IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nos/vgmu00/2017i3p51-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect Assessment under Russian Enforcement against Anticompetitive Agreements: Decisions of Commercial Courts

Author

Abstract

Effect assessment recently becomes crucial for antitrust enforcement in developed countries. Russian antitrust legislation also allows assessment of pro-efficiency effects and their comparison with anti-competitive effects for several types of the actions that are potentially illegal under the law On protection of competition. Better implementation of the effects assessment requires special analysis of the recent developments in the enforcement, and that is the objective of this article.Articles explains common features and differences between the pairs of decision rules such as effect-based vs. object-based enforcement and rule of reason (ROR) vs per se illegality.We show that effect-based approach in Russian enforcement should improve social welfare. At the same time legislation and motivation of Russian competition authority allow to take into account positive impact of the practice in the fi eld of the effi ciency but does not strictly require this approach. The analysis use dataset of judicial reviews of the infringement decisions of Russian competition authority (FAS) on agreements and concerted practice during the period 2008-2012 (400 decisions overall). We found that efficiency considerations (taking into account the Article 13 conditions of the law On protection of competition) rarely determine the outcome of judicial review of infringement decision (only 5 cases from 400). Also, if competition authorities and judges take efficiency considerations into account they do it in arbitrary manner without full quantitative assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Svetlana Avdasheva & Andrew Makarov, 2017. "Effect Assessment under Russian Enforcement against Anticompetitive Agreements: Decisions of Commercial Courts," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 3, pages 51-71.
  • Handle: RePEc:nos:vgmu00:2017:i:3:p:51-71
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vgmu.hse.ru/data/2017/10/06/1159546517/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0,%20%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%203-2017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Svetlana Avdasheva & Dina Tsytsulina & Elena Sidorova, 2015. "The Use of Key Performance Indicators for the FAS: Analysis Based on the Statistics of Adjudications," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 3, pages 7-34.
    2. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Авдашева С. Б. & Макаров А. В., 2017. "Оценка Эффектов При Запрете Антиконкурентных Соглашений: Решения Арбитражных Судов," Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления // Public administration issues, НИУ ВШЭ, issue 3, pages 51-71.
    2. Grajzl, Peter & Baniak, Andrzej, 2018. "Private enforcement, corruption, and antitrust design," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 284-307.
    3. Obidzinski, Marie & Oytana, Yves, 2019. "Identity errors and the standard of proof," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 73-80.
    4. Matteo Rizzolli & Luca Stanca, 2012. "Judicial Errors and Crime Deterrence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(2), pages 311-338.
    5. 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.
    6. Roee Sarel, 2022. "Crime and punishment in times of pandemics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 155-186, October.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Robertson, Matthew J., 2018. "Wrongful Conviction, Persuasion and Loss Aversion," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 48, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    10. Pavlova, Natalia & Shastitko, Andrey, 2014. "Effects of Hostility Tradition in Antitrust: Leniency Programs and Cooperation Agreements," EconStor Preprints 122051, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    11. Shastitko, Andrey E. & Golovanova, Svetlana V., 2014. "Collusion In Markets Characterized By One Large Buyer: Lessons Learned From An Antitrust Case In Russia," EconStor Research Reports 122048, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    12. Rizzolli, Matteo & Tremewan, James, 2018. "Hard labor in the lab: Deterrence, non-monetary sanctions, and severe procedures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 107-121.
    13. Еlena Dobrolyubova & Vladimir Yuzhakov, 2015. "Evaluating Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Control (Supervision) Activities," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 4, pages 41-64.
    14. Shastitko, Andrei (Шаститко, Андрей) & Golovanova, Svetlana, 2016. "The mediator - not what you think (for economic policy lessons) [Посредник — Не То, О Чем Вы Подумали]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 1, pages 43-60, February.
    15. Lando, Henrik & Mungan, Murat C., 2018. "The effect of type-1 error on deterrence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-8.
    16. Shastitko, Andrey, 2014. "Effects of the Third Party Errors," Published Papers re9021, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    17. Mungan Murat C., 2013. "Optimal Warning Strategies: Punishment Ought Not to Be Inflicted Where the Penal Provision Is Not Properly Conveyed," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(3), pages 303-339, November.
    18. Matteo Rizzolli & Margherita Saraceno, 2013. "Better that ten guilty persons escape: punishment costs explain the standard of evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 395-411, June.
    19. Mungan, Murat C., 2014. "A behavioral justification for escalating punishment schemes," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 189-197.
    20. Mungan Murat C., 2018. "Mere Preparation," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, July.

    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:nos:vgmu00:2017:i:3:p:51-71. 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: Irina A. Zvereva (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://vgmu.hse.ru/ .

    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.