New frontiers of antitrust 2012 - Concurrences Journal 3rd International Conference
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Competition Laws Journal New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Journal 3rd International Conference Assemblée Nationale, Paris
Contents
Foreword 01
Conference 02
Social Events 14
Press Review 20
Foreword
Testimonials 25
Appendix 27
T he third edition of the Concurrences
Journal conference "New Frontiers of
Antitrust" was attended by 333 people at the
French Assemblée Nationale on 10 Feb. 2012.
We are most thankful to the conference Steering
Committee headed by Frederic Jenny and
Laurence Idot. Their choice for the four panels
Nicolas Charbit
The Editor
was carefully thought out to achieve just the
Concurrences Journal
right mix of topical subjects, political issues
and scholarship.
In addition to the keynote speech delivered by EU Commissioner
Joquin Almunia, the 18 speakers came from 5 jurisdictions.
Enforcers, attorneys, in-house counsels and academics, they
gave everybody present much food for thought. The conference
proceedings will be published in both online and print versions in
mid-2012.
We are also thankful to the panel sponsors and the social event
sponsors who helped make this event such a success from the
point of view of both scholarship and networking.
We look forward to welcoming you to the 4th New Frontiers of
Antitrust conference in February 2013 in Paris. Meanwhile, we
are delighted to share with you some of the key features of the
2012 conference.
New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 1Conference
1
2
Frederic JENNY,
Conference Chairman
Key note speeches
Joaquin ALMUNIA,
Commissioner in charge
of competition affairs
This conference presentation has been written by a team of Paris I University Panthéon Sorbonne academics: Caroline
Si Bouazza-Dérian, Violette Grac-Aubert, Antoine Meslin; Anne-Laure Pasquet, Nicolas Reynard, and, Sophie Savestre.
Translated by Stéphananie De Smedt and Préscilia Algrain, University of Liège.
4
A
fter thanking the participants for their conti- innovation. This means modernizing industrial policy
nued interest in the event, and the partners whilst taking into account the objectives of the Europe 3
that make it possible – Ashurst, Cleary Gott- 2020 strategy, and making the dynamism of the
lieb Steen & Hamilton, CRA International, Google, domestic market the mainstay of our approach. The
Jones Day, White & Case – and expressing special arrival of competitors with new ideas should be faci-
thanks to MP Daniel Fasquelle, Frédéric Jenny
litated, as should the departure of those in difficulty.
launched the third edition of the New Frontiers of
Antitrust conference. On the question of support for innovation, one of the
Key note speaker Joaquin Almunia shared his views keys to growth, Mr Almunia warned against wasting
on industrial policy, a subject that sparks sharply di- public funds, which should only be used to offset
vergent opinions in Europe. Mr Almunia observed that market failures. This holds true for all types of State
the economic crisis has seen an increase in the aid, and reforms to be introduced from the end of
number of demands for application of industrial policy 2013 will enable us to ensure that they promote
and the return of traditional arguments in favour of growth without adversely effecting competition.
state support for certain activities. It is nevertheless
important not to give way to the temptation of inter- Lastly, the Commissioner was eager to talk about the
ventionism and protectionism, which are not the right question of European industrial champions, and
way to get over the crisis and adapt to the globaliza- pointed out that the Commission does not oppose in
tion process. On the contrary, we must promote principle the growth of companies by mergers and
openness and competitiveness in markets and reduce acquisitions. In 2011 it blocked just one merger, that
discretionary state support: the struggle against the of Aegean Airlines and Olympic Air. Whatever the cir-
power of monopoly must be renewed and competi-
cumstances, the Commission must intervene where
tion maintained, to enable us to come out of the
mergers pose a threat to the competitiveness of
present crisis stronger than before.
markets and to the interests of those competing
Instead of returning to the kind of industrial policy within them. The European economy must above all
implemented in the post-war years, the Commissio- remain competitive and innovative. Mr Almunia then
ner expressed the need for a more general approach took time to answer questions from the audience.
where competition, regulation and state support work
together to promote growth, economic efficiency and
5 6 7
1 Frédéric Jenny & Joaquin Almunia 4 David Sevy, Compass Lexecon 7 Lewis Croft, MLex
Frédéric Jenny, OCDE - Concurrences
2 5 Olivier d’Ormesson, Linklaters
Journal
6 Audience
3 Joaquin Almunia,
European Commission
2 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 32
Round table 1 1
Compliance programs:
Bruno LASSERRE,
Chairman, Autorité de la concurrence
Cecilio MADERO,
Deputy Director General, DG COMP
Are they really effective? Oliver BETHELL,
Competition Counsel, Google
François BRUNET,
Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
T
his first round table opened on the same day companies to set up such programmes, opting for
the Paris Competition Authority published its custom-made solutions wherever possible, and raise 3 4
communiqué on antitrust settlement and its their managers' awareness of competition policy.
framework document on competition rules com-
pliance programs. Confirming the Authority's com- That is also the ambition of the giant Google, as ex-
mitment to compliance programmes, its chairman, plained by its competition Director, Oliver Bethell –
Bruno Lasserre, Chairman of the Autorité de la Competition Counsel, Google, London – for whom
concurrence, pointed out that they constitute a fully- the brand image plays an important role: every infrin-
fledged competition policy tool. Companies are en- gement, by damaging the reputation of the company,
couraged ex ante to use such programmes or to can translate itself into economic losses. The actors
improve existing programmes which, adapted to their in the sector that have been the object of competition
individual characteristics, make it possible to prevent procedures – including Google – understand the
infringement risk. However M. Lasserre also pointed crucial importance that is assumed by regulatory
out that the solution is not to compensate ex post for conformity.
their implementation by automatically reducing the
sanction, like some kind of 'comprehensive insurance François Brunet - Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
policy' that would ultimately be ineffective. Hamilton, Paris - pointed out that increased fines have
led companies to address competition-related risk
DG COMP is reluctant to grant such ex post awards.
more systematically. While considering that compa-
Cecilio Madero – Deputy Director General, DG
nies more easily accept the cost of such internal in-
COMP - recalled Joaquin Almunia's maxim: "preven-
vestigations, Mr Brunet drew the audience's attention
tion as soon as possible, repression as soon as ne-
cessary". The Commission understands the impor- to the situation of small and medium-sized companies 5 6 7
tance of compliance programmes, dealt with in a and companies that have inadequate perception of
brochure it sent out in November 2011, and of the the penalties involved, and who should be further
prevention of competition rule infractions: imposing encouraged to adopt compliance programmes. Like
fines is not an end in itself. But Mr Madero, more Mr Bethell, Mr Brunet mentioned the need to protect
broadly linking compliance to the demand for ethics "legal privilege" in order to ensure the success of
in business, declared himself to be against the idea these programmes. Competition authorities should,
of rewarding people who do no more than stick to he said, make a unilateral commitment to relinquish
the rules. The Commission thus looks favourably on all inspection rights relating to electronic communi-
these compliance programmes: it is important for cations addressed to corporate legal departments.
