EU Institutions:

 

Report on Competition Policy 2008
European Parliament, Tuesday, 9 March 2010

 

 

Report on the European Commission Competition Report of 2008

MEP Sophia in ‘t Veld

 

 European Commission

 

Commission publishes results of survey on how stakeholders view competition
The Competition Directorate General has published its first comprehensive survey of stakeholders' views on competitions actions. As would be expected, the survey generally praises DG Competition's professionalism, including the improvement in its analytical capability, as well as integrity of its staff. But it does identify areas for improvement, notably in terms of communication with parties during investigations.
With regard to our areas of interest, see Section 5.5 on the deterrent effect of fines (pages 49 – 51):

 

  • From the executive summary: “Fines were recognised by the majority of respondents across most of the stakeholder groups as being an effective deterrent, particularly as they have become so high. Some lawyers stressed that the size of fines has reached the acceptable level and that their deterrent effect would not increase proportionately. Some lawyers also warned that the high level of fines may deter companies from being cooperative with DG Competition and applying for leniencies. In contrast, some company respondents see the leniency policy as contradicting the purpose of competition regulations, since the company applying for leniency benefits from the anticompetitive conduct and become exempt from paying a fine. A number of stakeholders across all groups stressed that, while fines are an effective deterrent, they are not the only tool available to DG Competition. A number of alternatives were suggested (criminal sanctions, publication of the companies' infringements, compensation payments for harmed consumers, etc.) but with mixed views about whether individual criminal liability should be introduced as an additional deterrent.”

 

  • a quarter of the corporate respondents felt that while fines are an effective deterrent, they are not the only tool available to DG Competition. They believe that the high fines do not always foster increased market competition and that competition could be improved if DG Competition applied other sanctions as well as or instead of simply applying a hefty fine.


Also of some interest: although stakeholders generally felt that DG Competition’s detection policy is effective, respondents from companies, economic consultancies, law firms
and national competition authorities criticised DG Competition for being reactive as opposed to proactive. Respondents pointed out that it was primarily companies themselves “who do the detection” and then approach the commission.

Citizens also participated in the survey, and seem to largely share the objectives and values of competition policy. When asked in which sectors a lack of competition was causing the most problems for them, 44% chose energy, 25% pharmaceutical products and 21% telecommunications. The results of the survey are available on DG Competition's website:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/surveys_en.html
 

 

 

 

Treaty of Lisbon

 

 

European Commission Best Practice Guidelines
 

On 6 January 2010, the European Commission released three best practice guidelines covering antitrust proceedings, submission of economic evidence (both in antitrust and merger proceedings) and Guidance on the role of the Hearing Officers in the context of antitrust proceedings. The documents are designed to help companies under investigation to understand the process including what they can expect from the Commission and vice-versa. Although the Commission implemented the guidelines from 6 January, the documents themselves were open to public consultation until 3 March with a view to fine-tuning.
 

 

 

 

 

Business organizations:

 

An informal group of corporate Chief Legal Officers who are members of the Chief Legal Officers Roundtable Europe initiated the drafting of an outline of generally accepted standards for robust antitrust compliance.  The outline strikes a balance between setting out the components common to any robust compliance programme, and setting out in greater detail specific best compliance practices applicable for large organizations.  This balance is the best way both to provide CEOs with a practical tool and at the same time to win widespread endorsement and support from representative business associations and its constituent member-state employers associations, because it avoids a straight jacket approach which would be next to impossible for many individual enterprises to implement - notably SMEs.

blue_print_24_July_2010_final (PDF)
 

 

 

 

 

  

Council of Europe:

 

Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights

 

 

 

   

International:

 

Organisation for economic co-operation and development

 

 

Website by deep AG