Rights of an Undertaking in Proceedings Regarding Commitment Decisions under Article 9 of Regulation No. 1/2003

• Authors: Inga Kawka
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The purpose of this article is to present and define the rights of the undertakings concerned, which are parties to commitment decision proceedings, and to discuss whether the rights granted to the undertakings are exercised. As regards commitment decisions the main right of an undertaking/a party to the proceedings is the right to defend its own interests in negotiations with the Commission. Other rights, such as the right to a transparent procedure, the rights resulting from the principle of legal certainty and legality of sanctions, and the right to appeal, are also analyzed. The article argues that these rights are not adequately enforced in EU competition law. This is a result of a strong negotiating position of the Commission and the fact that it acts both as a prosecutor and decision-renderer. Additionally, the scope of European courts’ review is so narrow that it does not guarantee that an undertaking is protected against offering excessive and unreasonable commitments.

FR

Le but de cet article est de présenter et définir les droits des entreprises concernées qui sont les parties de la procédure de décision d'engagement, et d’examiner si ces droits sont exercés. En ce qui concerne la décision d’engagement, le droit de défendre ses propres intérêts dans les négociations avec la Commission est le droit principal d'une entreprise/une partie de la procédure. Les autres droits, comme le droit à la procédure transparente, les droits découlant du principe de la sécurité juridique et de la légalité des sanctions et le droit de faire appel, sont également analysés. L'article fait valoir que ces droits ne sont pas correctement appliqués dans le droit de la concurrence de l’UE. Cela résulte de la forte position de négociation de la Commission et du fait qu'elle agit en tant que procureur et organe de décision. De plus, l’étendue du contrôle effectué par des tribunaux européens est si étroite qu'il ne garantit pas à l’entreprise d’être protégée contre des engagements excessifs et déraisonnables.

Keywords

EN

rights of an undertaking concerned; commitment decisions; EU competition law; Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 5(6)
• Pages: 169-192

Dates

published

2012-03-30

Contributors

author

Inga Kawka

• Chair of Law and Administrative Science of the Pedagogical University in Krakow