1 Bruno Lasserre, French Competition 4 Pannel 7 Joëlle Simon, MEDEF
Authority
5 François Brunet, Cleary Gottlieb 8 Catherine Prieto, University Paris I
2 Oliver Bethell, Google Panthéon-Sorbonne
6 Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, WilmerHale
3 Cecilio Madero, DG COMP 9 Robert Saint Esteben, Bredin Prat
8 9
4 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 5Round table 2 1
2
Procedural autonomy: Guy CANIVET,
Member, Constitutional Council
Eric BARBIER DE LA SERRE,
Is it time for convergence
Partner, Jones Day
Henk DON,
Member, Dutch Competition Authority
in Europe?
Laurence IDOT,
Professor, University Panthéon-Assas
Paris
T
he chairman of the second round table, nization in certain areas. He submitted three "procedu-
Guy Canivet - Member of the Conseil Consti- ral puzzles" to the audience: the recognition of deci- 3 4
tutionnel, Paris - explained that the aim of the sions by national competition authorities among
session was to take a critical look at the principle of Member States; the practical problems encountered
procedural autonomy as a way of ensuring the effective while carrying out computer investigations; and the
and efficient implementation of competition law. As this more theoretical distinction, perfectly illustrated by the
core principle can cause disharmony, the adoption of T-Mobile ruling, between substance and procedure.
the counterbalancing principles of equivalence and
effectiveness helps to structure the application of Union Laurence Idot - Professor, University Paris II, Director
law in member States. The specific characteristics of of Concurrences Scientific committee, Member of the
individual legal systems and competition procedures, French Competition Authority - concluded this round
and the involvement of national authorities in the Euro- table with a discussion of the concepts and methods
pean competition network since 2003, nevertheless of private international law. She analysed the examples
pose particular problems. given by Mr Don as illustrations of conflicts between
laws or jurisdictions and highlighted, for the former,
Eric Barbier de la Serre - Partner, Jones Day, Paris - problems of definition. The final decision is incumbent
first demonstrated how the adoption of EC Reg. N° upon the Court of Justice, and more than the distinc-
1/2003 diminished the scope of procedural autonomy. tion between fundamental and procedural rules,
Mentioning the recent and much talked-about rulings which has shown its limitations, the criterion should
Vebic, Pfleiderer and Tele2 Polska, the speaker talked be that of the completeness or otherwise of Union
about the idea according to which, however valuable law, which hinders the principle of procedural auto-
uniform interpretation of competition law is, this is not nomy. Should a vertical approach to the implemen-
necessarily true of its uniform application. What really tation of the principle be adopted, Prof. Idot wonde- 5 6
matters, then, is the coherence of national procedural red how the Court's jurisprudence would be received
rules. Where necessary, legislative intervention could in French law. Lastly, as regards the consequences
lead to much-needed harmonization. The Pfleiderer of the diversity of applicable laws and the distinction
ruling was analysed as a clear appeal to the legislator, between public and private enforcement, Ms Idot
and the necessity to provide a legislative basis for le- more broadly expressed the need for a rule governing
niency programmes was also discussed. conflicts of laws in certain situations where distributive
application of laws is unfeasible and the solution of
Henk Don – Member of the Dutch Competition Autho- flexible convergence inadequate.
rity – NmA - also emphasized the need for a higher
degree of procedural convergence or indeed harmo-
1 Eric Barbier de la Serre, Jones Day 4 Pannel
2 Guy Canivet, Conseil Constitutionnel Henk Don,
5
Dutch Competition Authority
Laurence Idot, University Paris II
3
Panthéon-Assas 6 Patrick Hubert, Clifford Chance
6 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 7Round table 3 2 1
Prescription markets: Frédéric JENNY,
Chairman, OECD Competiton Committee
Damine NEVEN,
Can competition law deal with
Professor, The Graduate Institute
John FINGLETON,
Chief executive, Office of Fair Trading
the principal/agent issue?
Kaï Uwe-Kühn,
Chief Economist, DG COMP
Mark POWELL,
Partner, White & Case
T
he development of the "service economy" John Fingleton - Chief executive, Office of Fair
mentioned by Frédéric Jenny in his opening Trading, London - commented on this dichotomy 2 3
address justified devoting a round table to the between "credence goods" and "experience goods".
subject of markets that are determined by prescriptors. Talking about principal/agent relations in competition
Here, the traditional hypothesis that 'demand drives policy, on the demand side first of all, he cited four
competition', with competition authorities responsible examples that have come to the attention of the OFT
for ensuring diversity of supply so that consumers can – estate agents, vehicle insurance, mobility aids and
freely exercise their choices, is no longer valid. Consu- price comparison websites – to demonstrate the risk
mers can find it hard to formulate what they want or of market distortion and the difficulty of coming up with
to appreciate the choices available to them, and may appropriate remedies.
require the help of third parties who, in advising them,
in effect determine demand. Such influencer-led The question then arose of the ability of competition
markets represent a challenge to competitive analysis, policy to solve the principal/agent issue in influencer-
calling into question the effectiveness of standard led markets. Kai-Uwe Kühn - Chief economist, DG
market delimitation tools and consumer protection COMP, Brussels - emphasized the importance within
processes. this framework of regulatory structure, while drawing
attention to the limitations of such a policy.
Damien Neven - Professor of Economics, The Gra-
duate Institute, Geneva - refers to "murmurs of ana- In reality, as Mark Powell - Partner, White & Case,
lysis" in these markets, distinguishing the question of Brussels - remarked, prescription markets remain little
the asymmetry of information between expert and explored by competition law. When they are discussed,
consumer from that of delegation, and introducing the it is essentially in the context of defining the relevant
essential concept of "credence goods", whose quality market, as illustrated by jurisprudence relating to phar- 5
can be determined neither ex ante nor ex post, unlike maceuticals and educational books, and this factor is
so-called "experience goods". When advice and not invariably decisive. More generally, it does not in
service provision exhibiting the properties of "credence itself raise competitiveness issues.
goods" are linked together, the risk is that the opinion-
giver will adopt an opportunistic approach. Asking for
a second opinion is, of course, a solution, but it is a
limited one.
