decisions of the European
Commission ................................................................................ 307
2. The publication obligation in Article 30 of Regulation 1/2003.... 307
3. The interests justifying publication ........................................... 308
a. The public interest in knowing as fully as possible
the reasons behind any action by the European
Commission .......................................................................... 308
b. The interest of the economic operators in knowing the sort
of behaviour for which they are liable to be penalised .......... 308
c. The interest of persons harmed by the infringement
in being informed about the details thereof so that they
may assert their rights against the undertakings punished...... 309
4. Other documents to be published together with the decision.... 310
5. Publication in the Offi cial Journal and on the European
Commission’s website ............................................................... 311
6. Publication of other types of decisions ..................................... 312
B. What content of the decision must be published, may be published
and cannot be published? ...................................................................... 313
1. Overview .................................................................................... 313
2. Information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy .... 313
3. The three cumulative conditions of the general confidentiality test ... 315
a. Known only to a limited number of persons ...................... 315
b. Disclosure is liable to cause serious harm .......................... 316
c. Interests worthy of protection .............................................. 317
4. Personal data .............................................................................. 319
5. Information obtained through the European Commission’s
leniency programme; the protection of the effectiveness
of the leniency programme and the facilitation of follow-on
actions for damages ................................................................... 321
6. The right to judicial review, the presumption of innocence,
and the particular circumstances of the Pergan Judgment ....... 324
7. Legitimate expectations ............................................................. 328
8. Equal treatment .......................................................................... 329
C. Procedure and timing........................................................................... 329
D. Relationship with public access to documents under
Regulation 1049/2001 ........................................................................... 331
XVI. Re-adoption by the European Commission of Cartel Decisions Annulled
on Procedural Grounds by the EU Courts ................................................. 335
A. Introduction: Commission decisions and their review
by the EU Courts.................................................................................. 335
B. Overview of re-adoption cases ............................................................ 337
1. PVC ............................................................................................ 337
2. Soda ash ..................................................................................... 338
3. Steel beams (Arbed/Arcelor) ..................................................... 339
4. Alloy surcharge (ThyssenKrupp) .............................................. 339
5. Reinforcing bars ......................................................................... 340
6. Carbonless paper (Bolloré) ........................................................ 342
7. Gas insulated switchgear (Mitsubishi and Toshiba) ................. 342
8. Heat stabilisers (GEA and Akzo) .............................................. 343
9. Airfreight .................................................................................... 344
10. Envelopes (Printeos/Tompla) ................................................... 345
11. Retail food packaging (CCPL/Coopbox) ................................ 346
C. Analysis .................................................................................................. 346
1. A natural consequence of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU… ... 346
2. …but also a matter of discretion ............................................... 347
3. The principle of ne bis in idem ................................................. 348
4. Prescription................................................................................. 350
5. The fundamental right to have a matter adjudicated within
a reasonable duration ................................................................. 350
6. Further legal and policy considerations .................................... 354
XVII. Private Enforcement of EU Antitrust Law and its Relationship
with Public Enforcement: Past, Present and Future .............................. 357
A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 357
B. Before Regulation 1/2003 ..................................................................... 359
1. The Treaty provisions ................................................................ 359
2. Regulation 17............................................................................. 359
3. The case law of the EU Court of Justice.................................. 360
4. The practice of private enforcement before Regulation 1/2003.... 361
C. Regulation 1/2003 ................................................................................. 362
1. Abolition of the notification system and accompanying changes..... 362
2. Relationship between private and public enforcement ............. 363
3. The impact of Regulation 1/2003 on the practice of private
enforcement ................................................................................ 364
D. A brief fl irtation with the American model ...................................... 365
1. Private enforcement in the USA ............................................... 365
2. The inherent superiority of public enforcement for deterrence
and punishment ........................................................................... 367
3. The 2005 Green Paper on damages actions.............................. 371
4. The American model rejected: The 2008 White Paper
and the 2013 legislative proposal and Recommendation
on collective redress .................................................................. 372
E. Directive 2014/104 on actions for damages ....................................... 374