References

• Armengol O., Pascual A., ‘Some reflections on article 9 Commitment decisions in the light of the Coca-Cola case’ (2006) 27(3) European Competition Law Review.
• Banasiński C., Krasnodębska -Tomkiel M., ‘Zastosowanie środków prawnych prawa antymonopolowego na szczególnych rynkach regulowanych’ [‘Application of antimonopoly law remedies in particular regulated markets’] (2009) 1 Przegląd Prawa Handlowego.
• Banasiński C., Piontek E. (eds.), Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz [Act on Competition and Consumer Protection. Commentary],Warszawa 2009.
• Cavicchi P., ‘The European Commission's discretion as to the adoption of Article 9 commitment decisions: Lessons from Alrosa’, Discussion Paper No. 3/11, Institute for European Integration, Europa-Kolleg Hamburg 2011.
• Chalmers D., Davies G., Monti G., The Existing Policy Framework. European Union Law: Cases and Materials, Cambridge 2010.
• Commission’s XIVth Report on Competition Policy 1984.
• Dolmans M., Graf T. and Little D.R., ‘Microsoft’s browser choice commitments and public interoperability undertaking’ (2010) 31(7) European Competition Law Review.
• Ezrachi A., EU Competition Law. An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases, Oxford, Portalnd, Oregon 2010.
• Federico Di G., ‘The Impact of the Lisbon Treaty on EU Antitrust Enforcement: Enhancing procedural Guarantees Through Article 6 TEU’ (2010) 4 Il diritto dell’Unione Europea.
• Giannakopoulos T. K., Safeguarding Companies' Rights in Competition and Anti-dumping/Anti-subsidies Proceedings, The Hague, London, New York 2011.
• Gill A., Swora M., ‘Decyzja zobowiązująca jako metoda rozwiązywania sporów w po stępowaniu przed Prezesem Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów’ [‘Commitment decision as a mean of resolution of disputes before the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection’] (2005) 3 Kwartalnik Prawa Publicznego.
• Gippini-Fournier E., ‘The Modernisation of European Competition Law: First Experiences with Regulation 1/2003’, [in:] Koeck H., Karollus M. (eds.), The Modernisation of European Competition Law, FIDE Congress,Linz 2008.
• Jones A., Sufrin B., EU Competition Law. Text, cases, and Materials, Oxford 2011.
• Kohutek K., Sieradzka M., Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz [Act on Competition and Consumer Protection. Commentary], Warszawa 2008.
• Kowalik-Bańczyk K., Problematyka ochrony praw podstawowych w unijnych postępowaniach w sprawach z zakresu ochrony konkurencji [The issues of the protection of fundamental rights in EU competition proceedings], Centrum Europejskie Natolin, Warszawa 2010.
• Kozieł T., ‘Commitment Decisions under the Polish Competition Act– Enforcement Practice and Future Perspectives’ (2010) 3(3) YARS.
• Lomholt F., ‘The 1984 IBM Undertaking, Commission’s monitoring and practical effects’(1998) 3 Competition Policy Newsletter 7.
• Miąsik D., [in:] .T. Skoczny, A. Jurkowska, D. Miąsik (eds.), Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz [Act on Competition and Consumer Protection. Commentary], Warszawa 2009.
• Mrzygłód K., ‘Commitment decisions: A Polish perspective’ (2010) 3 Global Antitrust Review.
• Schwarze J., ‘Europaische Kartellbussgelder im Lichte ubergeordneter Vertrags und Verfassungsgrundsatze’ (2009) 44 Europarecht.
• Schweitzer H., ‘Commitment Decisions under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003: The Developing EC Practice and Case Law’ (2008) 22 EUI Working Papers.
• Sieradzka M., ‘Dochodzenie roszczeń za naruszenie unijnych i krajowych reguł konkurencji a kwestie prejudycjalności rozstrzygnięć organów ochrony konkurencji’ [‘Pursuing Claims as Regards Infringement of European and Polish Competition Rules v Prejudiciality of Competition Authorities’ Decisions’] (2010) 12 Przegląd Prawa Handlowego.
• Skoczny T., ‘Ochrona konkurencji a prokonkurencyjna regulacja sektorowa’ [Competition protection and procompetitve sector-specific regulation’] (2004) 3 Problemy Zarządzania.
• Sousa Ferro M., ‘Committing to commitment decisions – unanswered questions on Article 9 decisions’ (2005) 26(8) European Competition Law Review.
• Temple Lang J., ‘Commitment decisions under Regulation 1/2003: Legal aspects of a new kind of competition decision’ (2003) 24(8) European Competition Law Review.
• Temple Lang J., The Use of Competition Law Powers for Regulatory Purposes, Regulatory Policy Institute, Oxford 2007.
• Temple Lang J., ‘Three Possibilities for Reform of the Procedure of the Commission in Competition Cases under Regulation 1/2003’, [in:] Baudenbacher C. (ed.), Current Developments in European and International Competition Law, Basel 2011.
• Van Bael I., Bellis J.-F., Competition Law of the European Community, Austin, Boston, Chicago, New York 2010.
• Waelbroeck D., ‘Le développement en droit européen de la concurrence des solutions négociées (engagements, clémence, non-contestation des faits et transactions): que va-t-il rester aux juges?’(2008) 1 The Global Competition Law Centre Working Papers Series.
• Wils W. P. J., ‘Settlements of EU Antitrust Investigations: Commitment Decisions under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003’ (2006) 29(3) World Competition.
• Wils W.P. J. ‘The Use of Settlements in Public Antitrust Enforcement: Objectives and Principles’ (2008) 31(3) World Competition 10, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=456087 .
• Woś T., Wstęp’ [‘Introduction’], [in:] Woś T. (ed.), Postępowanie sądowoadministracyjne [Judicial Administrative Proceedings], Warszawa 2004.