IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v58y2019icp101-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of judicial review in developing evidentiary standards: The example of market analysis in Russian competition law enforcement

Author

Listed:
  • Avdasheva, Svetlana
  • Golovanova, Svetlana
  • Katsoulacos, Yannis

Abstract

Despite the fact that judicial review is an important part of competition law enforcement under the administrative system, in which courts decide on claims to annul infringement decisions made by competition authorities, its role in the development of evidentiary standards of economic analysis is understudied. This paper attempts to fill this gap by analyzing the impact of judicial review on the application of market analysis in competition investigations by the Russian competition authority during 2008–2015. Although the guidelines for the assessment of competition are mandatory for many types of anticompetitive conducts and they require application of the Hypothetical Monopolist Test to delineate antitrust market, competition authority does not always do that. We test hypotheses on the impact of legal requirements, experience of application, and the outcomes of the judicial review on the probability to present either an informal market analysis or market delineation using the Hypothetical Monopolist Test in a particular decision. We find that positive outcomes of the judicial review of infringement decisions significantly increase the probability of undertaking a particular analysis in future investigations. The pressure of judicial review under the presence of mandatory standards of evidence is an important determinant of the development of evidentiary standards in competition law.

Suggested Citation

  • Avdasheva, Svetlana & Golovanova, Svetlana & Katsoulacos, Yannis, 2019. "The role of judicial review in developing evidentiary standards: The example of market analysis in Russian competition law enforcement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 101-114.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:58:y:2019:i:c:p:101-114
    DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2019.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818818302928
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.irle.2019.03.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 2017. "Regulatory decision errors, Legal Uncertainty and welfare: A general treatment," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 326-352.
    2. Kaplow, Louis, 2015. "Market definition, market power," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 148-161.
    3. S. Avdasheva & S. Golovanova & Y. Katsoulacos, 2019. "Optimal Institutional Structure of Competition Authorities Under Reputation Maximization: A Model and Empirical Evidence from the Case of Russia," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 54(2), pages 251-282, March.
    4. Pavlova, Natalia & Shastitko, Andrey, 2016. "Leniency programs and socially beneficial cooperation: Effects of type I errors," Russian Journal of Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 375-401.
    5. James D. Ratliff & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 2014. "Is There A Market For Organic Search Engine Results And Can Their Manipulation Give Rise To Antitrust Liability?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 517-541.
    6. Shavell, Steven, 1995. "The Appeals Process as a Means of Error Correction," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 379-426, June.
    7. Nuno Garoupa & Matteo Rizzolli, 2012. "Wrongful Convictions Do Lower Deterrence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 168(2), pages 224-231, June.
    8. Michael R. Baye & Joshua D. Wright, 2011. "Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(1), pages 1-24.
    9. Frederic Jenny, 2016. "The Institutional Design of Competition Authorities: Debates and Trends," International Law and Economics, in: Frederic Jenny & Yannis Katsoulacos (ed.), Competition Law Enforcement in the BRICS and in Developing Countries, pages 1-57, Springer.
    10. Yannis Katsoulacos, 2019. "On the choice of legal standards: a positive theory for comparative analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 125-165, October.
    11. Louis Kaplow, 2015. "Market Definition, Market Power," NBER Working Papers 21167, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Svetlana Avdasheva & Dina Korneeva, 2018. "Enforcement Against Excessive Pricing in the Russian Federation," International Law and Economics, in: Yannis Katsoulacos & Frédéric Jenny (ed.), Excessive Pricing and Competition Law Enforcement, pages 189-210, Springer.
    13. Steven Shavell, 2006. "The Appeals Process and Adjudicator Incentives," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 1-29, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Silva, Jeovan Assis & Guimaraes, Tomas Aquino, 2021. "Factors affecting judicial review of regulatory appeals," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bertrand Chopard & Edwige Marion & Ludivine Roussey, 2014. "Does the Appeals Process Lower the Occurrence of Legal Errors?," EconomiX Working Papers 2014-43, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    2. Florian Smuda & Patrice Bougette & Kai Hüschelrath, 2015. "Determinants of the Duration of European Appellate Court Proceedings in Cartel Cases," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(6), pages 1352-1369, November.
    3. Svetlana Avdasheva & Svetlana Golovanova & Elena Sidorova, 2022. "Does judicial effort matter for quality? Evidence from antitrust proceedings in Russian commercial courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 425-450, June.
    4. Yannis Katsoulacos, 2019. "On the choice of legal standards: a positive theory for comparative analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 125-165, October.
    5. Aspasia Tsaoussi & Eleni Zervogianni, 2010. "Judges as satisficers: a law and economics perspective on judicial liability," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 333-357, June.
    6. Oliver Budzinski & Annika Stöhr, 2019. "Competition policy reform in Europe and Germany – institutional change in the light of digitization," European Competition Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 15-54, January.
    7. Mehdi Abbas & Catherine Locatelli, 2019. "Interdependence as a lever for national hybridization: The EU-Russia gas trade [L’hybridation des systèmes institutionnels nationaux dans l’interdépendance. Les échanges gaziers UE-Russie]," Post-Print hal-02472141, HAL.
    8. Sarel, Roee & Demirtas, Melanie, 2021. "Delegation in a multi-tier court system: Are remands in the U.S. federal courts driven by moral hazard?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    9. Mehdi Abbas & Catherine Locatelli, 2020. "National institutional systems’ hybridisation through interdependence. The case of EU-Russia gas relations," Post-Print hal-02272171, HAL.
    10. Dai, Chifeng, 2009. "The appeals process in principal-agent relationships," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 451-462, August.
    11. Chopard Bertrand & Fain Edwige & Roussey Ludivine, 2018. "Does the Appeals Process Reduce the Occurrence of Legal Errors?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 1-18, July.
    12. At Christian & Friehe Tim & Gabuthy Yannick, 2019. "On Lawyer Compensation When Appeals Are Possible," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 1-11, April.
    13. Maria Antonelli & Veronica Grembi, 2013. "A microeconomic model of the demand of civil justice: is one institutional context better than another?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 295-318, October.
    14. Georgios Nalbantis & Tim Pawlowski & Dominik Schreyer, 2023. "Substitution Effects and the Transnational Demand for European Soccer Telecasts," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 24(4), pages 407-442, May.
    15. Yannis Katsoulacos & Svetlana Avdasheva & Svetlana Golovanova, 2021. "Determinants of the (Slow) Development of Effect-Based Competition Enforcement: Testing the Impact of Judicial Review on the Choice of Legal Standards by Competition Authorities," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 103-122, March.
    16. Krämer, Jan & Wohlfarth, Michael, 2018. "Market power, regulatory convergence, and the role of data in digital markets," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 154-171.
    17. Bertschek, Irene & Briglauer, Wolfgang & Hüschelrath, Kai & Krämer, Jan & Frübing, Stefan & Kesler, Reinhold & Saam, Marianne, 2016. "Metastudie zum Fachdialog Ordnungsrahmen für die Digitale Wirtschaft: Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi)," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 147040, March.
    18. Michael Hellwig & Kai Hüschelrath & Ulrich Laitenberger, 2018. "Settlements and Appeals in the European Commission’s Cartel Cases: An Empirical Assessment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 52(1), pages 55-84, February.
    19. Deffains, Bruno & Gabuthy, Yannick & Lambert, Eve-Angéline, 2010. "Labour disputes, investment decisions and the judiciary," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 424-433, April.
    20. Yannis Katsoulacos & Vasiliki Bageri, 2022. "Objectives and the Optimal Structure of Competition Authorities Revisited," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 69-81, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:58:y:2019:i:c:p:101-114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.