The Practice of Efficiency Defense in Antitrust Cases: A Comparison of BRICS and European Cases

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW BRICS Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-10-12 DOI:10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-3-65-86
E. P. Ribeiro, S. Golovanova
{"title":"The Practice of Efficiency Defense in Antitrust Cases: A Comparison of BRICS and European Cases","authors":"E. P. Ribeiro, S. Golovanova","doi":"10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-3-65-86","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In non-merger antitrust cases efficiencies should play a significant role when authorities decide on cases as many potentially anticompetitive practices may have pro-competition effects, according to economic theory. In many jurisdictions rule of reason or effect based legal standard is claimed to be the policy adopted according to the own authorities. For such legal standards, considering efficiencies is part of the standard analysis protocol. We review the practice of efficiency defense in antitrust cases in selected BRICS and European countries. The case study shows that efficiencies are considered in rulings less often than expected. Similar arguments are used across countries, suggesting a common underlying economic analysis across jurisdictions that may have different legal institutions. We have employed the cross-country comparison based on Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa cases. We also summarize the main reasons for efficiencies analysis not to be able to reverse the concluded anticompetitive effect from a business practice.","PeriodicalId":41782,"journal":{"name":"BRICS Law Journal","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BRICS Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-3-65-86","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In non-merger antitrust cases efficiencies should play a significant role when authorities decide on cases as many potentially anticompetitive practices may have pro-competition effects, according to economic theory. In many jurisdictions rule of reason or effect based legal standard is claimed to be the policy adopted according to the own authorities. For such legal standards, considering efficiencies is part of the standard analysis protocol. We review the practice of efficiency defense in antitrust cases in selected BRICS and European countries. The case study shows that efficiencies are considered in rulings less often than expected. Similar arguments are used across countries, suggesting a common underlying economic analysis across jurisdictions that may have different legal institutions. We have employed the cross-country comparison based on Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa cases. We also summarize the main reasons for efficiencies analysis not to be able to reverse the concluded anticompetitive effect from a business practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反垄断案件中的效率抗辩实践:金砖国家与欧洲案例比较
根据经济理论,在非合并反垄断案件中,当当局决定案件时,效率应该发挥重要作用,因为许多潜在的反竞争行为可能具有促进竞争的效果。在许多司法管辖区,基于理性或效果规则的法律标准被认为是根据自己的权威采取的政策。对于这样的法律标准,考虑效率是标准分析协议的一部分。我们回顾了部分金砖国家和欧洲国家反垄断案件中效率抗辩的实践。案例研究表明,裁决中考虑效率的频率低于预期。类似的论点在各国都被使用,这表明,在可能拥有不同法律制度的司法管辖区,有一个共同的潜在经济分析。我们采用了基于巴西、俄罗斯、印度和南非案例的跨国比较。我们还总结了效率分析无法扭转商业实践得出的反竞争效应的主要原因。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: The BRICS is an acronym for an association of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, evolved from mere investment lingo to an organized network, in the process assuming a greater geopolitical role aimed at institutional reforms that shift global power. All five countries adhere to principles of inclusive macroeconomic and social policies and are focusing on responsible national growth strategies. The BRICS Law Journal is a platform for relevant comparative research and legal development not only in and between the BRICS countries themselves but also between those countries and others. The journal is an open forum for legal scholars and practitioners to reflect on issues that are relevant to the BRICS and internationally significant. Prospective authors who are involved in relevant legal research, legal writing and legal development are, therefore, the main source of potential contributions.
期刊最新文献
The System of Indigenous Peoples’ Protection in BRICS States: An Overview of Legal and Litigation Support Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence from Quantum-Theoretic Perspective A Comparative Study of Domestic Violence in BRICS Nations – Pre and Post COVID-19 Digital Transformation Challenges to the Tax Security of the State in Russia and Other BRICS Countries A Study of the Availability and Demand of Digital Services for the Manifestation of Social and Political Activity by Citizens
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1