The Downhill Trend in Commitment Mechanism of EU Competition Law: Empirical evidence

Year 2021, Volume: 26 Issue: 102, 157 - 170, 18.06.2021

Fatih Bugra Erdem

https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.870204

Abstract

The European Commission has been given the authority to make commitments of undertakings in question binding with Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. As a consequence of this reform, there has been a significant increase in commitment decisions compared to prohibition decisions over time, but prohibition decisions are currently predominant again. This study attempts to discuss this downward trend in commitment decisions taken in EU competition law between the years 2004 and 2020 through reviewing from a legal point of view and statistically examining the case law. Although the increase in commitment decisions is deemed beneficial in practical terms, it has increased legal uncertainties in the long run. This is because the provision of effective competition is left to negotiations to be reached between the undertakings and the Commission, instead of a thorough application of competition law rules in a uniform and consistent manner. In this context, discussions and recommendations are presented concerning under which circumstances commitment decisions are more appropriate to make.

Keywords

EU Competition Law, Commitment Decisions, Policy evaluation

The Downhill Trend in Commitment Mechanism of EU Competition Law: Empirical evidence

Abstract

Avrupa Komisyonu’na 1/2003 sayılı Kanunun 9. maddesi ile birlikte ilgili teşebbüslerin sunmuş oldukları taahhütleri bağlayıcı hale getirme yetkisi tanınmıştır. Bu reform neticesinde, taahhüt kararlarında ihlal kararlarına nazaran zaman içerisinde belirgin bir artış görülmüş olsa da, son zamanlarda ihlal kararları yeniden yoğunluk kazanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, Avrupa Birliği (AB) rekabet hukukunda 2004-2020 yılları arasında verilen taahhüt kararlarındaki düşüş eğilimi, ilgili içtihadın hukuki açıdan incelenmesi ve istatistiksel olarak yorumlanması vasıtasıyla tartışılmıştır. Taahhüt kararlarının yoğunlaşması her ne kadar pratik anlamda faydalı olarak addedilse de, uzun vadede hukuki belirsizlikleri arttırmıştır. Çünkü, etkin rekabetin tesisi rekabet kurallarının yeknesak ve tutarlı bir biçimde uygulanması yerine, teşebbüsler ile Komisyon arasında varılacak mutabakata bırakılmıştır. Bu kapsamda, taahhüt kararlarının hangi şartlar altında verilmesinin daha uygun olacağına yönelik tartışma ve tavsiyeler sunulmuştur.

Keywords

AB Rekabet Hukuku, Taahhüt Kararları, Politika değerlendirmesi

References

• Botteman, Yves and Patsa, Agapi (2013), “Towards a More Sustainable Use of Commitment Decisions in Article 102 TFEU Cases”, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 1(2), p. 347-74.
• Case T-30/89, Hilti AG v. Commission [1991] E.C.R II-1445.
• Commission Decision of 22 February 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/B-2/38.381 — De Beers), C(2006) 521.
• Commission Decision of 6.3.2013 addressed to Microsoft Corporation relating to a proceeding on the imposition of a fine pursuant to Article 23(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 for failure to comply with a commitment made binding by a Commission decision pursuant to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
• Commission Decision of 7.12.2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement Case AT.40461 – DE/DK Interconnector, C(2018) 8132 final.
• Commission Decision of 27.6.2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (AT.39740 - Google Search (Shopping)), C(2017) 4444 final.
• Commission Decision of 18.7.2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the Treaty) and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40099 – Google Android), C(2018) 4761 final.
• Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1–25 Article 23
• Dunne, Niamh (2014), “Commitment Decisions in EU Competition Law”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 10(2), p. 399-444.
• European Commission (2013), “Antitrust: Commission fines Microsoft for non-compliance with browser choice commitments”, IP/13/196.
• European Commission (2015), “Antitrust: Commission accepts commitments by SkyTeam members Air France/KLM, Alitalia and Delta on three transatlantic routes”, IP/15/4966.
• European Commission, ‘Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings’ [2009] OJ C 45/7.
• European Commission (2014), “To commit or not to commit?: Deciding between prohibition and commitments”, Competition Policy Brief 3.
• First, Harry (1995), “Is Antitrust Law?”, Antitrust, 10, p. 11-12.
• Gerard, Damien (2016), “Negotiated Remedies in the Modernization Era: The Limits of Effectiveness”, Philip Lowe, Mel Marquis and Giorgio Monti (eds), European Competition Law Annual 2013: Effective and Legitimate Enforcement of Competition Law, Hart Publishing, p. 139-185.
• Jenny, Frederic (2015), “Worst Decision of the EU Court of Justice: The Alrosa Judgment in Context and the Future of Commitment Decisions”, Fordham International Law Journal, 38, p. 701-70.
• Mariniello, Mario (2014), “Commitments or prohibition? The EU antitrust dilemma”, Bruegel Policy Brief, 2014/1, p. 7.
• McGeown, Paul and Orologas, Juliette (2013), “You made a Pledge, then keep your promise: Article 9 Commitments decisions in European Antitrust Law”, CPI Antitrust Chronicle, 3, p. 4.
• Plank, Rene (2016), “Antitrust and Financial Services in the EU: Commitments in Credit Default Swaps (CDS)”, Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht, 4, p. 417.
• Rat, Dorin (2015), “Commitment Decisions and Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: Friend or Foe?”, World Competition, 38(4), p. 532.
• Stones, Ryan (2019), “Commitment Decisions in EU Competition Enforcement: Policy Effectiveness v. the Formal Rule of Law”, Yearbook of European Law, 38(1), p. 361.
• Summary of Commission Decision of 6 March 2013 relating to a proceeding on the imposition of a fine pursuant to Article 23(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 for failure to comply with a commitment made binding by a Commission decision pursuant to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.530 — Microsoft (Tying)), C(2013) 1210 final.
• Summary of Commission Decision of 4 May 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40153 — E-Book MFNS and related matters) (notified under document C(2017) 2876.
• Van Bael and Bellis, (2018), “Abuse of Dominant Position”, VBB on Competition Law, 12
• Wagner-von Papp, Florian (2019), “Commitment decisions: An overview of EU and national case law”, e-Competitions Special Issue Commitment Decisions, https://www.concurrences.com/en/bulletin/special-issues/commitment-decisions/commitment-decisions-an-overview-of-eu-and-national-case-law-en (Accessed 21 January 2021).
• Wils, Wouter (2006), “Settlements of EU Antitrust Investigations: Commitment Decisions under Article 9 of Regulation No 1/2003”, World Competition, 29(3), p. 345-66.