European Antitrust Enforcement : An Analysis of Court of Appeal Rulings EC Competition Enforcement Data, Amsterdam April 11, 2008 Andrea Guenster Martin Carree Maarten Pieter Schinkel

2 Agenda European Antitrust Policy European Court of Justice History of the European Court of Justice The Sentences of the European Court of Justice An inferential Analysis of European Court of Justice’s Sentences Limitations and Outlook

3 European Antitrust Policy Literature Review Posner (1970, 2001) Gallo et al. (1985, 1986, 2000, 2001) Harding et al. (2005) Legal landmark case books, e.g. Vogelaar (2004), Ritter et al. (2005) De Burca and Weilers (2001) Article 81 and 82 Data (392 Not joined, 207 joined, ) Webpage European Court of Justice Stemming from 129 DG Competition cases of a total of 473 Grundig-Consten (1964) and Central Parts/JCB (2000) Arranged according to opening date Infringements, Exemptions and Negative Clearances

4 European Court of Justice Court established eleven years before Commission in European Coal and Steal Treaty 1951 (Paris) “… ensure that the interpretation and application of the Treaty is observed.” (Article 164 EC Treaty): sentences, orders and opinions Expiration of Treaty in 2002, but not constitutional Court Civil Law Triangle of Council, Parliament and Commission and advices national Courts From interpretation establishing landmark case reference system to economic theory foundation Landmark Cases result into Notices, Regulations and Guidelines Pronuptia Case DGIV/30.937, Commission Reg. 4087/88/EEC of 28 December 1988 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to categories of franchise agreements BMW DGIV/14.650, Regulation on Franchising Commission Reg. 123/85/EEC of 12 December 1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements

5

6

7

8

9 Liable/Cost IncurredApplicantCommissionTotal Applicant Commission Total

10

11

12 Table 2 Multinomial Logit on the Sentence, (n=188) Partially AnnulledCoefficientStandard ErrorMean Duration Parties Horizontal Dominance Applicant-0.196*** Number of Intervener for Applicant Number of Intervener for Defendant0.392* Recitals0.009*** Fine0.131*** Judges Andriessen (01/81-01/85) Sutherland (01/85-01/89) Brittan (01/89-01/93) van Miert (01/93-09/99)-1.442* Constant …

13 Table 2 Multinomial Logit on the Sentence, (n=188) (continued) AnnulledCoefficientStandard ErrorMean Duration Parties Horizontal Dominance Applicant Number of Intervener for Applicant Number of Intervener for Defendant Recitals Fine Judges1.150*** Andriessen (01/81-01/85)-4.044** Sutherland (01/85-01/89)-4.578*** Brittan (01/89-01/93)-6.201*** van Mie t (01/93-09/99)-2.694** Constant … Upheld is the base level. The R² is 36%. Note: *, **, and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5% and 1% significance levels, respectively.

14 Table 3 Regression on Fine Reduction (n=188) CoefficientStandard ErrorMean Duration0.004** Parties0.008* Horizontal Dominance Applicant Number of Intervener for Applicant Number of Intervener for Defendant Recitals-0.001*** Fine Judges-0.121*** Andriessen (01/81-01/85) Sutherland (01/85-01/89)0.529*** Brittan (01/89-01/93)0.434*** van Miert(01/93-09/99)0.332*** Constant … The R² is 20%. Note: *, **, and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5% and 1% significance levels, respectively.

15 Table 4 Regression on Cost Sharing (n=188) Cost SharingCoefficientStandard ErrorMean Duration-0.003** Parties Horizontal Dominance Applicant Number of Intervener for Applicant0.082* Number of Intervener for Defendant Recitals0.000* Fine Judges0.074** Andriessen (01/81-01/85) Sutherland (01/85-01/89)-0.241* Brittan (01/89-01/93)-0.270** van Miert(01/93-09/99)-0.229** Constant0.274***0.093… The R² is 18%. Note: *, **, and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5% and 1% significance levels, respectively. The cost sharing ranges between -2 (all costs paid by the Commission and +2 (all costs paid by the applicants)

16 Conclusion Shows tendencies and changes in composition Historical changes in legal, procedural settings and economic interpretation From interpretation establishing landmark case reference system to economic theory foundation Rule of reason versus per se rules How successful are appeal proceedings?