4
1 Kaï Uwe-Kuhn, DG COMP 4 Kaï Uwe-Kuhn, DG COMP
2 Damien Neven, The Graduate Institute 5 Anne Perrot,
French Competition Authority 8
John Fingleton, Office of Fair Trading &
3
Frédéric Jenny, OCDE &
Mark Powell, White & Case
8 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 9Round table 4 1
Anticompetitive object vs. Richard WHISH,
Professor, King’s College London
Nicholas FORWOOD,
anticompetitive effect:
Judge, General Court of the EU
Andreas MUNDT,
Chairman, Bundeskartellamt
Does it really matter?
Christophe LEMAIRE,
Partner, Ashurst
R
ichard Whish - Professor, King’s College, / effect distinction in the context of the action of the
London - ironically told the audience the German authority. The characterization of the restric- 2 3
answer someone gave to the question of the tion as having an anticompetitive object or effect dic-
difference between objects and effects: "about a year". tates which of two different procedures should be
It is true that it can be tempting to force a restriction embarked upon: a procedure that can lead to the
into the "object box" – a notion he coined, and which imposition of fines, or an administrative procedure.
provided the leitmotiv for the round table session – to Citing the example of information exchange and explai-
avoid having to demonstrate the anticompetitive effects ning how arbitrage on such matters is carried out in
of an agreement or practice. Germany, Mr Mundt concluded by saying that although
there is indeed a basic procedural distinction that
Nicholas Forwood - Judge, General Court of the depends on the type of competition restriction in ques-
European Union , Luxembourg - said that the aim of tion, in practice effect analysis becomes complemen-
interpreting the twin concepts of object and effect is tary to object analysis.
to achieve harmony. He nevertheless conceded that
judges still have difficulty determining the content and The final speaker of the day, Christophe Lemaire -
meaning of this fundamental distinction. In order to Partner, Ashurst, Paris - humorously summed up the
apply article 101§1 TFEU, the judge must undertake discussion with the phrase: "to be or not to be … in
a process in several stages: only when he has deter- the object box". He raised the question of interference
mined the objective of the agreement or practice in between modernization of rules and the institutional
question can its anticompetitiveness be established, framework of competition law and the object / effect
with regard not only to its content, but also to its eco- dichotomy. He highlighted the problem, revealed by
nomic and legal context. It is at this stage that it the Pierre Fabre case, of the relationship between the
becomes essential to determine the counterfactual concepts of "restriction by object" and "hardcore res- 5
scenario. In some cases, paragraphs 1 and 3 must be triction". Without abandoning the dichotomy at the
weighed against one another. The raison d’être of heart of the round table session, he favours seeking a
article 101 TFEU, which prohibits and where neces- balance between an economic approach and legal
sary punishes operators who lose their independence security. Deciding how far to work within each of these
of action in the market, nevertheless entails penalizing categories is indeed fraught with uncertainties. He
an agreement that has an anticompetitive object suggested a two-step approach – identifying the exis-
whether it has been implemented or not. tence of an object restriction, and then verifying the
validity of this conclusion with regard to the objectives
Andreas Mundt - Chairman of the Bundeskartellam, and economic/legal context of the practice. The aim 7
Bonn - highlighted a specific issue raised by the object is to make the "effect box" work to its fullest effect.
4
1 Richard Whish, King’s College 4 Christophe Lemaire, Ashurst 7 David Tayar, Willkie Farr & Gallagher
2 Nicholas Forwood, 5 Pannel Frédéric Jenny, OCDE -
8
General Court of the European Union Concurrences Journal 8
6 Francesco Rosati, RBB Economics
3 Andreas Mundt, Bundeskartellamt
6
10 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 112
Concurrences Thesis
2012 Awards
T
o conclude this thought-provoking day of Prof. Idot took this opportunity to announce the par-
discussion, Laurence Idot awarded the tnership agreement between the Concurrences 3
Concurrences Thesis 2012 Award. Prof. Idot journal and Éditions Bruylant. As a complement to
named the members of the jury she chaired: Wouter Concurrences and www.concurrences.com, the
Wils (European Commission), Catherine Prieto (Uni- Concurrences collection publishes four main catego-
versity Paris I) and Fabien Curto Millet (Google). The ries of work: conference papers, in particular the pro-
innovation this year has been to open up the compe- ceedings of the annual Concurrences conference -
tition to work in English, published or not yet; this New Frontiers of Antitrust; monographs on mainly
produced immediate results as some twenty theses, professional subjects; research work, in particular
in both law and economics, were submitted. thanks to Concurrences Thesis Awards; and Fests-
chrifts or Liber Amicorum, such as the one under
For the first time, the jury selected an economist, preparation for William E. Kovacic.
Martijn A. Han, for his thesis entitled "Vertical Rela-
tions in Cartel Theory" (Amsterdam Centre for Law & 1
Economics, 2011). Mr Han said how thrilled he was
to receive recognition from practicians for a purely
theoretical piece of work, which consists of six essays
focusing on three subjects: the question of the prin-
cipal-agent relationship; purchasing groups; and
antitrust-related damages.
After stating how delighted Google was to be involved 4
in the Concurrences 2012 Award, Fabien Curto Millet
5 6 7
explained the jury's choice. He warmly recommended
reading Mr Han's work, emphasizing the value of a
thesis that addresses the vertical dimension of the
issue, and praised the way this robust series of articles
forms a harmonious and cogent whole.
