IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uea/ueaccp/2009_05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can the Commission use Article 82EC to Combat Tacit Collusion?

Author

Listed:
  • Felix E. Mezzanotte

    (Centre for Competition Policy and Norwich Law School, University of East Anglia)

Abstract

Recent events suggest that Article 82 may prohibit abusive and tacitly collusive conduct. Yet can the Commission enforce this law? In this article I argue it cannot. I tackle this question of enforcement from the perspective of proof and examine to what extent the Commission can establish the conduct of tacit collusion. I show that proof of tacit collusion requires the Commission to overcome a difficult problem of identification, notably how to distinguish tacit collusion from other very subtle conducts like unconscious parallelism and undetected overt collusion. I argue that the Commission cannot resolve this problem by establishing the typical conditions drawn from case law, such as the lack of effective competition, the Airtours criterion and a focal point, as this proof cannot mitigate error sufficiently. This seeks the Commission to produce greater cogency of evidence, yet only at the expense of rendering enforcement prohibitively onerous. I conclude that owing to a problem of proof (detection) Article 82 is unenforceable and can neither punish nor deter tacit collusion. This makes a policy of using Article 82 to combat tacit collusion ex post misconceived and suggests that tacit collusion admits only an ex ante legal treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Felix E. Mezzanotte, 2009. "Can the Commission use Article 82EC to Combat Tacit Collusion?," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2009-05, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
  • Handle: RePEc:uea:ueaccp:2009_05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ueaeco.github.io/working-papers/papers/ccp/CCP-09-05.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nick Feltovich & Yasuyo Hamaguchi, 2018. "The Effect of Whistle‐Blowing Incentives on Collusion: An Experimental Study of Leniency Programs," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(4), pages 1024-1049, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    competition law; article 82EC; collective dominance; tacit collusion; oligopoly; enforcement;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:uea:ueaccp:2009_05. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Juliette Hardmad (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esueauk.html .

    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.