1. Subject matter and scope ........................................................... 374
2. Full compensation but no punishment ...................................... 374
3. Passing-on of overcharges ......................................................... 375
4. Joint and several liability ........................................................... 375
5. Binding effect of public enforcement decisions ....................... 379
6. Disclosure of evidence ............................................................... 379
7. Protection of leniency statements and settlement submissions ..... 380
8. Temporary protection of information from public enforcement
proceedings ................................................................................. 383
9. Encouragement of consensual dispute resolution ..................... 385
10. The impact of Directive 2014/104 on the practice of private
enforcement ................................................................................ 385
F. Outlook ................................................................................................... 386
1. Voluntary compensation as a ground for reducing fines.......... 386
2. The cumulative financial impact of fi nes and damages ........... 387
3. The continued attractiveness of leniency programmes ............. 388
XVIII. Should the Damages Directive Be Revised to Grant Companies
That Have Received Immunity from Fines under the Competition
Authorities’ Leniency Programmes Also Immunity from Damages?.......... 389
A. Follow-on actions for damages and the Damages Directive 2014/104.... 389
1. Development over time.............................................................. 389
2. The Competition Damages Directive ........................................ 392
B. The proposal of the German Monopolkommission to grant
immunity recipients full protection from damages actions............. 396
1. Various academic proposals ...................................................... 396
2. Private practitioners raise the alarm .......................................... 397
3. Positions of the German authorities .......................................... 398
4. The proposal of the German Monopolkommission .................. 398
C. What is the optimal number of leniency applications and what
explains the observed evolution of the number of leniency
applications? .......................................................................................... 399
1. The optimal level of anti-cartel enforcement and the optimal
balance between leniency and ex offi cio investigations........... 399
2. A closer look at the figures ....................................................... 402
3. The question then arises as to what could be the possible
and likely reasons behind the significant decrease in the number
of leniency applications in Europe between 2015 and 2020,
the recent reversal of this trend, and the divergent experiences
of national competition authorities. Possible and likely
explanations of the observed evolution of the number
of leniency applications ................................................................. 403
a. Fewer cartels ......................................................................... 403
b. The evolution of the number of ex offi cio cartel
investigations ........................................................................ 404
c. Uncertainty about follow-on actions for damages .............. 406
D. Three (sets of) reasons why it would be unwise to grant immunity
recipients full protection from damages ............................................... 406
1. Injustice ...................................................................................... 406
2. Harm to public anti-cartel enforcement .................................... 408
3. Increased market concentration ................................................. 410
VIII. Recidivism in EU Antitrust Enforcement: A Legal and Economic
Analysis........................................................................................................... 139
A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 139
B. The concept of recidivism .................................................................... 141
C. Recidivism as an aggravating circumstance in setting the amount
of fines..................................................................................................... 143
1. The role of fi nes ......................................................................... 143
2. Four reasons for imposing higher fi nes on recidivists ............. 144
a. Higher than average propensity to commit infringements .... 145
b. Need to express increased moral condemnation ................. 146
c. Lower probability of detection............................................. 146
d. Discovery of the profi tability of infringements................... 146
3. Should contemporaneous infringements be treated
in the same way as recidivism? ................................................ 147
4. Should there be a limitation period for recidivism? ................. 148
5. By how much should fi nes be increased on account
of recidivism?............................................................................. 149
D. Recidivism and leniency....................................................................... 150
E. What conclusions can be drawn from the observed incidence
of recidivism? ........................................................................................ 154
IX. The Compatibility with Fundamental Rights of the EU Antitrust
Enforcement System in which the European Commission Acts
Both as Investigator and as First-Instance Decision Maker ......................... 157
A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 157
B. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights.................. 160
1. The Jussila judgment ................................................................. 160
2. The Menarini judgment ............................................................. 161
3. Conclusion from the Jussila and Menarini judgments ............. 162
C. Review as to the fi nding of the antitrust infringement ................... 163
D. Review as to the fi ne ............................................................................ 167
E. Internal checks and balances and procedural guarantees .............. 170
F. Summary and conclusions ................................................................... 173
X. Fundamental Procedural Rights and Effective Enforcement of Articles 101
