1 / 12

Alexandr Svetlicinii European University Institute CLEEN Workshop Panel: Mergers

Exploring the Role of Legal Presumptions under the “Convincing Evidence” Standard in EC Merger Control. Alexandr Svetlicinii European University Institute CLEEN Workshop Panel: Mergers ESRC Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK 11-13 June 2008. Structure.

lindley
Download Presentation

Alexandr Svetlicinii European University Institute CLEEN Workshop Panel: Mergers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Exploring the Role of Legal Presumptions under the “Convincing Evidence” Standard in EC Merger Control Alexandr Svetlicinii European University Institute CLEEN Workshop Panel: Mergers ESRC Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK 11-13 June 2008

  2. Structure • Sophistication of merger assessment • Concept of legal presumptions • Substantive presumptions: non-horizontals, conduct analysis • Procedural presumptions: source of evidence, prospective and retrospective analysis • Illegality and its deterrent effect on future conduct • Concluding remarks

  3. Background • SIEC test under new ECMR: reasons and implications • Jurisprudence of Community courts • Sophistication of merger assessment: • - non-horizontals (conduct, effects) • - efficiency defence • - institutional conflicts

  4. Scope of Research • Application of economic theories and economic evidence in the legal context of merger assessment: - Assessment of non-horizontal concentrations - Methodology for conduct analysis - Efficiency defence • Institutional balance: role of Commission and Community courts in merger assessment

  5. Concept of Legal Presumptions • US antitrust: “per se rules” and “rule of reason” • EC merger control: structural presumptions – market share thresholds • Present work: “Soft” presumptions? – substantive/procedural • “Convincing evidence” as rebuttal?

  6. Substantive Presumptions Non-Horizontals • Tetra Laval: “generally neutral or even beneficial for consumers”, proof to the opposite – “convincing evidence”? • Chicago and Post-Chicago approaches in Non-Horizontal Guidelines (relevant distinction?) • Room for efficiency defence?

  7. Substantive Presumptions Conduct Analysis • Ability-Incentive-Impact in Community jurisprudence and Non-Horizontal Guidelines • Incentives = Commercial interests? (trade-off between costs and profits of foreclosure practices) • Correlation with other factors influencing future conduct?

  8. Procedural Presumptions:Source of Evidence • Specifics of Impala: new legal test for collective dominance? “convincing evidence” for proving the absence of “convincing evidence”? • Merging parties v. third parties: campaign discounts and PPDs • Third party evidence under scrutiny: Commission’s questionnaires

  9. Procedural Presumptions:Retaliation Mechanism • Retrospective v. prospective investigation • “as the assessment of the risk of the creation of a collective dominance position is not, by definition, based on the existence of a prior common policy, the criterion related to absence of retaliatory measures in the past is wholly irrelevant” • “Theoretic heterogeneity” of economic science • Inconsistency?: presumption of common pricing policy based on the evidence of past conduct • Implications for merger investigations

  10. Substantive Presumptions:Illegality and Its Deterrent Effect • Taking illegality into account (from TetraLaval to General Electric): convincing evidence or summary evidence? • Established presumption? “although it cannot be presumed that Community law will not be complied with…such a possibility cannot be excluded by the Commission” • Chances? CFI will “take account only of conduct which would, at least probably, not be illegal”

  11. Substantive Presumptions:Illegality and Its Deterrent Effect • Presumption of legality – inconsistency with economics • Practical difficulties • Conceptual disagreement: ex ante v. ex post, enforcement policy and diverging burden of proof • Correlation with other factors

  12. Concluding Remarks • Legal presumptions: tendencies in creation, modification and codification of legal standards • Legal presumptions: possible response for increasing sophistication of merger assessment, key tools in the emerging methodology • “Convincing evidence”: framework for rebuttal of legal presumptions? • Monitoring and guiding the development of legal presumptions in EC merger control

More Related