Institutional Design, Efficiency and Due Process in Competition Enforcement: Lessons from Slovenia and Serbia

• Authors: Veljko Smiljanić , Kevin Rihtar

Abstracts

FR

L’article compare les conceptions institutionnelles et l’héritage historique du cadre slovène et serbe d’application des règles de concurrence, et examine les avantages et les inconvénients de chaque modèle. La Slovénie a mis en oeuvre un modèle mixte, dans lequel la procédure d’application des règles de concurrence est répartie entre des procédures administratives d’enquête et de sanction fonctionnellement distinctes. Le modèle slovène a été généralement perçu comme peu efficace, avec des difficultés spécifiques dues au manque de clarté des relations entre les procédures administratives et les procédures pénales. D’autre part, la Serbie a considérablement modifié sa conception institutionnelle en 2009, passant de ses traditions d’inspiration autrichienne à une procédure administrative unique. Le nouveau système semble avoir été plus efficace, mais de solides sauvegardes juridictionnelles sont nécessaires. Les auteurs examinent la question d’un point de vue national et international, en tenant compte de la directive ECN+ et de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne et de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme.

EN

The article compares the institutional designs and historic legacy of the Slovenian and Serbian competition enforcement framework, and discusses the advantages and drawbacks of each model. Slovenia implemented a mixed model, where the competition enforcement procedure is divided into functionally separate investigation and misdemeanour administrative procedures for the imposition of sanctions. The Slovenian model has generally been perceived as inefficient, with specific difficulties arising from the unclear relationship between the administrative and the misdemeanour procedures. On the other hand, Serbia significantly changed its institutional design in 2009 from its Austrian-inspired roots to a single administrative procedure. The new system appears to have been more effective, but strong judicial safeguards are necessary. The Authors further review the matter from a national and international point of view, considering the ECN+ Directive and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and European Court of Human Rights.

Keywords

EN

antitrust; competition law; Central and Eastern Europe; efficiency; competition enforcement systems; judicial review; Slovenia; Serbia

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 13
• Issue: 22
• Pages: 67-88

Dates

published

2020

Contributors

author

Veljko Smiljanić

• University of Belgrade; Faculty of Law

• https://orcid.org/0000000222870360

author

Kevin Rihtar

• University of Ljubljana; Faculty of Law

• https://orcid.org/0000000333729407

References

• Begović, B., Pavić, V. and Popović, D. (2019). Uvod u pravo konkurencije. Belgrade: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
• Danković-Stepanović, S. (2014). Pravo i politika konkurencije, Belgrade: Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu.
• Böhler-Grimm, P. and Kühnert, H. (2017). Gold Standard or Not all that Glitters is Gold? The Austrian Model of Public Competition Law Enforcement in the Context of Dawn Raids. Focus on Competition 2017, 68–72. Karanović & Nikolić, Law Firm, Belgrade.
• Fatur, A., Podobnik, K. and Vlahek, A. (2016). Competition law in Slovenia. Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands.
• Galič, A. (2000). Postopki v zvezi z varstvom konkurence. Podjetje in delo, 6–7(XLIV), 1383–1392.
• Grilc, P. et al. (2009). Zakon o preprečevanju omejevanja konkurence s komentarjem. GV Založba, Ljubljana.
• Jones, A. and Sufrin, B. (2004). EC Competition Law (Second Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Krašek, A. (2019). V varstvo konkurence prihaja enotni postopek sankcioniranja. Pravna praksa, 27(38), 6–8.
• Laitenberger, J. (2017). Enforcing EU Competition Law: Principles, Strategy and Objectives. Speech delivered at 44th Annual Conference on International Antitrust, Fordham University, New York.
• Lazarević, N. and Protić, D. (2015). Politika konkurencije u Srbiji: u čemu je problem? Belgrade: Centar za evropske politike. Retrieved from: http://www.cep.org.rs/images/efb_competition/policy_study_politika_konkurencije_u_srbiji.pdf (17.1.2020).
• Marković-Bajalović, D. (2012). The Temporal Conflict of Law in Competition Legislation. Focus on Competition 2012, 70–78. Karanović & Nikolić, Law Firm, Belgrade.
• Murg-Perlmutter, A. (2012). The ‘Light’ Judicial Review of ‘Complex Economic or Technical Assessments’. Too “Light” for European Court of Human Rights’ Taste? Lund Student EU Law Review: Fundamental Rights and EU Competition Law, special edition – fall 2012, 22–57. Retrieved from: https://www.law.lu.se/webuk.nsf/(MenuItemById)/EUlawreviewspecialedition1/$FILE/SED_FINAL_1_.pdf (17.1.2020).
• Obradović, M. (2017). The Main Goals of the Commission for Protection of Competition Concerning the New Competition Law in Serbia. Focus on Competition 2017, 4–7. Karanović & Nikolić, Law Firm, Belgrade.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee. (2019). The standard of review by courts in competition cases – Background Note (Ref. No. DAF/COMP/WP3(2019)1). Retrieved from: https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WP3(2019)1/en/pdf (17.1.2020).
• Repas, M. (2010). Konkurenčno pravo v teoriji in praksi: Omejevalna ravnanja in nadzor konkcentracij. Uradni list Republike Slovenije.
• Valter, K. (2015). Je varstvo konkurence ujeto med upravni in prekrškovni postopek? Pravna praksa, 20–21(34), 6–7.
• Whish, R. and Bailey, D. (2012). Competition Law (Seventh Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2020.13.22.3

Biblioteka Nauki

2159031