nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The Nature and Use of Economic Evidence in Competition Enforcement (with Special Emphasis to the Case of South Africa)

verfasst von : Tembinkosi Bonakele

Erschienen in: Competition Law Enforcement in the BRICS and in Developing Countries

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

There is a move towards economic based decision making by competition authorities. This chapter discusses the nature and use of economic evidence in BRICS member countries, with a particular focus on South Africa. BRICS represents countries with similar economic features characterised by, among other things, emerging economies, high concentration levels, high barriers to entry and have experienced or are experiencing transition in their economies. They also face social challenges. Their experience in the use of economic evidence has a lot of similarities but also lessons for each other and the rest of the world, especially developing countries.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Procurement Procedures and Bid-Rigging in Brazil

Nächstes Kapitel Economic Analysis in Antitrust: The Case of Brazil

Gifford D and Kudrle R (2015), The Atlantic Divide in Antitrust—An Examination of US and EU Competition Policy, World Competition Law and Economics Review, University of Chicago Press, pp. 468–469; Faull J and Nikpay A (2014), The EU Law of Competition, Oxford University Press; Petit N (2009), From Formalism to Effects? The Commission’s Communication on Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82, World Competition and Economics Review, Oxford University Press.

Ten years of enforcement by South African Competition authorities: Unleashing Rivalry (1999–2009).

Lianos, I, (2012), The emergence of forensic economics in competition law: foundations for a sociological analysis, UCL Centre for Law, Economics and Society, CLES Working Paper Series 5/2012.

Kovacic, W.E. and Shapiro, C. (2000), Antitrust Policy: A Century of Economic and Legal Thinking, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol 14(1), pp. 43–60.

Friedman D, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (1987), vol. 3, pp. 144.

DG COMPETITION, Best practices for the submission of economic evidence and data collection in cases concerning the application of articles 101 and 102 tfeu and in merger cases, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_best_practices/best_practice_submissions.pdf, accessed on 30 December 2015.

Ibid.

International Competition Network (2013), The Role of Economists and Economic Evidence in Merger Analysis, pp. 3.

Justice Department Requires Divestitures in Merger Between General Electric and Honeywell, at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/pressreleases/2001/8140.htm and NYU Stern: “The Failed Merger of GE-Honeywell Merger” at http://luiscabral.net/economics/teaching/gehon.pdf. Washington Post, June 19, 2001.

Case No IV/M.1524—Airtours/First Choice at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m1524_en.pdf.

Case No COMP/M.2416—TETRA LAVAL/SIDEL at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m2416_62_en.pdf .

Gavil, A.I. (2007), The challenges of economic proof in a decentralized and privatized European Competition policy system: lessons from the American experience, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4(1), pp. 177–206.

Veljanovski, C, (2009), Economists in Court—A comparative assessment of procedures and experience in Australia and England & Wales from an economist’s perspective, Paper presented to 7th Annual University of South Australia Trade Practices Workshop, 16-17 October 2009, Adelaide.

Global Competition Law Review (2016), The Handbook of Competition Economics, pp. 163.

Global Competition Law Review (2016), The Handbook of Competition Economics, pp. 165.

Global Competition Law Review (2016), The Handbook of Competition Economics, pp. 157.

The OFT is a decision-making body and not a prosecuting authority. Before it takes decisions, it considers submissions from parties involved in cases before it.

Global Competition Law Review (2016), The Handbook of Competition Economics, pp. 45.

Global Competition Law Review (2016), The Handbook of Competition Economics, pp. 26.

Global Competition Review (2015), The Handbook on Competition Economics, available at http://globalcompetitionreview.com/handbooks/65/handbook-competition-economics-2015/

OECD. Policy Roundtables; Economic Evidence in Merger Analysis, 2011, Available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/EconomicEvidenceInMergerAnalysis2011.pdf, accessed on 06 January 2016.

See Article 1, Chapter 1 of AML, available in English at: http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/policyrelease/announcement/200712/20071205277972.html, accessed 30 December 2015.

OECD. Policy Roundtables; Economic Evidence in Merger Analysis, 2011.

Fung, S.S, Yu, Y, and Ridyard, D (2015), The Use of Economics in the Anti-Monopoly Law of China, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, Vol 6(4), pp. 268–274.

See e.g., Shanghai High People’s Court, Bangrui Yonghe Technology Trading Co., Ltd. vs. Johnson & Johnson(Shanghai) Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson Medical(China) Ltd., August 1, 2013, [2012] Hu Gao Min San (Zhi) Zhong Zi No. 6, pp. 37–38.

Competition Law and Policy Development in BRICS Countries; BRICS Newsletter, Vol. 1, April 2015.

Gouri, G. (2015), Economic evidence in competition law enforcement in India, available at http://www.cresse.info/uploadfiles/2015_pl2_p2.pdf, accessed on 04/01/2016.

Competition Law and Policy Development in BRICS Countries; BRICS Newsletter, Vol. 1, April 2015.

Annual Report 2013–14; Competition Commission of India, available at http://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/annual%20reports/ar2014.pdf, accessed on 05 January 2016.

Notice C2014/05/170 Order under Section 31(7) in the Combination Notice filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limitedand Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited.

