EU antitrust in support of the Green Deal. Why better is not good enough

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Journal of Antitrust Enforcement Pub Date : 2023-03-24 DOI:10.1093/jaenfo/jnad005
E.M.H. Loozen
{"title":"EU antitrust in support of the Green Deal. Why better is not good enough","authors":"E.M.H. Loozen","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The European Union (EU) Commission proposes to ‘green up’ its enforcement of Article 101(3) TFEU to allow producers to collectively overcome so-called first mover disadvantages that would result from inefficient market regulation. The Commission's reboot focuses on the last three exemption conditions. First, the consumer benefit condition is customized to use collective consumer benefits to determine whether consumers receive a ‘fair share’ of the benefits established under the efficiency condition. Here, the Commission bypasses the Dutch proposition to also take account of non-consumer benefits when investigating whether consumers are compensated for anticompetitive harm. Second, the indispensability condition is tasked to filter out greenwashing. Third, the residual competition condition is trusted to allow private collective action insofar it does not eliminate competition on price and/or innovation. Discussing both EU and Dutch proposals, this article finds that greening up Article 101(3) brings competition policy outside the limiting principles that define objective and effective competition enforcement in terms of voluntary exchange.","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","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/jnad005","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

The European Union (EU) Commission proposes to ‘green up’ its enforcement of Article 101(3) TFEU to allow producers to collectively overcome so-called first mover disadvantages that would result from inefficient market regulation. The Commission's reboot focuses on the last three exemption conditions. First, the consumer benefit condition is customized to use collective consumer benefits to determine whether consumers receive a ‘fair share’ of the benefits established under the efficiency condition. Here, the Commission bypasses the Dutch proposition to also take account of non-consumer benefits when investigating whether consumers are compensated for anticompetitive harm. Second, the indispensability condition is tasked to filter out greenwashing. Third, the residual competition condition is trusted to allow private collective action insofar it does not eliminate competition on price and/or innovation. Discussing both EU and Dutch proposals, this article finds that greening up Article 101(3) brings competition policy outside the limiting principles that define objective and effective competition enforcement in terms of voluntary exchange.
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
支持绿色协议的欧盟反垄断法。为什么更好还不够好
欧盟委员会建议“绿色化”其对TFEU第101(3)条的执行,以允许生产商集体克服因市场监管效率低下而导致的所谓先发劣势。委员会重新启动的重点是最后三个豁免条件。首先,消费者利益条件被定制为使用集体消费者利益来确定消费者是否获得在效率条件下建立的利益的“公平份额”。在这方面,委员会绕过了荷兰的主张,在调查消费者是否因反竞争损害而获得赔偿时,也考虑到了非消费者利益。其次,过滤掉漂绿是必不可少的条件。第三,剩余竞争条件被认为允许私人集体行动,只要它不消除价格和/或创新方面的竞争。在讨论欧盟和荷兰的提案时,本文发现,绿化第101(3)条使竞争政策超出了在自愿交换方面定义客观有效竞争执法的限制原则。
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
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.
期刊最新文献
Competition policy and the consumer welfare standard The evolution of EU competition law and policy in the pharmaceutical sector: long-lasting impacts of a pandemic From silence to vigilance: overcoming barriers in public reporting of bid-rigging and cartel violations Agency Insights: The first steps of the DMA adventure Why do people think price fixing is unfair? An empirical legal study on public attitudes in the USA
×
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