StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

E.U. Competition Law - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
The writer of the paper “E.U. Competition Law” states that community competition rules will govern the substantive issues and national law will deal with the procedure. The available remedies for infringement of Articles 81 & 82 are damages, injunctions, and declarations…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER98.6% of users find it useful
E.U. Competition Law
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "E.U. Competition Law"

Article 81 deprives undesirable trade policies of competition including fixation of price, market sharing, limiting output and bid rigging. Article 81(1) proscribes business agreements that could influence trade between Member States and aim or bring about deterrence, restraint or alteration of competition. Article 81(3) exempts these prohibitions if these agreements improve the manufacture or delivery of goods. This exemption also applies if the agreement brings about technical or economic progress, which permits consumers to benefit. Moreover, the competitive market for a large number of such products should not be eliminated by such agreements. Prohibition will be enforced by Article 81(1) if there is an agreement between two or more undertaking, whose effect on the trade between Member States is either tangible or latent and the intention of the parties to the agreement must be that their agreement should distort, prevent or restrict competition. Article 81(2) EC renders null and void any agreement prohibited by it. This section renders void only those provisions of the agreement that restrict competition. Three forms of collusion have been distinguished under Article 81; they are first, agreements between undertakings that restrict competition. In Hercules Chemicals v. Commission, 1991, case T – 7/89, a fine of € 2.75 million was imposed on Hercules by the Commission, because a number of polypropylene suppliers – including Hercules – in the EEC territory had reached an agreement amongst themselves to allot a minimum price at which this chemical was to be sold. This resulted in the polypropylene market being shared between them. The firm Speed, on the other hand, aims to collaborate with a Dutch firm and a German firm to produce better formula 3 tyres. In addition to these firms there are several more firms that manufacture such tyres; hence, Speed and its associates cannot be accused of cornering the market. Second, decisions by associations of undertakings and third, concerted practices or practices which are unclear. Speed and its Dutch and German collaborators, conducted a meeting in which they had concluded issues like price, cooperation, etc. It was decided in the ICI v. Commission (Dyestuff), 1992, case 48/69, that parallel behaviour combined with something more like communication, price announcement, phone calls, secret meetings, etc, would amount to a restriction of competition. Nevertheless, these parties agreed to share technical know how in order to manufacture a much better quality tyre that would be ideal for icy road conditions. This would benefit the consumers, because there was no increase in the cost of production and it can be assumed that the consumer would benefit from this pricing structure. Therefore, the meeting conducted by Speed and the other parties in respect of their future cooperation, will be exempted under Article 81(3) and the UK tyre manufacturer Roadster’s complaint to the Commission will result in an investigation, but the outcome will be favourable to Speed. Such agreements may affect trade between Member States. The objective of Article 81EC is to establish a single common market. If an agreement does not affect trade between the Member States, then the EC Treaty does not apply to it. Such agreements are to be considered by the relevant Member State, this was the decision in Consten and Grundig v. Commission, 1966, case ECR 299. An analysis to ascertain whether an agreement will be caught by Article 81(1) EC entails the calculation of the market share of the parties along with the identification of the concerned markets. The accepted view is that a low market share seldom generates restrictive effects. Any agreement that aims to prevent, distort or restrict competition violates Article 81(1) EC and it is not required to prove anti – competitive behaviour. The Court of First Instance or CFI opined in Métropole Télévision (M6) et al. v. Commission, 2001, Case T-112/99, that an economic approach had to be adopted in considering agreements of anti – competition according to the provisions of Article 81(3) . This judgment expresses the current stance of the Commission. In this connection a white paper and notice were published in respect of Article 81(3) EC, which was witness to a retreat from the formalistic approach. The agreement entered into by Speed and its collaborators will be exempted from the prohibition of Article 81(1) by the provisions of Article 81(3). The latter also applies to categories of agreements such as technology transfers, R&D, vertical restraints and franchising. In view of the fact that the intention of the new notice is to engender the consumer’s welfare; a substantive analysis of the market is needed in order to determine whether an agreement violates Article 81(1) EC. In a Switzerland meeting of European dyestuff