Martijn A. Han, Amsterdam Centre
1 5 Nicholas Forwood, General Court of The three Concurrences Thesis 2011 Award will be released
for Law & Economics (ACLE) the European Union & Damien Neven,
The Graduate Institute by Larcier in Nov. 2012, together with the proceedings of the
2 Winning-Award PhD Thesis New Frontiers of Antitrust 2012 conference, as the first titles
6 M
artijn A. Han, ACLE & of the new Concurrences series:
3 Martijn A. Han, ACLE Laurence Idot, Concurrences Journal
7 Fabien Curto-Millet, Google • L’abus de position dominante et le secteur public,
4 Bruno Lasserre, French Competition
Authority & Frédéric Jenny, Claire Mongouachon
OCDE – Concurrences Journal
• L’action collective en droit des pratiques
anticoncurrentielles, Silvia Pietrini
• Le droit de la concurrence appliqué aux droits
de propriété intellectuelle, Jérôme Gstalter
12 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 13Social Events
1
Dinner sponsored by
Compass Lexecon
and Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton
Speaker Eve's Dinner
3
Air France Jones Day
AVISA Partners King's College
Ashurst Lafarge
Autorité de la concurrence Linklaters
Bird & Bird LVMH
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton OECD
Compass Lexecon Netherlands Competition Authority 2
Cour de Cassation Rio Tinto
CRAI Société Générale
DG Competition The Graduate Institute Geneva
GDF Suez Total France
Google Université Paris II
General Court of the European Union Veolia Environment
Groupement des Cartes Bancaires White & Case
Groupe Lagardère Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
JC Decaux GDF Suez
3
4 5 6
1 Kaï Uwe-Kuhn, DG COMP Frédéric Jenny, OCDE –
5 Bruno Lasserre,
8
Concurrences Journal & Nicolas Charbit, French Competition Authority
Damien Neven, The Graduate Institute
2 Concurrences Journal
& David Sevy, Compass Lexecon
Joaquin Almunia,
6
3 Christophe Lemaire, Ashurst European Commission
4 Mark Powell, White & Case Joaquin Almunia & Guillaume Loriot,
7
European Commission 7
8
14 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 15Speaker Lunch
Restaurant des Parlementaires, Assemblée Nationale Lunch sponsored by
August & Debouzy,
Ashurst MAFR Etudes
August & Debouzy Mayer Brown Mayer Brown and
Autorité de la concurrence Netherlands Competition Authority Norton Rose LLP
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton Nestlé
7 8
Cour de Cassation OECD
Dassault Systèmes Norton Rose LLP
Eurovia PPR 3
GDF Suez Randstad
Google SNCF
Jones Day Université Paris II
Laboratoires Servier Université King’s College London
Lafarge Tribunal de première instance de l’UE
Lyonnaise des Eaux
LVMH Parfums 4
1 2 3
5
6
Laurence Idot, University Paris II
1 5 Christophe Lemaire, Ashurst & Mélanie Thill-Tayara, Norton Rose &
9
Panthéon-Assas Bruno Lasserre, French Competition Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, WilmerHale
Authority & Andreas Mundt,
2 Anne Perrot, French Competition Bundeskartellamt 10 Christophe Clarenc,
Authority & François Brunet, Cleary August & Debouzy 9 10
Gottlieb & Nathalie Jalabert-Doury, Christophe Clarenc,
6
Mayer Brown August & Debouzy 11 Fabien Zivy & Bruno Lasserre,
French Competition Authority
3 Fabien Zivy, French Competition 7 Bruno Lasserre, French Competition
Authority & Pierre Kirch, Authority & Andreas Mundt,
Paul Hastings Bundeskartellamt
John Fingleton, Office of Fair Trading
4 8 Eric Barbier de la Serre, Jones Day
& Richard Whish, King’s College &
Kaï Uwe-Kuhn, DG COMP
6 11
16 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 17Speaker Dinner Dinner sponsored by
Clifford Chance and
RBB Economics
Ashurst Michelin
Autorité de la concurrence Netherlands Competition Authority
BNP Paribas Office of Fair Trading
Carrefour OECD
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton Orange
Clifford Chance Randstad
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain RBB Economics
Conseil constitutionnel SFR
Cour de cassation Société Générale
DG COMP The Graduate Institute
IBM Europe Université Paris II
Jones Day
King's College Law School
3
2
4
1 5
6 7
1 Bruno Lasserre, French Competition 4 Patrick Hubert, Clifford Chance & 7 Nadine Mouy & Fabien Zivy, French
Authority & John Fingleton, OFT John Fingleton, OFT & Michel Petite, Competition Authority & Laurence Idot,
Clifford Chance University Paris II Panthéon-Assas -
2 Fabien Zivy, French Competition Concurrences Journal
Authority & Michel Petite, John Fingleton, OFT & Frédéric
5
Clifford Chance Jenny, OCDE - Concurrences Journal
Oliver Bretz, Clifford Chance &
3 Bruno Lasserre, French Competition
6
Richard Whish, King’s College Authority & Patrick Hubert, 6
Clifford Chance
18 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 19Press review Compliance Programs:
How efficient are they really?
An interview with Bruno Lasserre
> EventBrite, for Concurrences, 2 December 2011
Contents
C
oncurrences: Why do competition and are legitimate to put forward substantial rité supports compliance programs that truly
authorities care about corporate and procedural requirements towards firms put the future conduct of firms on the right
Reuters 20 MLex 23 compliance programmes and how that apply for a favourable treatment. Second, track, on a voluntary basis. The maximum 10%
Foo Yun Chee, 10 Feb. 2012 Lewis Croft, 10 Feb. 2012 long have they done so? no one is expected to switch sides. Only firms reduction of the final fine imposed by the sett-
may set their own conduct and handle internal lement decision may only be granted if certain
Bloomberg 20 Creda Concurrence 24 Bruno Lasserre: Compliance is actually not a and external risks. Conversely, it is no wonder conditions are satisfied. They have to do with
Aoife White, 10 Feb. 2012 Alain Ronzano, 10 Feb. 2012 brand new topic for the Autorité de la concur- that most competition authorities, including the management, content and inclusiveness
rence or for competition authorities in general. the Autorité, consider that the fact that the of the compliance programme, but also on its
EventBrite, for Concurrences 21 Europe 24 The traditional tools mobilized by competition reality and seriousness of a breach of compe- actual implementation, especially disciplinary
Bruno Lasserre Interview, 2 December 2011 Laurence Idot, Feb. 2012 authorities have always had as their final objec- tition law are not affected by the fact that the sanctions on rogue employees and the submis-
tive the stimulation of voluntary compliance. infringing firm had previously put in place a sion of leniency applications whenever a cartel
EventBrite, for Concurrences 22 Deterrent and proportional fines are of course compliance programme. So it is necessary for infringement is detected.
Laurence Idot Interview, 15 January 2012 the preliminary condition for companies to competition authorities to design alternative
make an effort to abide by competition rules. routes that would accommodate this “new On a case-by-case basis, other competition
As for cartels, leniency programmes have been approach” to corporate compliance pro- authorities that have a marked interest in com-
designed to feed distrust amongst cartel grammes and embed them adequately in pliance programmes, such as the U.S. DOJ
members and to discourage breaches of com- competition enforcement, depending on the or the Canadian Competition Bureau, have
petition law. In a more positive way, commit- specific institutional and legal background and suggested alternative ways of taking these
ments amend the companies’ behaviour to corporate culture in each jurisdiction. into account in their enforcement practice, e.g.
drive them fast along the road to compliance. by closing cases that involve firms with robust
Unilaterally, competition authorities may also Concurrences: How do you map the pro- compliance programmes, for those able to
EU's Almunia European Union
call for compliance by offering guidance gress of the “new approach” to compliance prioritize, or by including compliance pro-
through exemption regulations, guidelines, programmes and the position of the various grammes in their approach to leniency or sett-
opinions or sector inquiries. Oliver Bethell will stakeholders in the panel? lements.
