Michael-Alexander Volks
The Applicability of a US-Type Rule of Reason under Article 101 (1)TFEU
A Comparison of EU with US Law
Verlag Dr. Kovac Hamburg 2015
Table of Contents Table of Abbreviations
Chapter 1 : Introduction, Subject and structure of this work
§ 1 Introduction 1
A. Legal Setting 1
B. Economic Reality 2
C. Economics in Competition Law 3
§2 Subject 7
§ 3 Structure 11
Chapter 2: U.S. Antitrust Law
§1 Introduction 13
§ 2 Goal of the Sherman Act 13
A. Opinions 14
B. Supreme Court 15
C. Summary 17
§ 3 Enforcement Authorities 17
A. Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice 17 B. District Courts of the United States 19
§4 Penalties 19
§ 5 Judicial Review 20
§ 6 Application of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 20
A. Per Se Violations 21
I. U.S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association 22
II. Reasonable Per Se Standard 23
III. Per Se Violations 24
IV. Summary 26
B. Rule of Reason Analysis 26
I. Case-Law 27
1. United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. - Ancillary
Restraints Doctrine 27
2. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States 29 3. Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States 30 4. Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc 31 5. National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. United States
-The Quick-Look-Analysis 33
6. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. ..34 7. Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde 36 8. Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists... 36
II. Summary 37 1. General Remarks 37 2. Burden-Shifting 38 3. Special Cases 39 C. Conclusion 40 §7 Summary 41
Chapter 3: European Competition Law 45
§ 1 Objectives of European Community Competition Law 45
A. The Treaties 45
I. Treaty Establishing the European Community 45
II. Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union 45
III. Conclusion 47
B. European Commission's Position 48
C. Conclusion 49
§ 2 Legal Framework 50
A. Article 101 (1)TFEU 50
I. Restriction of Competition 50
II. Burden of Proof 54
B. Block Exemption Regulations 56
I. Basic Structure 57
II. Agreements and Industries Exempted 57 III. Scope of the Block Exemption Regulations 58
IV. Exceptional Cases 59
1. Hardcore Restrictions 59 2. Negative Effects 60 3. Parallel Networks 60 V. Burden of Proof 61 VI. Summary 61 C. De Minimis-Notice 63 D. Article 101 (3) TFEU 64 I. Applicability 64
II. The Four Conditions of Article 101 (3) TFEU 65
1. Improvement or Progress 66
2. Fair Share of the Resulting Benefits for Consumers 67 IX
3. Indispensability of the Restrictions 68
4. No Elimination of Competition 69
5. Effect 70
E. Conclusion 70
§ 3 Procedures under European Community law 70 A. Enforcement by the European Commission 71
I. Investigations 71
II. Remedies 73
III. Sanctions 74
1. Effect of Article 101 (1)TFEU 74
2. Fines 74
3. Nature of the Fines 75
B. Judicial Review 76
I. Stages of Appeal 76
II. Scope of Review 77
C. Conclusion 80
§ 4 European Case Law 82
A. Object or Effect of Restricting or Distorting Competition 82
I. Restriction by Object 83
II. Actual Effect 87
B. Affect Trade Between Member States - Consten/Grundig 89 C. Non-Applicability of Article 101 (1) TFEU 91
I. Metro SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co. KG v. Commission of the European Communities - Metro I (1977) 91
II. Metro SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co. KG v. Commission of the European Communities - Metro II (1986) 93
III. Ancillary Restraints Doctrine 94
1. Directly Related 94
2. Necessary 94
3. Conclusion 96
IV. Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft AEG-Telefunken AG v. Commission of the European Communities 96 V. Tetra Pak Rausing SA v. Commission of the European
Communities 97
VI. Gottrup-Klim e.a. Grovvareforeninger v. Dansk Landbrugs
Grovvareselskab AmbA 98
VW.Montecatini SpA v. Commission of the European Communities ...99 \/\\\. Métropole télévision (M6) and others v. Commission of the
European Communities 101
IX. J.C.J. Wouters and Others v. Algemene Raad van de
Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten 102
X. Meca-Medina v. Commission of the European Communities 104
XI. The Beef Industry 106
1. Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail and viande (FNCBV) and others v. Commission of the European
Communities 106
2. Competition Authority v. Beef Industry Development
Society Ltd and Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd 109
3. Previous Issues of Overcapacity 112
4. Conclusion 113
XII. GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v. Commission of the
European Communities 113
XIII. Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS v. Président de l'Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l'Économie, de
l'Industrie et de l'Emploi 115
XIV. Opinions 116
1. No Room for a Rule of Reason in Europe 116
2. Notions of a Rule of Reason 117
3. Applicability of the Rule of Reason 119
4. Inconsistent Picture 120
XV. Summary 121
D. Conclusion 122
§5 Scope of Article 101 TFEU 123
§6 Conclusion 123
Chapter 4: EU Member States Competition Law 125
§ 1 German Competition Law 125
A. Substantive Law 125
B. Conflict of Laws 127
C. National Competition Authorities 128
D. Proceedings 129
I. Enforcement 129
II. Judicial Review 129
E. Conclusion 130
§2 Summary 130
Chapter 5: Conclusions 131 §1 Observations 131 § 2 Assessment of Restraints 132 A. Hardcore/Per Se Labels 132 B. Rule of Reason 134 § 3 Enforcement 137 A. Legal Uncertainty 137 I. Little Guidance 137 II. Conclusion 141 B. Concentration of Powers 142 §4 Conclusions 143 Chapter 6: Recommendations 147 §1 Desideratum 147
A. Reduced Error Costs 148
B. Direct Costs Appropriately Allocated 149
§2 Suggestions 149
A. Standard of Scrutiny under Article 101 (1) TFEU 150 B. Abolishment of Block Exemption Regulation 151
C. Enforcement Authorities 151
§3 Closing Remarks 151
Bibliography 153
Table of Cases 161
European Court of Justice, General Court, Court of First Instance and
Commission (Alphabetical) 161
United States Supreme Court and Lower Courts (Alphabetical) 167 XIII
