1 / 7

LEAR CONFERENCE 2009 Cultural differences institutions and procedures

LEAR CONFERENCE 2009 Cultural differences institutions and procedures. Valentine Korah UCL. Bert Foer. What a lovely and important paper!

quincy
Download Presentation

LEAR CONFERENCE 2009 Cultural differences institutions and procedures

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. LEAR CONFERENCE 2009Cultural differencesinstitutions and procedures Valentine Korah UCL

  2. Bert Foer • What a lovely and important paper! • Freedom to enter a market, stressed by Ordo Liberals, makes far more sense in Europe, where state has so much control over both particular industries and domcos previously owned by government. Inducing investment made at public expense is irrelevant. At least Com’s guidance on enforcement priorities now treats margin squeeze as refusal to supply, which infringes only if circumstances are special. • Lack of revolving door results in administrators not understanding complaints of those not licensed for an activity. • Officials leaving for practice is not a revolving door, it is mainly a one way door (apart from Chief Economist and a few stagiaires).

  3. Damien Geradin • Very different kind of paper, also excellent, but detailed and careful with many accurate notes. • I shall stick to two general points. • Agree that the limited jurisdiction of the CFI and ECJ is regrettable. • The usual answer is that the Court has insufficient time to consider complex facts. Would it not be better to enable the ECJ to limit the cases it takes. • The Courts seem to believe that doing justice between the parties – the smell test – is more important than the precedents created.

  4. Limited jurisdiction-Wanadoo • Eg Com got original Wanadoo decision wrong, France Telecom held some 70% of the shares in Wanadoo and set up the scheme for its subsidiary to distribute ASDL. Wanadoo and Fr Tel were a single undertaking, Hydrotherm v. Andreoli. • Wanadoo was not allowed to set off receipt of call charges when deciding it was selling under AVC or AAC, yet it was only through the broad band link provided by FR Tel that it could make call charges. All the benefits to the undertaking resulting from conduct should be relevant to negate predation. • On each sale by W , Fr. Tel received a fee: neglected. • Liklihood of recoupment irrelevant without discussing consumer harm.

  5. Wanadoo appeal • These points not raised in 1st stage of pleadings before the CFI, so it had no jurisdiction to consider them. • Nor could the ECJ. No point not raised in the initial pleadings, made within 2 months + of the decision, is within the jurisdiction of any Community court. • Yet used as a precedent.

  6. Fines • Notice on method of assessing fines starts from turnover. • Not required. Reg 1/2003 only imposes turnover cap • In Garden Cottage, bulk butter was sold on a margin of 0.5%! • Start with 10% of turnover • Not %age of profit or capital employed,

  7. fines • multiplied by recividism (even if by different co in group, or former managers, or for minor infringement – recividism not good concept for corporations), • No way to assess gravity of conduct on market (required by reg 1/2003), etc. or of ability to pay • Jeremy Lever, ‘Just deserts, (2008) 7 Competition L.J. 123. Thank you!

More Related