Has the European Commission Become More Severe in Punishing Cartels? Effects of the 2006 Guidelines

J. Connor
{"title":"Has the European Commission Become More Severe in Punishing Cartels? Effects of the 2006 Guidelines","authors":"J. Connor","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1737885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes the first 13 cartel decisions of the European Commission under its 2006 revised fining guidelines. I find that the severity of the cartel fines is more than five times higher than those figured under the previous 1998 Guidelines. For the first time in antitrust history, I believe we are observing fines that regularly disgorge the monopoly profits accumulated by cartelists. Indeed, three firms’ fines ranged as high as 500% to 650% of affected sales – possible (but rare) examples of supra-deterrence. Nearly all recent cartel decisions reward one or more participant with full or partial leniency, a much higher share than previously. There is no evidence that leniency discounts have led to larger percentage reductions in cartel-wide fines. Moreover, despite more severe fines, the share of defendants requiring reductions under the Commission’s 10% cap or ability-to-pay considerations has not risen. The frequency and size of recidivism discounts has gone up markedly under the new guidelines. There is ample evidence that the Commission has been inconsistent in applying recidivism penalties in the manner promised it its 2006 Guidelines. In particular, it has been lenient by failing to account for numerous previous violations.","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1737885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

Abstract

This paper analyzes the first 13 cartel decisions of the European Commission under its 2006 revised fining guidelines. I find that the severity of the cartel fines is more than five times higher than those figured under the previous 1998 Guidelines. For the first time in antitrust history, I believe we are observing fines that regularly disgorge the monopoly profits accumulated by cartelists. Indeed, three firms’ fines ranged as high as 500% to 650% of affected sales – possible (but rare) examples of supra-deterrence. Nearly all recent cartel decisions reward one or more participant with full or partial leniency, a much higher share than previously. There is no evidence that leniency discounts have led to larger percentage reductions in cartel-wide fines. Moreover, despite more severe fines, the share of defendants requiring reductions under the Commission’s 10% cap or ability-to-pay considerations has not risen. The frequency and size of recidivism discounts has gone up markedly under the new guidelines. There is ample evidence that the Commission has been inconsistent in applying recidivism penalties in the manner promised it its 2006 Guidelines. In particular, it has been lenient by failing to account for numerous previous violations.
欧盟委员会在惩罚卡特尔方面变得更加严厉了吗?2006年指引的效果
本文分析了欧盟委员会在其2006年修订的罚款指导方针下的前13个卡特尔决定。我发现卡特尔罚款的严重程度比1998年以前的《指引》所规定的数额高出五倍以上。我相信,这是反垄断史上第一次出现这样的情况:我们正在观察到定期交出卡特尔积累的垄断利润的罚款。事实上,三家公司的罚款高达受影响销售额的500%至650%——这可能是(但罕见的)超级威慑的例子。几乎所有最近的卡特尔决定都对一个或多个参与者给予全部或部分宽大处理,这一比例比以前高得多。没有证据表明,宽大折扣导致了整个卡特尔范围内罚款的更大比例减少。此外,尽管处以更严厉的罚款,但要求在委员会10%的上限或支付能力考虑下削减的被告比例并没有上升。在新的指导方针下,累犯折扣的频率和规模都明显上升。有充分证据表明,欧委会在按其2006年《准则》承诺的方式适用累犯处罚方面一直不一致。特别是,由于未能解释之前的许多违规行为,它一直很宽容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信