PREISPITIVANJE INSTITUCIONALNOG MODELA EU ZA PRIMENU PRAVA KONKURENCIJE: KOLIKO VLADAVINE PRAVA JE DOVOLJNO?
Abstract
EU institucionalni i proceduralni model za primenu prava konkurencije bio je podvrgnut kritikama još od vremena ranih šezdesetih godina XX veka, kada se započelo sa primenom pravila konkurencije iz Ugovora o osnivanju EEZ. Kritike su bili pretežno inspirisane uočenom fundamentalnom suprotnošću između, s jedne strane, zaprećenih (i sve češće izricanih) visokih novčanih kazni za počinioce povreda konkurencije i, s druge strane, inkvizitornog upravnog postupka u kome se povrede konkurencije ispituju i kazne izriču. EU modelu osporena je kompatibilnost sa članom 6 Evropske konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda. Ove kritike podstakle su institucije EU da početkom dvehiljaditih godina preduzmu korake u cilju unapređenja institucionalnog i proceduralnog okvira za primenu prava konkurencije. Taj proces još uvek nije okončan. Naprotiv, čini se da je Direktiva 1/2019 o ovlašćenjima tela nadležnih za konkurenciju podstakla dodatne kontroverze koje se tiču usklađenosti postojećih institucionalnih modela država članica EU sa načelom vladavine prava.
U ovom članku autorka analizira razvoj EU institucionalnog i proceduralnog modela za primenu prava konkurencije, zasnovanog pretežno na sekundarnim izvorima prava EU i odlukama Suda pravde. Autorka preispituje EU model, najpre u svetlu misli Škole ordoliberala, kao začetnika ideje o nezavisnom antimonopolskom organu, a zatim u svetlu presuda Evropskog suda za ljudska prava i upravnopravnih modela za primenu prava konkurencije u dvema „starim” državama članicama EU – Nemačkoj i Francuskoj. U zaključku autorka identifikuje najkrupnije nedostatke EU modela sa aspekta načela vladavine prava i predlaže moguća rešenja za njihovo eliminisanje.
References
Bibliography
1. Asimow, M., 2015, Five Models of Administrative Adjudication, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 3–31.
2. Bellamy, C., 2012, ECHR and competition law post Menarini: An Overview of EU and National Case Law, e-Competitions, No. 47946.
3. Bernatt, M., Botta, M., Svetlicinii, A., 2018, The Right of Defence in the Decentralized System of EU Competition Law Enforcement: A Call for Harmonization from Central and Eastern Europe, World Competition, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 339–334.
4. Brodowski, D., 2016, Die Verwaltung darf nicht strafen – warum eigentlich nicht? Zugleich eine Vorstudie zu einer rechts-evolutionären, weichen Konstitutionalisierung strafrechtsdogmatisher Grundannahmen, Zeitschrift für gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 2, pp. 370–393.
5. Bronckers, M., Valery, A., 2012, Fair and Effective Competition Policy in the EU: Which Role for Authorities and Which Role for the Courts after Menarini?, European Competition Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 283–299, DOI: 10.5235/ECJ.8.2.283.
6. Bundeskartellamts, 2015, Zwischenbericht des Bundeskartellamts zum Expertenkreis Kartellsanktionenrecht,Reformimpulse für das Kartellbussgeldverfahren.
7. Buxbaum, H., 2005, German Legal Culture and the Globalization of Competition Law: A Historical Perspective on the Expansion of Private Antitrust Enforcement, Berkeley Journal of International Law, 23, pp. 474–495.
8. Cengiz, F., 2011, Judicial Review and the Rule of Law in the EU Competition Law Regime after Alrosa, European Competition Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 127–153, (https://doi.org/10.5235/174410511795887615"> style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 17.120001px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
9. Custos, D., 2010, Independent Administrative Authorities in France: Structural and Procedural Change at the Intersection of Americanization, Europeanization and Galicization, in: Rose-Ackerman, S., Lindseth, O. L. (eds.), Comparative Administrative Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 286–287.
10. Dempsey, J. J., 2010, A Right to Confrontation for Competition Hearings before the European Commission, Brooklyn Law Review, 4, pp. 1489–1534.