and 102 TFEU in the European Competition Network ..................................... 175
A. Fundamental procedural rights applicable to the enforcement
of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by the European Commission ....... 175
1. The European Commission’s enforcement powers .................. 175
2. Enforcement only targets companies, not natural persons ....... 176
3. A (non-exhaustive) list of fundamental procedural rights........ 177
4. The source of fundamental procedural rights
in the EU legal order ................................................................. 178
5. The role of the EU Courts ......................................................... 179
6. The role of the Hearing Offi cer ................................................ 180
GO TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
VI EU Antitrust Enforcement – Law, Economics, History, Policy & Practice
B. Striking the right balance between fundamental rights and effective
enforcement............................................................................................. 181
1. Procedural rights often contribute to effective enforcement…..... 181
2. …but not always: the example of legal professional privilege ...... 182
3. Reconciling fundamental rights and effective competition
enforcement ................................................................................ 184
a. A balancing exercise ............................................................ 184
b. Not the same balancing exercise as in traditional
criminal law .......................................................................... 187
C. The enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by EU Member
State competition authorities ............................................................... 189
1. Can EU Member States reduce fundamental rights protection
below the EU level? .................................................................. 190
a. The example of legal professional privilege ....................... 191
2. Can EU Member States grant procedural rights above
the EU level? ............................................................................. 192
a. The example of legal professional privilege for in-house
lawyers .................................................................................. 193
b. The example of the right to remain silent for legal persons.... 198
XI. The Role of the Hearing Offi cer in Antitrust Proceedings before
the European Commission .............................................................................. 203
A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 203
B. History .................................................................................................... 203
C. Status ...................................................................................................... 204
D. General mission..................................................................................... 205
E. Direct role in the conduct of competition proceedings .................... 207
1. Oral hearing................................................................................ 207
2. Decisions on applications to be heard by interested
third persons ............................................................................... 207
F. Independent review of issues concerning the effective exercise
of procedural rights .............................................................................. 209
1. Decisional powers ...................................................................... 209
a. Extension of the time limit for replying to a decision
requesting information in antitrust proceedings .................. 209
b. Right to be informed of one’s procedural status ................ 211
c. Extension of the time limit for replying to a statement
of objections or for making known one’s views ................ 212
d. Access to the file or access to documents or information .... 213
e. Disclosure of business secrets and other confi dential
information ........................................................................... 215
2. Recommendation powers ........................................................... 217
a. Legal professional privilege ................................................. 217
b. Privilege against self-incrimination ..................................... 219
3. Reporting powers ....................................................................... 220
a. Commitment and settlement procedures .............................. 220
b. Other issues regarding the effective exercise of procedural
rights in antitrust proceedings.............................................. 220
G. Verification of the respect for procedural rights on the Hearing
Offi cer’s own initiative......................................................................... 221
1. General reporting powers .......................................................... 221
2. Specific reporting obligation as to whether the draft decision
deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have
been afforded the opportunity of making known their views ...... 222
H. Advice to the Competition Commissioner on any matter arising
out of any antitrust proceeding .......................................................... 223
XII. The Oral Hearing in Antitrust Proceedings before the European
Commission............................................................................................................... 225
A. Legal basis ............................................................................................. 225
B. The nature and purpose of the oral hearing..................................... 226
1. The purpose of the oral hearing ................................................ 226
2. Administrative proceedings ....................................................... 227
3. Primarily written proceedings.................................................... 227
4. Hearing primarily of the addressees of the statement
of objections ............................................................................... 227
5. Not an investigative hearing ...................................................... 228
C. Who can request an oral hearing, and when or how? .................... 228
1. Only addressees of a statement of objections ........................... 228
2. Request in the written reply to the statement of objections .... 229
3. Second oral hearing ................................................................... 230