Shri Shyam Vir Singh vs. M/s DLF Universal Limited (Case No. 24 of 2014).

Case No. 13/2009, MCX Stock Exchange Limited vs. National Stock Exchange of India Limited and Others.

Kapoor Glass Private Limited vs. Schott Glass India Private Limited (Case No. 2/2010) Order dated 29/03/2012.

GKB Hi Tech Lenses Private Limited vs. Transitions Optical India Private Limited, (Case NO 1/2010) Order dated 16/5/2012.

Gouri (2015) notes that “clear cut majority Orders are rare. A majority also has minority Orders”.

Global Competition Law Review (2016), The Handbook of Competition Economics, pp. 24.

Brazilian Law No 12.529 2011, section v, article 17.

Global Competition Law Review (2016), The Handbook of Competition Economics, pp. 19.

OECD. Economic Evidence in Merger Analysis. Policy Roundtables series DAF/COMP(2011)23, 11. Available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/EconomicEvidenceInMergerAnalysis2011.pdf, accessed on 06 January 2016.

Avdasheva, S., Katsoulacos, Y., Golovanova, S., and Tsytsulina, D. (2015), Economic Evidence in Competition Enforcement: the Russian case. CRESSE, 2015, BRICS Policy session, available at http://www.cresse.info/uploadfiles/2015_pl2_p1.pdf, accessed on 04 January 2016.

In distinguishing between PADs and non-proper antitrust decisions (“NPADs”), the authors note that “The border between PADs and NPADs is the presence/absence of specific competition considerations in assessing the violation of the law on ‘protection of competition’.”

For example, see Global Competition Review, Rating Enforcement 2015, available at http://globalcompetitionreview.com/rating-enforcement, accessed on 06 January 2016.

See Schwikkard P & Van der Merwe, Principles of Evidence (3rd Ed).

Section 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 states that “[the] constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid…”

Ten years of enforcement by South African Competition authorities: Unleashing Rivalry (1999–2009).

South African Airways (Pty) Ltd vs. Comair Ltd and Another 2012 (1) SA 20 (CAC).

Veljanovski (2009) states that the technique was further developed by Lockhart J and then via him introduced to the Federal Court by amendment to its rules in 1998 (Federal Court Rules, Order 34A, rule 3(2)).

Sasol Chemical Industries Limited vs. Competition Commission (131/CAC/Jun14). This case was in relation to allegations that Sasol Chemical Industries contravened section 8(a) of the Competition Act by charging excessive prices for propylene and polypropylene to its local customers in line with import parity pricing. See Commission press release, 12 August 2010 Commission refers and settles collusion case in the polymers market. Available at http://www.compcom.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Safripol-media-release.pdf

Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services and others vs. Amalgamated Racing Ltd and others [2008] EWHC 1978 (Ch); [2009] UKCLR 547, ChD.

In this case, the Commission used its former Chief Economist as its economic expert.

The CAC also refers to the following in support of this argument: Impala vs. Commission [2006] ECR II; Eric Barbier De La Serre, Anne-Lise Sibony, ‘Expert evidence before the EC courts’ (2008) 45 Common Market Law Review, Issue 4, pp. 941–985; D.T. Zeffertt and A.P. Paizes, The South African Law of Evidence (2nd ed.) (Butterworths, 2009).

The Minister of Economic Development & Others vs. The Competition Tribunal & Others (101/CAC/Jun11).

Sasol Chemical Industries Limited vs. Competition Commission (131/CAC/Jun14), par. 181.

Faull, J., & Nikpay, A. (2014). The EU law of competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fung, S. S., Yu, Y., & Ridyard, D. (2015). The use of economics in the anti-monopoly law of China. Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 6(4), 268–274.CrossRef

Gavil, A. I. (2007). The challenges of economic proof in a decentralized and privatized European Competition policy system: Lessons from the American experience. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4(1), 177–206.CrossRef

Gifford, D., & Kudrle, R. (2015). The Atlantic divide in antitrust—An examination of US and EU competition policy (World Competition Law and Economics Review, pp. 468–469). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Kovacic, W. E., & Shapiro, C. (2000). Antitrust policy: A century of economic and legal thinking. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 43–60.CrossRef

Lianos, I. (2012). The emergence of forensic economics in competition law: Foundations for a sociological analysis (CLES Working Paper Series 5/2012). UCL Centre for Law, Economics and Society.

Petit, N. (2009). From formalism to effects? The commission’s communication on enforcement priorities in applying article 82. World Competition and Economics Review, Oxford University Press.

Posner, R. A. (1999). The law and economics of the economic expert witness. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(2), 91–99.CrossRef

Veljanovski, C. (2009, October 16–17). Economists in court—A comparative assessment of procedures and experience in Australia and England & Wales from an economist’s perspective. Paper presented to 7th annual University of South Australia Trade Practices Workshop, Adelaide.

Titel: The Nature and Use of Economic Evidence in Competition Enforcement (with Special Emphasis to the Case of South Africa)
verfasst von: Tembinkosi Bonakele
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Competition Law Enforcement in the BRICS and in Developing Countries
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30947-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-30948-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30948-4_7