11. Emmerich,V., 2012, Kartellrecht, C.H. Beck.
12. Eucken, W., 2004, Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik, Mohr Siebeck.
13. Fiebig, A. R., 1993, The German Federal Cartel Office and the Application of Competition Law in Reunified Germany, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law, Vol 14, No. 3, pp. 373–408.
14. Forrester, I., 2009, Due Process in EU Competition Cases: A Distinguished Institution with Flawed Procedures, European Law Review, 34, pp. 817–843.
15. Forrester, I., 2011, A Challenge for Europe’s Judges: The Review of Fines in Competition Cases, European Law Review, No 2, pp. 185–207.
16. Forrester, I., Komninos, A., 2006, EU Administrative Law Competition Law Adjudication, Sectoral Report on Adjudication in the Competition Field, American Bar Association, European Union Administrative Law Project, pp. 1–82.
17. Georgiev, G. S., 2007, Contagious Efficiency: The Growing Reliance on U.S.-Style Antitrust Settlements in EU Law, Utah Law Review, No. 4, pp. 971–1037.
18. Gerber, D. J., 1994, Constitutionalizing the Economy: German Neoliberalism, Competition Law and the ‘New’ Europe, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 25–84, (https://doi.org/10.2307/840727"> style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 17.120001px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0cm; background-color: white;"> lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
19. González-Diaz, F. E., Rivero, Á. F., 2017, European Competition Law Procedural Reform – An Introduction, Competition Law & Policy Debate, September 1.
20. Giovagnoli, R., Tavassi, M., Police, A., Libertini, M., Siragusa, M., Chieppa, R., 2015, Judicial Review of Antitrust Decisions: Q&A, Rivista Italiana di Antitrust, 1, pp. 144–163.
21. Graupner, F., 1973, Commission Decision-Making on Competition Questions, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 10, pp. 291–305.
22. Gronden, J.W. van de, Vries, S. A. de, 2006, Independent Competition Authorities in the EU, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 32–66.
23. Hauger, N., Palzer, C., 2013, Investigator, Prosecutor, Judge…and now Plaintiff? The Leviathanian Role of the European Commission in the Light of Fundamental Rights, World Competition, Vol. 35, pp. 565–584.
24. Hellwig, M., Hüschelrath, K., 2016, Cartel Cases and the Cartel Enforcement Process in the European Union 2001-2015, Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Discussion Paper No 16-063.
25. Italianer, A., 2012, The European Commission’s New Procedural Package: Increasing Interaction with Paraties and Enhancing the Role of the Hearing Officer, Revista de Concorrênzia e Regulação, No. 7–8, pp. 23–34.
26. Jenny, F., 2016, The Institutional Design of Competition Authorities: Debates and Trends, (http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2894893"> style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 17.120001px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white;"> lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
27. Maillo, J., 2017, EU Cartel Settlement procedure: an assessment of its results 10 years later, Instituto Universariǫ de Estudios Europeos, Universida San Pablo, Working Paper.
28. Marković-Bajalović, D., 2020, Competition Enforcement Models in the Western Balkan Countries: The Rule of Law Still Terra Incognita?, Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, Vol. 13(22), pp. 27–66.
29. Massot, J., 2010, The powers and duties of the French administrative judge, in: Rose-Ackerman, S., Lindseth, P. (eds.), Comparative Administrative Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 415–425.
30. McLachlan, D.L., Swan, D., 1967, Competition Policy in the European Community, Oxford University Press.
31. Medzmariashvili, M., 2012, Case Note: Jusilla v. Finland, Fundamental Rights and EU Competition, Special Edition, LSEU/CP, pp. 82–86.
32. OECD Country Studies, 2005, European Commission – Peer Review of Competition Law and Policy.
33. Petit, N., Raboux, L., 2009, Judicial Review in French Competition Law and Economic Regulation – A Post-Commission v. Tetra Laval Assessment, in: Essen, O., Gerbrandy, A. and Lavrijsen, S. (eds.) National courts and the standard of review in competition law and economic regulation, Europa Law Publishing, pp.103–126.
34. Rea, M., 2019, New Scenarios of the Right to Defence following Directive 1/2019, Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, Vol.12, No. 20, p. 111–126. DOI: 10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2019.12.20.4.