D. Who attends or can attend the oral hearing?................................... 230
1. Oral hearings are not public ...................................................... 230
2. Addressees of the statement of objections ................................ 231
a. Hearing in the presence of other addressees of the statement
of objections .......................................................................... 231
b. Who can appear on behalf of an addressee of the statement
of objections? ......................................................................... 232
3. Commission ................................................................................ 233
a. Hearing Offi cer ..................................................................... 233
b. Commission services ............................................................ 234
4. Other (competition) authorities.................................................. 235
5. Complainants .............................................................................. 236
6. Interested third persons .............................................................. 237
7. Other third persons .................................................................... 239
E. Who speaks at the oral hearing? – Presentations and questions...... 239
1. Presentations............................................................................... 239
2. Questions .................................................................................... 241
F. Some further issues ............................................................................... 242
1. Timing ........................................................................................ 242
2. Languages................................................................................... 242
3. Recording ................................................................................... 243
4. Obligation to provide accurate information .............................. 243
5. Use of information obtained at the oral hearing ...................... 243
6. New documents .......................................................................... 243
G. After the oral hearing .......................................................................... 244
1. Further written comments .......................................................... 244
2. Interim report and observations by the Hearing Offi cer .......... 244
3. State of play meeting ................................................................. 244
H. State of play meetings and other ways of hearing parties orally ..... 245
I. Why ask for an oral hearing? .............................................................. 245
XIII. Legal Professional Privilege in EU Antitrust Enforcement:
Law, Policy and Procedure .......................................................................... 249
A. Introduction and overview .................................................................. 249
B. Legal nature, legal basis and rationale .............................................. 250
C. First cumulative condition: Communications made for the purpose
and in the interests of the client’s rights of defence ............................. 251
D. Second cumulative condition: Independent (not in-house) lawyers,
entitled to practise their profession in an EU (or EEA)
Member State ......................................................................................... 252
1. The exclusion of in-house lawyers............................................ 253
2. The exclusion of non-EEA lawyers .......................................... 257
E. Internal preparatory documents and internal documents
summarising advice from external lawyers ....................................... 259
F. Procedure and practice ........................................................................ 259
1. Inspections .................................................................................. 259
2. Requests for information ........................................................... 261
3. The role of the Hearing Offi cer ................................................ 262
G. Enforcement of EU antitrust law by the competition authorities
of the EU Member States ..................................................................... 263
H. Private enforcement ............................................................................. 265
XIV. Procedural Rights and Obligations of Third Parties in Antitrust
Investigations and Proceedings by the European Commission............... 267
A. Who are third parties? ........................................................................ 267
1. Natural or legal persons, undertakings and associations
of undertakings other than those under investigation............... 267
2. The concept of an undertaking in EU competition law
and the need to conduct proceedings against companies
or other persons ......................................................................... 267
3. Who are the undertakings/companies under investigation
depends on the scope of the investigation ............................... 270
4. How to fi nd out who are the undertakings/companies
under investigation ..................................................................... 271
B. Overview of the European Commission’s antitrust procedures ..... 272
C. Informing the European Commission about a suspected
infringement and triggering an investigation ................................... 276
1. Informing the European Commission about a suspected
infringement ............................................................................... 276
a. Anyone can provide information in any way or form ........ 276
b. Informants can remain anonymous ...................................... 276
c. Informants can strengthen their procedural position
by lodging a complaint ........................................................ 278
(1) Substantive and procedural requirements to become
a complainant ......................................................................... 279
(2) Procedural rights of complainants................................... 280
2. No right to trigger an investigation, let alone an infringement
decision ....................................................................................... 281
a. The European Commission has a wide discretion to set
its enforcement priorities ..................................................... 281
b. Complainants are entitled to a reasoned and reviewable
decision settling the fate of their complaint........................ 282