warns firms against Competition certainly tell you about his own experience in
the wake of the Autorité’s sector inquiry on
online advertising and the meetings with the
Bruno Lasserre: I suppose François Brunet,
as a lawyer, and Oliver Bethell, as an in-house
As for the European Commission, its approach
is reflected in the brochure I referred to earlier.
abusing patents Commissioner Autorité on the issues identified that have ta-
ken place regularly since then.
counsel, will share their experience of their
relations with top management on compliance
The intrinsic benefits of competition, the va-
rious risks entailed by non-compliance - from
Joaquin Almunia said
issues, and that they will explain how due dili- administrative fines to actions for damages,
The novelty of this topic rather lies in the recent gence efforts may be developed in a conti- including reputational damage – make up,
Foo Yun Chee rise of corporate compliance programmes, nuous fashion, rather than on a one-off basis, together with predictable law enforcement and
he’s “determined”
that the Autorité already observed in 2007 on the occasion of a buy-out, and what the positive guidance on best practices and “tips”
> Reuters, 10 Feb 12, 09:00 when it commissioned an independent study key drivers of an efficient programme are. on compliance programmes, adequate leve-
that was conducted in association with repre- rage to foster compliance programmes.
to prevent companies sentatives of all relevant stakeholders (bu- I am sure they will also seize the opportunity
P
aris - European Union antitrust chief Joaquin Almunia siness federations, company lawyers, antitrust to comment on the policy documents that Concurrences: Will you disclose further in-
warned companies on Friday against using their patents bar, academics, etc.). Above all, a debate were just released by the Autorité and the formation on the Autorités’ new approach
to stifle competition, saying he was prepared to impose
fines for breaches of EU rules. Almunia's comments in a speech
in Paris come as EU competition regulators look into a legal
using patents to emerged very recently on whether or not com-
petition authorities should offer incentives to
firms that commit to set up and implement
European Commission, which will be repre-
sented by Cecilio Madero. We published on
14 October a draft framework document on
to compliance programmes during the
conference?
tussle between Samsung Electronics and Apple over intellectual
property rights in 10 countries. The EU executive, which acts harm competition robust compliance programmes, and on how
to design these incentives. Over its last two
compliance programmes together with draft
guidelines on settlements, complementing one
Bruno Lasserre: Yes, the conference will be
an excellent occasion to make a presentation
as competition authority for the 27-member bloc, is also inves- sessions, the OECD pioneered a new reflec- another. DG COMP issued on 24 November of the final guidelines on settlements and of
tigating U.S. conglomerate Honeywell International Inc. and tion on these two key questions, making a a brochure entitled: “Compliance matters”, the framework document on compliance pro-
chemicals company DuPont and whether their patent agree- Aoife White significant contribution toward the Autorité’s and sub-titled “what companies can do better grammes. We will take stock of the findings of
ments on a new global refrigerant for car air conditioners may own reflection. to respect EU competition rules”. the public consultation, which runs until 14
be anti-competitive. "Owners of such standard essential patents
> Bloomberg, 10 Feb. 2012, 09:03 December 2011, and we will have gathered
are conferred a power on the market that they cannot be allowed If this new approach is taken on board, it may In the specific context of commitments acces- direct input from stakeholders from the round-
to misuse," Almunia told the Concurrences Journal conference. constitute a real leap forward to build a ge- sory to settlements, the Autorité is willing to table organized by the Autorité on 20 Decem-
P
"I am determined to use antitrust enforcement to prevent the aris - Businesses must offer rivals access to patents nuine competition culture on a win-win basis. reward the set up or the revamping of a com- ber 2011 in the premises of ENA in Paris. So,
misuse of patent rights to the detriment of a vigorous and acces- used for industry-wide standards on fair, reasonable But in my view, there are two prerequisites. pliance programme if it is a substantial, trus- when the time of the “New frontiers” confe-
sible market. I have initiated investigations on this issue in seve- and non- discriminatory terms, Almunia said in a First, incentives and rewards should be ba- tworthy and verifiable step. We are thus the rence comes, I will be able to explain whether
ral sectors and we will see the results in due time," he said. The speech in Paris. EU antitrust regulators are probing Samsung lanced and proportionate on both sides. I first competition authority to make such a we found concurring and relevant suggestions
Commission can fine companies up to 10 percent of their glo- Electronics Co. and Honeywell International Inc. over possible mean that competition authorities cannot binding commitment in a document that firms for amendments and what final decisions were
bal turnover for infringements of EU rules. abuse of patents to block rivals reward lip-service compliance programmes will be able to rely on. In so doing, the Auto- made by the Autorité.
20 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 21Autonomie procédurale : Faut-il réinterpréter Almunia threatens antitrust
Press review
La Cour de cassation en 2004 a fait jouer le
principe d’autonomie procédurale et appliqué le
standard de preuve français. Mais dans la me-
le principe pour assurer l’effectivité du droit sure où les articles 101 et 102 TFUE étaient
applicables au fond, on aurait pu très bien consi-
dérer qu’il s’agissait d’une question de fond et
action over patent misuse
de la concurrence ? appliquer le standard de la Cour de Justice.