35. Senge, L., 2006, Karlsruher Kommentar zum Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten, C.H. Beck.
36. Slater, D.,Thomas, S., Waelbroeck, D., 2008, Competition law proceedings before the EU Commission and the right to a fair trial: no need for reform?, College of Europe, Research papers in law, 5.
37. Stones, R., 2019, Commitment Decisions in EU Competition Enforcement: Policy Effectiveness v. The Formal Rule of Law, Yearbook of European Law, Vol. 0, pp. 1–39.
38. Stones, R. R., 2018, EU Competition Law and the Rule of Law: Justification and Realisation, The London School of Economics and Political Science
39. Teleki, C., 2021, Due Process and Fair Trial in EU Competition Law: The Impact of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Nijhoff Studies in European Union Law, 18.
40. Temple Lang, J., 2011, Three Possibilities for Reform of the Procedure of the European Commission in Competition Cases under Regulation 1/2003, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) Special Report.
41. Temple Lang, J., 2017, Fundamental rights and the proposed directive, Competition Law & Policy Debate, September issue.
42. Wilks, S., McGowan, L., 1995, Disarming the Commission: The Debate over a European Cartel Office, Journal of Common Market Studies, 33, pp. 259–273.
43. Wills, W., 2005, Principles of European Antitrust Enforcement, Oxford, Hart Publishing.
44. Wils, W., 2011, Discretion and Prioritisation in Public Antitrust Enforcement, in Particular EU Antitrust Enforcement, World Competition, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 353–382.
45. Wise, M., 2007, Competition Law and Policy in the European Union, OECD Journal of Competition Law and Policy, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 7–80.
46. Wish, R., Bailey, D., 2015, Competition Law, Oxford University Press.
Legislative Sources
European Union
1. Commission Regulation No. 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 123, 27.4.2004.
2. Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2008 of 30 June 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No. 773/2004, as regards the conduct of settlement procedures in cartel cases, OJ L 171, 1.7.2008.
3. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003.
4. Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 24, 29.1.2004.
5. Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, OJ L 11, 14.1.2019.
6. Regulation No. 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, OJ 13, 21.2.1962.
Germany
1. Act against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen).
2. Regulatory Offences Act (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten).
France
Law No. 2008-776, 4 .8.2008.
Case Law
Court of Justice of the European Union
1. Alliance for Natural Health, Joined Cases C-154/04 and 155/04, 12 July 2005.
2. Alrosa v. Commission, T-170/06, ECR 2007 II-2601.
3. Alrosa v. Commission, C-441/07 P, EU:C:2010:377.
4. Archer Daniels Midland, Case T-59/02, ECR 2006 II-0362.
5. Chalcor AE Epexergasias Metallon v. European Commission, C-386/10 P, ECR 2011-0000.
6. Commission of the European Communities v. Tetra Laval BV, C-12/03 P, ECR 2005 I-00987.
7. Dyestuffs, C-48/69, ECR 1972.
8. Infineon Technologies v. Commission, T‑758/14, EU:T:2016:737.
9. Infineon Technologies v. Commission, C-99/17 P, 26.09.2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:773.
10. Meroni v. ECSC High Authority, C-9/56, 1958, ECR 133.
11. Prezes Urzȩdu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v. Tele2Polska, C-375/09, ECR 2011 I-3055.
12. Remia BV and others v. Commission, C 42/84, ECR 1985.
13. Schindler Holding Ltd and Others v. European Commission, C-501/11 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:522.
14. Wood Pulp, Joined cases C-89, 104, 114, 116,117 and 125 to 129/85, ECR 1988.
European Court of Human Rights
1. A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.L. v. Italy, no. 43509/08, Judgment of 27 September 2011.
2. Engel and others v. The Netherlands, no. 5100/71, Judgment of 8 June 1976.
3. Jusilla v. Finland, no. 73053/01, Judgment of 23 November 2006.
France
1. Décision no. 88-248 DC, Conseil Constitutionnel, 17 January1989.
2. SA Caisse nationale du credit Agricole et a, Paris Court of Appeals, 27 November 2001.
3. Sociètè Canal 9 SAS, Paris Court of Appeals, 6 November 2007.
4. Sté Béton travaux et a., Court of Cassation, 9 October 2001.