D. Responding to requests for information, participating in interviews
and submitting to inspections................................................................ 286
1. Responding to requests for information .................................... 287
2. Participating in interviews ......................................................... 292
3. Submitting to inspections .......................................................... 292
E. Obtaining information about and expressing one’s views
in pending proceedings......................................................................... 294
1. Possibilities available to any third party ................................... 294
a. Press releases and publications on the website
of the European Commission .............................................. 294
b. Market test notice ................................................................. 294
c. No access to (documents in) the European Commission’s
investigation file .................................................................... 295
2. Third parties can strengthen their procedural position
by requesting to be heard as an interested third person........... 296
a. Substantive and procedural requirements to be heard
as an interested third person................................................ 296
b. Procedural rights of interested third persons whose
application to be heard has been granted ............................ 298
3. Third parties can further strengthen their procedural position
by lodging a complaint................................................................ 300
F. Use of languages .................................................................................... 301
G. Confi dentiality and use of information.............................................. 302
1. Protection of confi dential information of third parties ............. 302
2. Third parties have no access to business secrets or other
confi dential information of the undertakings/companies
under investigation ..................................................................... 306
3. Restrictions on the use of information obtained by third parties
through their participation in the European Commission’s
proceedings................................................................................. 306
XV. Publication of Antitrust Decisions of the European Commission ............ 307
A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 307
1. The main types of antitrust decisions of the European
Commission ................................................................................ 307
2. The publication obligation in Article 30 of Regulation 1/2003.... 307
3. The interests justifying publication ........................................... 308
a. The public interest in knowing as fully as possible
the reasons behind any action by the European
Commission .......................................................................... 308
b. The interest of the economic operators in knowing the sort
of behaviour for which they are liable to be penalised .......... 308
c. The interest of persons harmed by the infringement
in being informed about the details thereof so that they
may assert their rights against the undertakings punished...... 309
4. Other documents to be published together with the decision.... 310
5. Publication in the Offi cial Journal and on the European
Commission’s website ............................................................... 311
6. Publication of other types of decisions ..................................... 312
B. What content of the decision must be published, may be published
and cannot be published? ...................................................................... 313
1. Overview .................................................................................... 313
2. Information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy .... 313
3. The three cumulative conditions of the general confidentiality test ... 315
a. Known only to a limited number of persons ...................... 315
b. Disclosure is liable to cause serious harm .......................... 316
c. Interests worthy of protection .............................................. 317
4. Personal data .............................................................................. 319
5. Information obtained through the European Commission’s
leniency programme; the protection of the effectiveness
of the leniency programme and the facilitation of follow-on
actions for damages ................................................................... 321
6. The right to judicial review, the presumption of innocence,
and the particular circumstances of the Pergan Judgment ....... 324
7. Legitimate expectations ............................................................. 328
8. Equal treatment .......................................................................... 329
GO TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
EU Antitrust Enforcement – Law, Economics, History, Policy & Practice XI
C. Procedure and timing........................................................................... 329
D. Relationship with public access to documents under
Regulation 1049/2001 ........................................................................... 331
XVI. Re-adoption by the European Commission of Cartel Decisions Annulled
on Procedural Grounds by the EU Courts ................................................. 335
A. Introduction: Commission decisions and their review
by the EU Courts.................................................................................. 335
B. Overview of re-adoption cases ............................................................ 337
1. PVC ............................................................................................ 337
2. Soda ash ..................................................................................... 338
3. Steel beams (Arbed/Arcelor) ..................................................... 339
4. Alloy surcharge (ThyssenKrupp) .............................................. 339
5. Reinforcing bars ......................................................................... 340
6. Carbonless paper (Bolloré) ........................................................ 342
7. Gas insulated switchgear (Mitsubishi and Toshiba) ................. 342
8. Heat stabilisers (GEA and Akzo) .............................................. 343
9. Airfreight .................................................................................... 344