Autre exemple, la question de l’imputabilité du
comportement de la filiale à la société mère. Sur
Lewis Crofts
> MLex, 10 Feb 12, 09:00
ce point, l’Autorité de la concurrence a consi-
Entretien avec Laurence Idot déré très clairement depuis une affaire de 2009
P
> EventBrite, pour Concurrences, 15 janvier 2012 (Orange Caraïbes) qu’il s’agissait d’une question aris - European Competition Commissioner caught the commissioner’s eye. When a company
de fond qui impliquait qu’elle aligne sa pratique Joaquín Almunia has warned he will use owns a patent that is included in an industry stan-
décisionnelle sur les standards de la jurispru- Antitrust tools to crack down on the “mi- dard, it gains a ower which it “cannot be allowed
C
oncurrences : En droit de la concurrence cas d’annulation du contrat. L’affaire Courage adopte souvent des décisions de non lieu. Ces dence dite Akzo. suse of patent rights,” as tech companies cross to misuse.” Standardisation processes must be fair
- hors contrôle des aides d’Etat - le prin- n’a donc entraîné aucune conséquence pra- dernières peuvent intervenir soit au début de la the globe pursue a rash of litigation over intellectual and transparent, so that they are not in the ands
cipe d’autonomie procédurale a d’abord tique. L’on ne retrouve pas davantage les res- procédure et elles rentrent alors sans difficulté Concurrences: Le renvoi aux droits nationaux property in new telecoms devices. « We are, of of the established firms willing to impose their tech-
été développé dans le cadre du « private enfor- trictions à l’action en réparation (not. lien de dans le cadre prévu par l’article 5, § 2. Le pro- s’agissant de questions qui intéressent directe- course, determined to use our antitrust enforce- nologies. But it is not nough. We must also ensure
cement » (Van Schjindel, Ecoswiss, Courage, causalité, prescription) que la Cour de Justice a blème se pose surtout lorsque la décision de ment le fonctionnement du REC vous paraît il ment capacity to prevent the misuse of patent that, once they hold standard essential patents,
Manfredi). Comment cette jurisprudence a-t-elle dénoncées pour le système italien dans l’arrêt non lieu est adoptée par le Collège à l’issue de une bonne chose ? Qu’en est il par exemple de rights to the detriment of a vigorous and accessible ompanies give effective access on FRAND terms,
été reçue dans votre Etat ? Avez-vous connais- Manfredi. En revanche, le fait de continuer à la procédure contradictoire. C’est l’hypothèse la question de l’accès aux dossiers des deman- market,” he old a conference* in Paris this morning. fair reasonable and non- iscriminatory,” Almunia
sance de difficultés particulières ? s’opposer à l’introduction de recours collectifs où le Collège se démarque des services d’ins- deurs de clémence ? L’arrêt Pfleiderer vous “I have initiated investigations on this issue and we said. This is crucial if we want industries and busi-
pourrait poser problème, mais la Cour ne s’est truction qui, eux, avaient conclu à l’existence paraît il praticable ? Quelles conséquences en will see the results in due time.” The commission nesses relying on such patents to develop reely to
Laurence Idot : Ces arrêts, bien qu’ils présen- pas encore prononcée sur ce point. d’une violation. On peut se demander si cette avez-vous tiré dans votre juridiction ? opened proceedings against Samsung last week, their utmost potential.” The commission is also
tent le point commun de faire application du pratique est en pleine conformité avec la lecture concerned that it ay not be honouring licensing looking at Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobi-
principe d’autonomie procédurale, et d’en mon- En conclusion, dans le domaine du private enfor- qu’a donnée la Cour de l’article 5. Le problème Laurence Idot: Les ANC ont été conscientes commitments for patents essential for technology lity, which ees the search-advertising firm gain a
trer les limites, ne se situent pas exactement sur cement et au regard du droit positif, le seul pro- est encore plus net, lorsque l’Autorité constate, dès le départ que l’application de droits natio- here). The “surge in the strategic use of patents” vast catalogue of patents. Google has written to
le même plan. Certains concernent de pures blème concerne l’étendue du contrôle des sen- dans une affaire donnée, que les conditions de naux divergents en matière de programmes de - which takes in most of the sector players uch as standards body to reaffirm its FRAND commitment
questions de procédure et mettent en cause le tences arbitrales. Les cours qui opèrent le l’article 101, § 3 TFUE, sont remplies. On pense clémence soulevait des difficultés. De grands Microsoft, Apple, HTC and Google - has clearly once the acquisition is completed.
rôle du juge (Van Schjindel, Ecoswiss ), d’autres contrôle des sentences arbitrales, à l’occasion en particulier à la décision « image chèque » de progrès ont été faits via l’adoption du pro-
sont à la limite de la procédure et du fond (le de recours en annulation, n’ont tiré aucune septembre 2010. gramme modèle de clémence. Mais on n’est
régime de l’action en réparation dans Courage conséquence du principe d’effectivité. Pourtant peut être pas aller assez loin en ce sens que la
General Court can consider
et Manfredi). Ce n’est pas le principe d’équiva- ce dernier a été rappelé avec force pour le droit L’arrêt Vebic conduit également à une modifica- question de l’articulation entre le public enforce-
lence qui pose problème, mais la manière dont de la consommation par la Cour de Justice dans tion des règles françaises. En droit, l’Autorité n’a ment et le private enforcement n’a pas été trai-
la Cour conçoit la limite tenant au principe les arrêts Mostaza Claro et Asturcom. que le droit de présenter des observations devant tée. S’agissant du droit français, on a réglé le
cartel effects if parties bring
d’effectivité du droit de l’Union, qui donne lieu à la cour d’appel, sans être partie à la procédure. problème du droit d’accès ne modifiant en mai
des interprétations qui ne sont pas toujours Concurrences : Plusieurs arrêts importants et Il a fallu attendre la réforme de 2008 pour qu’elle 2011 la loi sur l’accès aux documents adminis-
conciliables entre elles. Si l’on prend le premier récents ont montré les limites du principe ait le droit de former un pourvoi en cassation. tratifs pour exclure les documents transmis dans
arguments, judge Forwood
sujet et la question de l’invocation d’office par le d’autonomie procédurale dans le cadre du Devant la Cour de cassation, l’Autorité peut uti- le cadre de demandes de clémence. Cela étant,
juge de l’article 101 TFUE, force est de consta- public enforcement (X BV ; Vebic ; Télé2 Pols- lement défendre ses positions. Si l’on applique ce n’est qu’un fondement pour avoir accès à
ter qu’en droit français les arrêts Van Schijndel ka). Cette jurisprudence soulève t elle des l’arrêt Vebic à la lettre, le système français des des documents et l’on pourrait imaginer qu’un
says
et Ecoswiss ne soulèvent pas les mêmes diffi- difficultés d’application à votre ANC ? recours devant la cour d’appel de Paris n’est pas juge se prévale des pouvoirs qu’il détient en
cultés. En procédure civile, le juge étatique n’est conforme, puisque l’Autorité n’est pas partie. application des règles de procédure. De manière
pas lié par le principe dit du dispositif et, depuis Laurence Idot : S’agissant de l’arrêt XBV de générale, les questions de confidentialité – que
la grande réforme de 1971, n’a pas un rôle 2009 sur la déductibilité fiscale des amendes, le Concurrences: De votre point de vue, et au ce soit dans les relations entre autorités au sein
purement passif. Examinant les conséquences droit français est en conformité avec la solution regard de cette jurisprudence, quelles sont les du REC, ou dans ce contexte des actions en Lewis Crofts
de l’arrêt Van Schijndel, MM. Canivet et Huglo de la Cour depuis 2001. Le législateur a sup- questions qui relèvent du principe d’autonomie réparation consécutives – sont un vrai problème.