manufacturers, it was decided to increase the price of their products in the common market. Imperial Chemical Industries of the UK agreed to this and implemented it through its subsidiaries. The Commission imposed a fine on the UK Company stating that it had violated the competition law. The company’s contention that it could not be held accountable for the actions of its subsidiaries was not accepted by the court. While assessing agreements for exemption procedures under Article 81(3), the following criteria will be taken into consideration. First, economic benefits like betterment in the manufacturing process, distribution or the encouragement of financial development. These issues will reduce the anti – competitive effects. Second, consumers must also be benefited by the agreement. This is the well known ICI v. Commission, 1972, case ECR 619 (Dyestuffs) case. In Irish Sugar plc v. Commission, 1997, case T 228/97, it was found that the Irish Sugar plc, which was the sole sugar producer of Ireland with a 90% market share, had abused its dominant position by opposing small domestic sugar packers and imports from France and Northern Ireland. Moreover, it offered discriminatory prices or discounts to the customers of a French importer, in order to hinder competition. The result was the creation of artificial barriers between the Member States and a disturbance of the market’s fluidity. The Commission accordingly imposed a fine of € 8.8 million on Irish Sugar plc. Speed is not the sole manufacturer of formula 3 car tyres and its share of the Italian market is just 35%, hence it does not enjoy a dominant position. Therefore, it cannot abuse the competitive effects of the market. Irish Sugars had charged indiscriminate prices in order to eliminate competition, whereas Speed had not made any such attempts and the main purpose of collaboration was to pool their technical knowledge in order to produce better tyres without increasing cost. This benefits the industry and the consumer; hence the Commission will not prevent such collaboration. In A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v. Commission (Wood Pulp), 1985, Case 89/85, the ECJ imposed fines on manufacturers of woodpulp as they had contravened Article 81EC by indulging in price fixing practices. This was brought about by one company announcing the prices of woodpulp so as to enable other companies to fix their prices accordingly leading to a concentration of prices. Speed and its associates have not indulged in any such price fixing practices; their only reason for coming together is to share technical expertise so that they can manufacture a better quality product without increasing costs. The applicability of the Article 82 begins when the abuse of dominance starts affecting trade between the Member States. This is inapplicable to the agreement between Speed and its collaborators, because Speed does not enjoy a dominant position in the single market. Moreover, the collaboration is intended to manufacture a better quality tyre at the same cost. This does not entail any anti – competition behaviour. Article 82 EC is breached only if there is an abuse of a dominant position. Any undertaking that enjoys significant market power is said to possess a dominant position. This was the judgment in United Brands Co v. Commission, 1978, case ECR 207, there were discriminatory pricing terms in the agreement. Speed does not possess a dominant position. If there is infringement of Article 81(1) then the EC initiates enforcement action under Regulation 1/2003, that could even require termination of the agreement and imposition of penalties that could amount to as much as 10% of the annual worldwide group turnover of each of the parties. Further, the anti – competitive provisions could be rendered void and unenforceable. The party that is put to a loss due to such infringement can initiate a civil action in the national courts in order to claim damages. Chapter III of the Regulation 1/2003 bestows decision making powers on the Commission. If it is suspected that Articles 81 & 82 have been infringed then the Commission can undertake investigations. National Authorities have an important duty to discharge under the new system. On applying Article 81(3) EC National Authorities can decide whether an agreement can be exempted. Article 5 of Regulation 1/2003 permits NCAs to end an infringement and adopt interim measures and impose fines. At present National Courts can apply Article 81(3) EC if an agreement affects trade between Member States. Community competition rules will govern the substantive issues and national law will deal with procedure. The available remedies for infringement of Article 81 & 82 are damages, injunctions and declarations. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(E.U. Competition Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words, n.d.)
E.U. Competition Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words. https://studentshare.org/law/1706148-competition-law-eu
(E.U. Competition Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words)
E.U. Competition Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words. https://studentshare.org/law/1706148-competition-law-eu.
“E.U. Competition Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words”. https://studentshare.org/law/1706148-competition-law-eu.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF E.U. Competition Law