10. Envelopes (Printeos/Tompla) ................................................... 345
11. Retail food packaging (CCPL/Coopbox) ................................ 346
C. Analysis .................................................................................................. 346
1. A natural consequence of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU… ... 346
2. …but also a matter of discretion ............................................... 347
3. The principle of ne bis in idem ................................................. 348
4. Prescription................................................................................. 350
5. The fundamental right to have a matter adjudicated within
a reasonable duration ................................................................. 350
6. Further legal and policy considerations .................................... 354
XVII. Private Enforcement of EU Antitrust Law and its Relationship
with Public Enforcement: Past, Present and Future .............................. 357
A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 357
B. Before Regulation 1/2003 ..................................................................... 359
1. The Treaty provisions ................................................................ 359
2. Regulation 17............................................................................. 359
3. The case law of the EU Court of Justice.................................. 360
4. The practice of private enforcement before Regulation 1/2003.... 361
C. Regulation 1/2003 ................................................................................. 362
1. Abolition of the notification system and accompanying changes..... 362
2. Relationship between private and public enforcement ............. 363
3. The impact of Regulation 1/2003 on the practice of private
enforcement ................................................................................ 364
D. A brief fl irtation with the American model ...................................... 365
1. Private enforcement in the USA ............................................... 365
2. The inherent superiority of public enforcement for deterrence
and punishment ........................................................................... 367
3. The 2005 Green Paper on damages actions.............................. 371
4. The American model rejected: The 2008 White Paper
and the 2013 legislative proposal and Recommendation
on collective redress .................................................................. 372
E. Directive 2014/104 on actions for damages ....................................... 374
1. Subject matter and scope ........................................................... 374
2. Full compensation but no punishment ...................................... 374
3. Passing-on of overcharges ......................................................... 375
4. Joint and several liability ........................................................... 375
5. Binding effect of public enforcement decisions ....................... 379
6. Disclosure of evidence ............................................................... 379
7. Protection of leniency statements and settlement submissions ..... 380
8. Temporary protection of information from public enforcement
proceedings ................................................................................. 383
9. Encouragement of consensual dispute resolution ..................... 385
10. The impact of Directive 2014/104 on the practice of private
enforcement ................................................................................ 385
F. Outlook ................................................................................................... 386
1. Voluntary compensation as a ground for reducing fines.......... 386
2. The cumulative financial impact of fi nes and damages ........... 387
3. The continued attractiveness of leniency programmes ............. 388
XVIII. Should the Damages Directive Be Revised to Grant Companies
That Have Received Immunity from Fines under the Competition
Authorities’ Leniency Programmes Also Immunity from Damages?.......... 389
A. Follow-on actions for damages and the Damages Directive 2014/104.... 389
1. Development over time.............................................................. 389
2. The Competition Damages Directive ........................................ 392
B. The proposal of the German Monopolkommission to grant
immunity recipients full protection from damages actions............. 396
1. Various academic proposals ...................................................... 396
2. Private practitioners raise the alarm .......................................... 397
3. Positions of the German authorities .......................................... 398
4. The proposal of the German Monopolkommission .................. 398
C. What is the optimal number of leniency applications and what
explains the observed evolution of the number of leniency
applications? .......................................................................................... 399
1. The optimal level of anti-cartel enforcement and the optimal
balance between leniency and ex offi cio investigations........... 399
2. A closer look at the figures ....................................................... 4023. The question then arises as to what could be the possible
and likely reasons behind the significant decrease in the number
of leniency applications in Europe between 2015 and 2020,
the recent reversal of this trend, and the divergent experiences
of national competition authorities. Possible and likely
explanations of the observed evolution of the number
of leniency applications ................................................................. 403
a. Fewer cartels ......................................................................... 403
b. The evolution of the number of ex offi cio cartel
investigations ........................................................................ 404
c. Uncertainty about follow-on actions for damages .............. 406
D. Three (sets of) reasons why it would be unwise to grant immunity
recipients full protection from damages ............................................... 406
1. Injustice ...................................................................................... 406
2. Harm to public anti-cartel enforcement .................................... 408
3. Increased market concentration ................................................. 410