> MLex, 13 Feb. 2012, 13:46
ont démontré que pesait sur les juges français primé la possibilité de déduire les amendes. Il procédurale ? Y a-t-il des questions de droit Non seulement, il y a d’assez fortes divergences
une obligation de soulever d’office les moyens n’y a donc pas eu de difficulté et l’arrêt XBV est qui sont à la limite de la frontière entre règles entre les droits nationaux, mais de plus, elles se
P
d’ordre public. L’application effective du droit de d’ailleurs largement passé inaperçu en France. de procédure et règles de fond pour lesquelles posent dans des hypothèses où l’on ne peut aris - The General Court can consider the the General Court in relation to fines is, in principle,
la concurrence est totalement préservée. En votre ANC (ou les cours de contrôle) a été avoir une application distributive des lois en pré- effects of a cartel when reviewing an appeal an unlimited jurisdiction, it is open to us to examine
revanche, dans le domaine spécifique de l’arbi- Tel n’a pas été le cas des arrêts Télé 2 et Vebic. amenée à prendre position dans un sens ou sence, comme c’est le cas par exemple, en against an antitrust sanction, judge Nicho- any aspect that is advanced to us in the context
trage, la jurisprudence Ecoswiss a permis à la Ces arrêts importants marquent, en effet, une dans un autre ? matière de sanctions. las Forwood has said. But he clarified that it was of fines,” he said. “The mere fact that the European
Cour d’appel de Paris de développer une juris- évolution dans l’application du principe, car la up to the companies to bring the arguments in the Commission may not have taken something into
prudence très favorable à l’arbitrage. Le fait pour jurisprudence de la Cour n’avait pas, jusque là, Laurence Idot: L’on voit bien qu’il n’est pas tou- Concurrences: Y a-t-il des questions qui ac- first place, and ensure they are sufficiently reaso- account does not necessarily preclude us from
un tribunal arbitral de n’avoir pas examiné ex abordé le statut procédural des ANC. Si on jours aisé de séparer les questions de fond et tuellement relèvent du principe d’autonomie ned. When the European Commission penalises a hearing arguments in relation to what the effects
officio la violation de l’article 101 TFUE n’est pas essaie d’en extraire la portée dans le contexte les questions de procédure. Par exemple, dans procédurale et pour lesquelles il vous semble- cartel, some companies claim the fine is excessive, are.” But he stressed that it was up to the compa-
assimilé à une violation « effective, grave et français, il y a à la fois restriction des pouvoirs le cadre du private enforcement, la Cour a fait rait opportun de parvenir à tout le moins à une because the price-fixing arrangements are ineffec- nies appearing in court to raise such pleas, and to
concrète » susceptible de justifier l’annulation de de l’Autorité et extension de ceux-ci. jouer le principe d’effectivité soit à des questions convergence des solutions ? tive or rarely lead to price increases. They argue reason them sufficiently. “It is really for the parties
la sentence. L’on peut se demander si cette qui, dans certains Etats membres, relevaient du that their fines should therefore be reduced. Howe- to address this issue. It is not something that our
jurisprudence dite Thalès (CA Paris, 2004) est L’arrêt Télé 2 Polska soulève des problèmes droit substantiel et non de la procédure (règle « Laurence Idot: En dehors de ces questions de ver, under EU law, commission investigators are court would do on its own initiative,” he said.
bien compatible avec la conception que se fait d’interprétation dans le contexte français, d’au- nemo auditur »), soit étaient manifestement des confidentialité et d’accès aux documents, la not obliged to detail the effects of a cartel in their “Arguments [such as] ‘look what happened to
la Cour de Justice du principe d’effectivité. tant que l’Autorité de la concurrence ne dispose questions de fond (lien de causalité). Cela étant, question des sanctions paraît à terme nécessiter final decision. The mere existence of agreements, these prices, therefore our agreement cannot have
pas du principe d’opportunité des poursuites il est vrai que cela peut être justifié par le fwait également une convergence des solutions. La designed to restrict competition, is enough to find had any effect’ are not arguments that are the sort
S’agissant de l’action en réparation, le système passive et doit adopter une décision formelle sur que, s’agissant de l’action en réparation, le droit généralisation de lignes directrices y contribue a breach of the law. Speaking on Friday at the New of analysis we would be looking for.” Earlier this
juridique français ne soulève pas de difficultés toute saisine déclarée recevable, l’irrecevabilité de l’Union renvoie également aux règles natio- déjà, mais il faudrait sans doute aller aussi loin Frontiers of Antitrust conference in Paris, General month another judge at the General Court, Marc
particulières. Toute personne lésée peut intenter faisant elle-même l’objet d’une décision suscep- nales des Etats membres. Les données sont que dans le domaine des programmes de clé- Court judge Forwood said that his court was none- van der Woude, raised the possibility of revisiting
une action en réparation et la règle « nemo audi- tible de recours. Dans ce cadre juridique, mar- différentes dans le cadre du public enforcement. mence. La simple affirmation de la Cour selon theless able to look at the effects of an agreement, how the commission imposes sanctions to ac-
tur » n’a jamais été un obstacle au droit d’action, qué au surplus par une stricte séparation entre On a eu un bel exemple en France avec les laquelle les sanctions doivent être effectives et because judges have the power to review all as- knowledge the difference between agreements
mais uniquement aux restitutions éventuelles en les services d’instruction et le Collège, l’Autorité conditions d’octroi des mesures conservatoires. proportionnées ne peut suffire. pects of a sanction. “Given that the jurisdiction of that had effects, and those that didn’t (here).
22 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 23Testimonials
L'Autorité de la concurrence publie ses documents sur
Press review
les programmes de conformité et sur la non-contestation
des griefs et évolue sur deux points importants
Alain Ronzano
> Creda Concurrence, 10 février 2012
L Speakers
e président de l'Autorité de la concur- découverte par l'entreprise soit d'un abus de Toujours à propos du document-cadre du 10 fé-
rence a donné ce matin, 10 février 2012, position dominante soit d'une entente verticale, vrier 2012 sur les programmes de conformité aux
à l'occasion de la conférence organisée bref d'une pratique qui n'est pas susceptible règles de concurrence, on notera que l'Autorité a
à l'Assemblée nationale par la revue Concur- de donner lieu à une demande de clémence. donné satisfaction à une demande générale tenant
rences « New frontières of Antitrust », la primeur En pratique, l'entreprise qui, s'étant dotée d'un à une meilleure prise en considération de la diffé- It was a great pleasure for me to chair the
de l'annonce de l'adoption par le Collège de programme de conformité conforme aux exi- rence de taille des entreprises susceptibles de se I wish to express my sincere congratula- panel on compliance programs featuring
l'Autorité de la concurrence de la version défini- gences du document-cadre du 10 février 2012 doter d'un programme de conformité. À cette fin, tions for the perfect oganization high profile speakers coming from all over
tive des deux documents soumis à consultation sur les programmes de conformité aux règles l'Autorité apporte l'utile précision que les cinq of this splendid conference”. Europe who shared various points of view
publique entre octobre et décembre 2011, le de concurrence, viendrait à découvrir la mise conditions énumérées pour construire un pro- on a hot issue. This was also a unique
communiqué de procédure relatif à la non- en oeuvre, en son sein, d'un abus de position gramme de conformité crédible et efficace Guy Canivet opportunity for the Authority to announce
contestation des griefs ainsi que le document- dominante ou de sa participation à d'une en- peuvent être substantiellement adaptées dans les Member, Constitutional Council and present its Guidelines on compliance
cadre sur les programmes de conformité aux tente verticale devrait pouvoir être récompen- petites ou moyennes entreprises (PME). Seconde programs on the same day”.
