Abstract

This article questions the common view that the modernization of EU competition law has removed public policy considerations from the public enforcement of Article 101 TFEU. Based on a large quantitative and qualitative database including all of the Commission’s and five national competition authorities’ enforcement actions (N ≈ 1,700), it maintains that modernization has merely shifted the consideration of public policy from the substantive scope of Article 101(3) TFEU to procedural priority setting decisions. Instead of engaging in a complex balancing of competition and public policy considerations, the competition authorities have simply refrained from pursuing cases against anticompetitive agreements that raise public policy questions or settled those cases by accepting negotiated remedies. This outcome, the article claims, is a double-edged sword. The Commission’s attempt to narrow down the scope of Article 101(3) as part of modernization has not eliminated the role of public policy in the enforcement. Rather, undertakings can reasonably assume that restrictions of competition that produce some public policy objectives will not be enforced, even if they do not meet the conditions for an exception. These discretionary nonenforcement decisions have a detrimental impact on the effectiveness, uniformity, and legal certainty of EU competition law enforcement.JEL: K21, K230

中文翻译：

---

优先设定为一把双刃剑：现代化如何增强公共政策的作用

摘要

本文质疑欧盟竞争法现代化已从TFEU第101条的公共执行中移除了公共政策考虑的普遍观点。基于一个庞大的定量和定性数据库，其中包括委员会和五个国家竞争主管部门的所有执法行动（N≈1,700），它坚持认为现代化只是将对公共政策的考虑从《欧盟条约》第101条第3款的实质范围转移了出去。制定程序优先次序的决定。竞争管理机构没有在竞争与公共政策考虑之间进行复杂的平衡，只是避免针对反竞争协议提起诉讼，反协议引起公共政策问题或通过接受谈判的补救措施解决这些问题。该文章称，这一结果，是一把双刃剑。作为现代化的一部分，委员会试图缩小第101条第3款的范围并没有消除公共政策在执法中的作用。相反，企业可以合理地假设，即使满足不了例外条件的竞争限制也不会得到执行，而竞争限制会产生某些公共政策目标。这些自由裁量权的不执行决定会对欧盟竞争执法的效力，统一性和法律确定性产生不利影响。即使它们不满足例外条件。这些自由裁量权不执行决定会对欧盟竞争执法的效力，统一性和法律确定性产生不利影响。即使它们不满足例外条件。这些自由裁量权不执行决定会对欧盟竞争执法的效力，统一性和法律确定性产生不利影响。JEL：K21，K230