1. Use of Economic Evidence to Support Competition Policy
Perspective and Experience of Viet Nam
Phan Duc Hieu
Vice President
Central Institute for Economic Management
Ho Chi Minh City, 25 August 2017

2. Background
Viet Nam has recently emphasized the need to promote competition policy as part of the reforms of microeconomic foundations (i.e. economic restructuring).
Revision of Competition Law still going on
CIEM has worked to change mindsets from “improving Competition Law” to “improving competition policy”
CIEM proposes and advocates simplification of business entry (business conditions), removal of preferential treatment to SOEs, etc.

3. But enforcement of competition law and policy remains a major concern
Partly because of the inadequate capacity of competition authority, both institutionally and technically
Partly because of the differences in views of evidentiary support in competition cases

4. Current State
Competition Law in 2004: no recognition of economic evidence
Evidences are facts used by investigators and the Competition Case Handling Council as grounds for determining whether or not exist acts of violating the provisions of this Law.
Evidences are determined from the following sources:
Exhibits, which are things used as tools or means for commission of violations, money and other things having the effect of proving acts of violating the provisions of this Law;
Testimonies of witnesses, explanations of related organizations and individuals;
Original documents, copies and translations of original documents which are lawfully notarized or authenticated or supplied and certified by competent agencies or organizations.
Professional conclusions.

5. Collection of those legal evidences is “virtually impossible”
Competition Authority has to ask for (rather than legitimately request) relevant information from companies (especially big SOEs).

6. Investigators have to rely on available hard evidences and existing regulations in handling competition cases.
Eg: Merger of two ATM card networks (Banknetvn and Smartlink, with total market share of 100%) is not against the law as it helps promote “socio-economic development, innovation” (Vietnam Competition Authority’s Report on Economic Concentration)  very vague
No judgment/inference of any form is accepted.

7. Lawyers’ view:
They use economic inference and judgment as additional support in competition cases, but the use is not recognized by laws/arbitrators/judges.
“A gap that needs to be filled”
The draft Competition Law (still under revision) should try to reflect this.

8. Latest draft Competition Law (planned to be discussed in November 2017, and approved in May ) adds the evidences that:
Can be heard, read;
Cover electronic data;
Explanations/justifications of related parties;
Other forms that are considered as evidence by laws
But still vague about economic evidences

9. Way forward
Capacity building on the importance, collection and justification of economic evidences;
Cooperation with APEC member economies would be essential.
Revision of provisions under Competition Law related to evidences, so as to explicitly cover economic evidences.
Another push to improve the statistical system in Viet Nam (in terms of both quality and availability of economic indicators, especially at sectoral level)

10. Thank you…