règles de concurrence. Quoi de neuf par rapport sée, si elle a mis fin à ladite pratique, avant innovation majeure, la « porte ouverte » par la
aux documents soumis à consultation ? Sur un toute ouverture d'une enquête ou d'une pro- dernière phrase du paragraphe 23 du communi- Bruno Lasserre
certain nombre de points, l'Autorité n'a pas fait cédure par une autorité de concurrence, la qué de procédure relatif à la non-contestation des Chairman, Competition Authority
évoluer sa position (...) récompense consistant dans l'admission d'une griefs : « Des contacts exploratoires peuvent avoir The panels selected by the Conference
circonstance atténuante pour le cas où l'Auto- lieu (aux fins de la mise en œuvre du III de l'article Steering Committee were extremely well
Les textes adoptés ce jour comportent deux rité serait amenée à ouvrir un cas concernant L. 464-2 du code de commerce), y compris avant chosen, covering both major current
innovations majeures : En premier lieu, une meil- cette infraction. Rien n'est dit sur le niveau de l'envoi de la notification des griefs ». La phrase, topics and advanced issues
leure prise en compte de la mise en oeuvre effec- réduction de l'amende encourue au titre de quelque peu sibylline en raison des termes mêmes of competition law”. At the New Frontiers of Antitrust 2012
tive d'un programme de conformité en cas de cette circonstance atténuante. de la loi, est pourtant lourde de sens (…) Conference, high-level practitioners
Henk Don and academics from many jurisdictions
Member, Netherlands Competition Authority discussed a whole range of exciting
topics. The conference provided an
excellent opportunity for a stimulating
exchange of ideas. In my view, already in
Entre modernisation et politique industrielle, le contrôle This conference is exemplary”.
its third year of existence, the conference
is among the highly prestigious ones on
des aides d’Etat de nouveau au cœur de l’actualité John Fingleton
Chairman, Office of Fair Trading
the international scene in antitrust law.”
Andreas Mundt
Chairman, Bundeskartellamt
Laurence Idot
> Europe, Février 2012, Focus N° 1203
Concurrences justly deserves its reputation
as a leading forum for debating legal and
A
près le lancement du Plan d’Action tifient une modernisation que l’on pensait la politique industrielle. Une fois de plus, « nul I thought that the Concurrences event
sur les aides d’Etat de 2005, les ef- pourtant déjà réalisée. Dans ce contexte, trois n’est prophète en son pays ». Dans le dernier policy issues in the field of competition law”.
in Paris was excellent: a very good
forts faits pour adapter le contrôle des axes ont été fixés. La réforme du droit des panel du Forum du 2 février consacré au programme and a terrific panel of
Nicholas Forwood
aides d’Etat au contexte de la crise en 2008- aides devrait avoir pour premier objectif d’aider modèle européen de concurrence, les raisons Judge, General Court of the European Union speakers. I was impressed by the size of
2009, l’adoption en décembre 2011 du nou- les Etats à faire un meilleur usage des fonds données par une américaine, E. Fox, pour the audience, and in particular by the mix
veau paquet dit Almunia sur les aides aux publics en réorientant les ressources vers les expliquer les raisons pour lesquelles le modèle
of officials, practitioners and academics.
SIEG, l’on pouvait penser que la réforme du politiques et activités qui peuvent encourager européen est en train de supplanter, en parti-
The Concurrences event has established
droit des aides d’Etat était quasiment achevée. la croissance. (…) culier dans les pays émergents, le modèle
itself as one of the highlights of the year in
Il n’en est rien. Le commissaire Almunia a pro- américain ont de quoi faire réfléchir. En-dehors This 2012 edition of the New Frontiers of
fité du premier European Competition Forum Les trois grands axes de cette politique ont été d’un système de type administratif, sur le fond,
competition law and policy”.
Antitrust has reached our highest expec-
organisé le 2 février 2012, dans lequel l’un des confirmés la semaine suivante dans le discours la principale raison tient au fait qu’à la diffé-
tations with cutting edge speakers from Richard Whish
panels était consacré au contrôle des aides, prononcé à Paris sur « Industrial Policy and rence des USA, que l’on cite pourtant toujours Professor, King’s College London
all over Europe and lively debates with a
pour annoncer le début d’une vaste discussion Competition Policy : Quo vadis Europa ? » comme référence, le droit de la concurrence
large audience. We shall do even better
sur la modernisation du droit des aides d’Etat (Speech, 12/83, 10 févr. 2012, 3ème conf. De- de l’Union est le seul qui dispose des outils qui
(« Priming Europe for Growth », Speech 12/59). main la concurrence/News Frontiers of Anti- permettent de contrôler les interventions éta-
in 2013 !”.
La nécessité d’utiliser tous les moyens pour trust). Au-delà du contrôle des aides, le Com- tiques. Bien qu’à Paris, le Commissaire se soit Frédéric Jenny
relancer la croissance et le besoin d’approfon- missaire a fait un vibrant plaidoyer en faveur exprimé dans l’enceinte de l’Assemblée natio- Chairman, OECD Competition Committee
dir le marché intérieur, ainsi que le besoin d’une politique de concurrence forte comme nale, il est dommage que cela ait été devant
d’aider les Etats à sortir du dilemme du au outil pour restaurer la croissance et dénoncer un parterre de spécialistes et non devant les
déficit financier à un moment où la demande l’idée souvent répandue en France selon lequel parlementaires et autres politiques.
d’un soutien public ne fait que s’accroître, jus- il y aurait incompatibilité entre cette dernière et
24 - New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue New frontiers of antitrust 2012 Concurrences Special Issue - 25You can also read
