Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003: a historical and empirical account of an unworkable compromise

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Or Brook, Magali Eben
{"title":"Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003: a historical and empirical account of an unworkable compromise","authors":"Or Brook, Magali Eben","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Combining historical, conceptual, and empirical approaches, this article studies one of the most fundamental, yet underexplored, questions surrounding Regulation 1/2003: What limits European Union (EU) competition law places on the adoption and application of national competition and other laws? The relationship between EU competition and national laws was supposedly settled with the adoption of Regulation 1/2003. There are two exceptions to the rule in Article 3(1), under which national competition authorities and courts must apply EU competition law when applying their national competition laws, with primacy for EU provisions: Article 3(2) leaves room for ‘stricter’ national competition rules on unilateral conduct, and Article 3(3) for national rules pursuing a ‘predominantly different objective’. The solution offered by Article 3 is not workable. Through a historical study of the political discussions preceding Article 3’s adoption, a conceptual analysis of potential interpretations, and a systematic content analysis of French and German practice, this article reveals the lack of a dividing line between the notions of national competition laws and other laws. It calls for reform of Article 3 to ensure that conduct that should be governed by EU law is not assessed under national rules and standards that differ from one Member State to another.","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":"134 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Combining historical, conceptual, and empirical approaches, this article studies one of the most fundamental, yet underexplored, questions surrounding Regulation 1/2003: What limits European Union (EU) competition law places on the adoption and application of national competition and other laws? The relationship between EU competition and national laws was supposedly settled with the adoption of Regulation 1/2003. There are two exceptions to the rule in Article 3(1), under which national competition authorities and courts must apply EU competition law when applying their national competition laws, with primacy for EU provisions: Article 3(2) leaves room for ‘stricter’ national competition rules on unilateral conduct, and Article 3(3) for national rules pursuing a ‘predominantly different objective’. The solution offered by Article 3 is not workable. Through a historical study of the political discussions preceding Article 3’s adoption, a conceptual analysis of potential interpretations, and a systematic content analysis of French and German practice, this article reveals the lack of a dividing line between the notions of national competition laws and other laws. It calls for reform of Article 3 to ensure that conduct that should be governed by EU law is not assessed under national rules and standards that differ from one Member State to another.
第1/2003号条例第3条:对一个不可行的妥协的历史和实证解释
本文结合历史、概念和实证方法,研究了围绕第1/2003号法规的一个最基本但尚未得到充分探讨的问题:欧盟竞争法对国家竞争法和其他法律的采用和应用有何限制?欧盟竞争与国家法律之间的关系被认为随着第1/2003号条例的通过而得到解决。第3(1)条规则有两个例外,根据第3(1)条,国家竞争当局和法院在适用其国家竞争法时必须适用欧盟竞争法,并以欧盟规定为优先:第3(2)条为“更严格的”国家单方面行为竞争规则留下了空间,第3(3)条为追求“主要不同目标”的国家规则留下了空间。第三条提供的解决办法是行不通的。通过对第3条通过之前的政治讨论的历史研究,对潜在解释的概念分析,以及对法国和德国实践的系统内容分析,本文揭示了国家竞争法与其他法律概念之间缺乏分界线。它呼吁对第3条进行改革,以确保应受欧盟法律管辖的行为不会根据成员国之间不同的国家规则和标准进行评估。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The journal covers a wide range of enforcement related topics, including: public and private competition law enforcement, cooperation between competition agencies, the promotion of worldwide competition law enforcement, optimal design of enforcement policies, performance measurement, empirical analysis of enforcement policies, combination of functions in the competition agency mandate, and competition agency governance. Other topics include the role of the judiciary in competition enforcement, leniency, cartel prosecution, effective merger enforcement, competition enforcement and human rights, and the regulation of sectors.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信