IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/15064.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The settlement procedure in EC cartel cases: An empirical assesment

Author

Listed:
  • Hüschelrath, Kai
  • Laitenberger, Ulrich

Abstract

In June 2008, the European Commission (EC) was enabled to introduce a settlement procedure that aims at promoting the procedural efficiency of cartel enforcement in the European Union (EU). We use a data set consisting of 84 cartels decided by the EC from 2000 to 2014 to empirically investigate the impact of the EU settlement procedure on the duration of cartel investigations. Separating the enforcement process into two consecutive stages, we find that the introduction of the settlement procedure is followed by a substantial shortening of the second stage - reaching from the statement of objections (SO) to the decision - while it leaves the duration of the first stage from the beginning of the case to the SO unaffected. Subsequent to a discussion of further evaluation approaches we conclude that the EU Settlement Procedure has increased procedural efficiency of cartel enforcement in the European Union substantially.

Suggested Citation

  • Hüschelrath, Kai & Laitenberger, Ulrich, 2015. "The settlement procedure in EC cartel cases: An empirical assesment," ZEW Discussion Papers 15-064, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:15064
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/115882/1/834245426.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Peter L. Ormosi, 2014. "A Tip Of The Iceberg? The Probability Of Catching Cartels," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 549-566, June.
    3. Allain, Marie-Laure & Boyer, Marcel & Kotchoni, Rachidi & Ponssard, Jean-Pierre, 2015. "Are cartel fines optimal? Theory and evidence from the European Union," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 38-47.
    4. LaCasse, Chantale & Payne, A Abigail, 1999. "Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Do Defendants Bargain in the Shadow of the Judge?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 245-269, April.
    5. Emmanuel Combe & Constance Monnier & Renaud Legal, 2008. "Cartels: The Probability of Getting Caught in the European Union," Bruges European Economic Research Papers 12, European Economic Studies Department, College of Europe.
    6. Florian Smuda, 2014. "Cartel Overcharges And The Deterrent Effect Of Eu Competition Law," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 63-86.
    7. Hoang, Cung Truong & Hüschelrath, Kai & Laitenberger, Ulrich & Smuda, Florian, 2014. "Determinants of self-reporting under the European corporate leniency program," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 15-23.
    8. Ascione, Aurora & Motta, Massimo, 2008. "Settlements in cartel cases," MPRA Paper 24416, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. William M. Landes, 1974. "An Economic Analysis of the Courts," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 164-214, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Katrin Cremers & Paula Schliessler, 2015. "Patent litigation settlement in Germany: why parties settle during trial," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 185-208, October.
    11. Hüschelrath, Kai & Laitenberger, Ulrich & Smuda, Florian, 2012. "Cartel enforcement in the European Union: Determinants of the duration of investigations," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-071, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Mario Mariniello, 2013. "Do European Union fines deter price-fixing?," Policy Briefs 780, Bruegel.
    13. Hüschelrath, Kai & Smuda, Florian, 2014. "The appeals process: An empirical assessment," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-063, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Bueren, Eckart & Hüschelrath, Kai & Veith, Tobias, 2014. "Time is money - how much money is time? Interest and inflation in competition law actions for damages," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-008, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-1097, September.
    16. Yehonatan Givati, 2014. "Legal Institutions and Social Values: Theory and Evidence from Plea Bargaining Regimes," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 867-893, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Kai Hüschelrath & Florian Smuda, 2016. "The Appeals Process in the European Commission's Cartel Cases: An Empirical Assessment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 330-357, June.
    3. Hellwig, Michael & Hüschelrath, Kai, 2016. "Cartel cases and the cartel enforcement process in the European Union 2001-2015: A quantitative assessment," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-063, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    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. Moritz Birgit & Becker Martin & Schmidtchen Dieter, 2018. "Measuring the Deterrent Effect of European Cartel Law Enforcement," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(3), pages 1-27, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Fotis, Panagiotis & Tselekounis, Markos, 2020. "Optimal Reduction of Cartel Fines induced by the Settlement Procedure," MPRA Paper 99154, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Peter Van Wijck & Ben Van Velthoven, 2000. "An Economic Analysis of the American and the Continental Rule for Allocating Legal Costs," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 115-125, March.
    5. Boari, Nicola & Fiorentini, Gianluca, 2001. "An economic analysis of plea bargaining: the incentives of the parties in a mixed penal system," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 213-231, June.
    6. Sven Heim & Kai Hüschelrath & Ulrich Laitenberger, 2016. "The Duration of the EC Merger Control Process: Determinants and the Impact of the 2004 Merger Regulation Reform," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 37-62, February.
    7. Kirstein, Roland & Schmidtchen, Dieter, 1997. "Judicial detection skill and contractual compliance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 509-520, December.
    8. Stephen Davies & Peter L. Ormosi, 2014. "The economic impact of cartels and anti-cartel enforcement," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2013-07v2, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    9. Richard T. Boylan, 2012. "The Effect of Punishment Severity on Plea Bargaining," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(3), pages 565-591.
    10. Virginia Rosales-López, 2008. "Economics of court performance: an empirical analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 231-251, June.
    11. Hyde, Charles E. & Williams, Philip L., 2002. "Necessary costs and expenditure incentives under the English rule," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 133-152, August.
    12. Isogai, Shigeki & Shen, Chaohai, 2023. "Multiproduct firm’s reputation and leniency program in multimarket collusion," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    13. Julian Schumacher & Christoph Trebesch & Henrik Enderlein, 2015. "What Explains Sovereign Debt Litigation?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(3).
    14. Napel, Stefan & Welter, Dominik, 2023. "Umbrella pricing and cartel size," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    15. Juwon Kwak, 2013. "Merger settlement as a screening device," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 523-540, December.
    16. Choné, Philippe & Souam, Saïd & Vialfont, Arnold, 2014. "On the optimal use of commitment decisions under European competition law," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 169-179.
    17. Bielen, Samantha & Grajzl, Peter & Marneffe, Wim, 2017. "Procedural events, judge characteristics, and the timing of settlement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 97-110.
    18. Shavell, Steven, 1993. "Suit versus Settlement when Parties Seek Nonmonetary Judgments," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-13, January.
    19. Pastor, Santos, 1994. "Qué hacer en los conflictos fiscales. Un análisis económico de las propuestas de actas de conformidad," DE - Documentos de Trabajo. Economía. DE 3032, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    20. Fon, Vincy & Parisi, Francesco, 2006. "Judicial precedents in civil law systems: A dynamic analysis," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 519-535, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    competition policy; cartels; settlements; ex-post evaluation; European Union;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:zewdip:15064. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.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.