He ability of private individuals to seek damages for breaches in the EU competition law

This paper will shed more light upon the ability of private individuals to seek damages for breaches in the EU competition law.... The researcher of this paper intends to discuss extensively the obstacles in claiming to bring private actions for enforcing EU competition law.... This essay discusses that since last twenty years, the enforcement of European competition law has major changes.... owever, the position of private enforcement of European competition law is less clear than the status of the public enforcement within the European Competition Network that seems to become a significant achievement....
15 Pages (3750 words) Essay

Competation Law

“Adopting an economics-based approach to Article 82 will also unify and provide a clearer and more consistent enforcement approach of the Treaty provisions on competition law” (The Reform of Article 82: Recommendations on Key Policy Objectives 2005, p.... Failure to obey with UK or EU competition law can have extremely grave consequences.... he law mostly applies to contracts among businesses with an important presence in the marketplace....
11 Pages (2750 words) Coursework

EU Competition Law Issues

EU competition law By Course and code Date Name of of Institute Executive Summary This paper shall analyze the extent to which the concept of an “agreement between undertakings”, for the purposes of Art 101(1) TFEU, has become so broad as to render the requirement for a “concurrence of wills” between at least two undertakings almost meaningless.... Introduction: Understanding Concurrence of Wills as Per Article 81 of EC The EU competition law does not any distinctions otherwise referred to as formalistic between any two varied forms of collaboration within the provisions of Article 81 of the EC law....
10 Pages (2500 words) Essay

EU Competition law and Cartels

EU competition law and Cartels.... However, Article 103 (3) provides for exemptions if the market collusion is intended for technological innovation and distribution or when the agreement results to consumers' a “fair share” of benefits or when the agreement does not risk elimination of competition in anyway1.... The main purpose of cartels is to regulate the production, distributing and pricing of goods and services thus hindering free competition in the industry....
10 Pages (2500 words) Essay

Corporate Strategy and Competition Law

This analysis shall also include an assessment of whether there are any competition law or antitrust issues which will need to be addressed in the application of this strategy in corporations.... This study shall critically analyse and explain an optimal competitive strategy which can be applied to different corporations....
18 Pages (4500 words) Essay

LLM EC Competition law

This is even more apparent with Article 82 EC, which deals with identifying what equates to abusive behavior by a company in respect to EC competition law.... Is this not an abuse of competition law, because in certain instances dominant companies are a natural part of the industry's landscape, e.... This indicates that the current approach to determining a breach of competition law is in fact ironically a breach itself.... However, these were not the only measures that were taken by EC law because there was the additional problem of monopolies within certain industries and the use of unfair practices by large companies to limit an open market....
3 Pages (750 words) Essay

The European Union Competition Law

In itself, the European Union (EU) Law denotes a body of legislation and treaties such as EU Directives and Regulations which have both direct and indirect effects on the laws and One of the EU Laws that direct the laws and operations of the EU member states is the European Union competition law.... In this light, the treaties under the EU competition law provide the prevailing of free competition in lieu of monopolies and cartels taking over the market through price fixation and market-sharing it among themselves....
4 Pages (1000 words) Assignment

EU Competition Law

u competition law drafters lacked a clear focus on its goals since they failed to think of the best enforcement regime.... An essay "EU competition law" outlines that it does not allow the creation of cartels that make strong firms to control the market in terms of price fixing and removing any form of competition with such competition cartels are able to set high prices for low-quality products.... This essay analyses an overview of competition laws by the EU and its members and looks into detail the enforcement system of the EU competition law and any inconsistencies noted in the application of the rules....
17 Pages (4250 words) Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us