Anticompetitive Agreements (2008–2010): Errors of 1 Type in Russian Enforcement

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-107
Author(s):  
Andrey Makarov
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Antitrust Policy ◽  
Competition Authority ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Priority Areas ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Mixed Agreements

This article analyzes the antitrust enforcement practice in Russia (2008–2010) in the area of competition restricting agreements (horizontal and vertical). The analysis is based on courts decisions database (litigations with the Russian competition authority - FAS). Database contains 242 cases, including 139 horizontal agreements, 103 vertical and mixed agreements. On the basis of this database we have analyzed important features of the interpretation and implementation of the competition law in Russian practice, priority areas of the enforcement. We considered the antitrust policy taking into account the risks of errors of 1 and 2 types, including the problem of the flexibility of prohibitions (PER SE vs RULE OF REASON), standards of proof, consistency of enforcement, etc.

Modernization of Antimonopoly Policy in Russia (Economic Analysis of Proposed Changes in the Competition Law)

2005 ◽  
pp. 100-116
Author(s):  
S. Avdasheva ◽  
A. Shastitko
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Commodity Markets ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Per Se

The article is devoted to the analysis of the draft law "On Protection of Competition", which must substitute the laws "On Competition and Limitation of Monopolistic Activity on Commodity Markets" and "On Protection of Competition on the Financial Services Market". The innovations enhancing the quality of Russian competition law and new norms providing at least ambiguous effects on antimonopoly regulation are considered. The first group of positive measures includes unification of competition norms for commodity and financial markets, changes of criteria and the scale of control of economic concentrations, specification of conditions, where norms are applied "per se" and according to the "rule of reason", introduction of rules that can prevent the restriction of competition by the executive power. The interpretation of the "collective dominance" concept and certain rules devoted to antimonopoly control of state aid are in the second group of questionable steps.

Us Antitrust Law: Central, but Unique

2020 ◽  
pp. 91-102
Author(s):  
David J. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Practical Importance ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Institutional Structures ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Substantive Law

US antitrust law has long influenced all who deal with competition law—sometimes as a model, sometimes as a source of experience and insights, and sometimes as a surrogate for an “international standard.” It also has great practical importance in international business. This chapter provides information and insights necessary for understanding its roles and engaging with its rules and procedures. The chapter explains its institutional structures, basic principles of substantive law, and the central role of economic analysis in deciding cases. In particular, it throws light on the unique way in which judicial decisions (case law) guide decisions in all institutions and on the central significance of the categories of “rule of reason” and “per se treatment.” It also provides insights into the dynamics of the regime—the factors that drive antitrust decisions. It also sketches the ways in which it exercises influence on other competition law regimes.

scholarly journals Applying the rule of per se and rule of reason to assess the violation of the Competition Law by the IPRs owners

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. First
Author(s):  
Bui Thi-Hang Nga
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Market Power ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Monopoly Position

With the nature of practically irreplaceable and the monopoly of the protection documents, the law has given the intellectual property rights (IPRs) owner a competitive advantage, as well as a market power. As a result, to extent the market power and create a monopoly position to maximize profitability, IPRs owners tend to abuse IPRs to limit competition. Although the exclusive right to IPRs is a legal monopoly comes from protection documents, it does not mean that the owner has the right to abuse this monopoly to limit competition. This is because such behavior is not considered an exception under the Competition Law and shall be prohibited in case the satisfaction of provision violating conditions of the Competition Law. However, in order to balance the interests of related subjects, in assessment of the Competition Law violations of IPRs abuses, the laws of countries fully recognized and applied the rule of reason instead of per ser as Competition Law violations in general. The article aims to analyze and explain the purpose of the application of the rule of reason when assessing the violation of the Competition Law of IPRs owner and when using the per se, in respect of the legal monopoly of the IPRs subjects. The paper then provides proposals to complete the Vietnamese Competition Law which governs the abuse of IPRs owners.

scholarly journals Correction: Applying the rule of per se and rule of reason to assess the violation of the Competition Law by the IPRs owners

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 973
Author(s):  
Nga Hang Bui Thi
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Per Se

Article: Applying the rule of per se and rule of reason to assess the violation of the Competition Law by the IPRs owners (DOI: https://doi.org/10.32508/stdjelm.v4i2.627) by Bui Thi Hang Nga is added new section as below: Acknowledgement This study is funded by University of Economic and Law, VNU-HCM, Vietnam under grant number CS/2019-15.

scholarly journals Competition Law in Western Balkans: Developments in 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 199-213
Author(s):  
Dragan Gajin
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Competition Authority ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Western Balkans

In 2018, the competition authorities in the Western Balkans (Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and North Macedonia) have continued with their enforcement activities. The level of their activity varies from year to year, but the trend has continued where the Serbian competition authority is the most active one in the region. Generally, the focus of the enforcement activities of the Balkan competition authorities is on merger control, an exception being Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the emphasis is on antitrust enforcement.

Competition and Antitrust Enforcement Against Standard Essential Patents in India

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-452
Author(s):  
Samir Gandhi ◽  
Shivanghi Sukumar
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Competition Authority ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Standard Essential Patents ◽  
The World ◽  
Competition Enforcement

Competition authorities and courts across the world have assessed issues at the interface between competition law and intellectual property rights. India is no longer a stranger to this debate and has witnessed the initiation of multiple proceedings involving the exercise of standard essential patents. Further, a long-pending jurisdictional conflict has now been resolved by a court decision, paving the way for the Indian competition authority and courts to concurrently examine the exercise of standard essential patents. While these developments represent a step in the evolution of antitrust jurisprudence in India, several foundational issues in relation to the competition enforcement against standard essential patents are yet to be decided.

Rule of Reason (ROR): Gains and Risks

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-81
Author(s):  
Andrej Makarov
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Antitrust Policy ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
The Us ◽  
Rapid Formation ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Type 2 Errors

This article discusses the rapid formation of the Rule of Reason (ROR) approach in antitrust policy in the field of anti — competitive agreements. In many countries (the US, EU) there was a significant reduction of the use of per se approach (prohibition on the base of formal characteristics) in favor of the ROR approach, nowadays agreements are usually permitted or prohibited on the basis of the analysis of positive and negative effects. The article analyzes and summarizes the experience of these jurisdictions in the development of the ROR approach, the chronology for agreements of various types (horizontal, vertical agreements). The role of discussions in economic theory in this process was provided the argumentation for the expansion of effects evaluation. At the same time, the article examines the problems of this transformation, taking into account the problems of legal uncertainty, growing risks of type 2 errors.

Anti-competitive Agreements in Russian Courts

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-108
Author(s):  
Andrey Makarov
Keyword(s):  
Public Procurement ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Competition Authority ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Database Structure ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Antitrust Legislation

This article presents the analysis of implementation and interpretation of antitrust legislation in Russian courts, in the field of anti-competitive agreements cases. This article proceeds from the previous research which provided the analysis of the court decision database of litigations with the Russian competition authority (the FAS) initiated in 2008-2010. In this research (which covers court cases of 2011-2015) we provide the database of 646 court decisions and examine the tendencies of applying antitrust prohibitions and legislation in courts. We show how the database structure varies from the point of view of main markets and types of agreements, taking into account the standards of proof. The analysis reveals that the Rule of reason (ROR) approach was not actually applied in courts, despite legislative possibilities. Type 1 errors risks tends to decrease, especially in public procurement cases, cases of banks and insurance companies cooperation. Requirements in the field of market analysis in decisionmaking are also increasing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document