Traditionally, European energy market regulation has dealt with electricity and gas from a market-oriented perspective in the effort of creating a common internal energy market to foster economic efficiency, security of supply and competitiveness. To a lesser extent, EU law also deals with oil, shale gas and other unconventional hydrocarbons – industries outside of this contribution’s scope. The content of EU energy market regulation initially focused on the transition from public monopolies of vertically integrated energy companies to a competitive market. The new set of rules contained in the CEP go a step further in the strengthening of the Energy Union, and they seek to adapt the rules dealing with electricity, renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and regulatory energy agencies to rapid the technological changes we have witnessed over the past decade in Europe. Two factors are key in understanding the reasons behind the regulatory changes and the content of the CEP, which we discuss in this chapter. Energy markets in Europe have been and are currently being transformed due to the integration of renewables into the grid. This brings forth technical and legal challenges for the transformation of "smart markets" in energy as already seen in 2011 by the German Bundesnetzagentur. These changes in generation and consumption require that the market sends the right signals to guide both the generation, consumption and transmission patterns for the future grid. The second guiding element of the CEP is also connected to those technological changes as they now have made possible the active participation of the end-consumer as a responsive and responsible ‘prosumer’.
{"title":"Regulation of Electricity Markets in Europe in Light of the Clean Energy Package: Prosumers and Demand Response","authors":"Ignacio Herrera Anchustegui, Andreas Formosa","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3448434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3448434","url":null,"abstract":"Traditionally, European energy market regulation has dealt with electricity and gas from a market-oriented perspective in the effort of creating a common internal energy market to foster economic efficiency, security of supply and competitiveness. To a lesser extent, EU law also deals with oil, shale gas and other unconventional hydrocarbons – industries outside of this contribution’s scope. The content of EU energy market regulation initially focused on the transition from public monopolies of vertically integrated energy companies to a competitive market. The new set of rules contained in the CEP go a step further in the strengthening of the Energy Union, and they seek to adapt the rules dealing with electricity, renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and regulatory energy agencies to rapid the technological changes we have witnessed over the past decade in Europe. Two factors are key in understanding the reasons behind the regulatory changes and the content of the CEP, which we discuss in this chapter. Energy markets in Europe have been and are currently being transformed due to the integration of renewables into the grid. This brings forth technical and legal challenges for the transformation of \"smart markets\" in energy as already seen in 2011 by the German Bundesnetzagentur. These changes in generation and consumption require that the market sends the right signals to guide both the generation, consumption and transmission patterns for the future grid. The second guiding element of the CEP is also connected to those technological changes as they now have made possible the active participation of the end-consumer as a responsive and responsible ‘prosumer’.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"10 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124769589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses the contributions of this Special Issue on the relationship between social and economic values and rights. It shows that the contributions are illustrative of the various ways in which the social market economy concept is, and could be, approached. In preparation for this Special Issue, several meetings and a work conference were organised, in which drafts of the contributions were discussed. However, this did not result in a uniform concept or uniform approaches. This diversity in viewpoints mirrors the different ways in which the concept of the social market economy can be perceived. There is no single, uniform approach, but a richness in diversity, hopefully deepening a common understanding of what the social market economy is. We expect that the contributions of this Special Issue are thus a valuable contribution to the debate on the meaning of the social market economy concept in the European Union. In this concluding article I compare the different approaches brought forward in the contributions, identify differences and similarities, and in this way show how the concept of the social market economy is useful to develop the various disciplines further. This interpretation is the sole responsibility of the author.
{"title":"The Relevance of the Concept of the Social Market Economy: Concluding Observations on the Contributions in this Special Issue","authors":"F. Pennings","doi":"10.18352/ulr.513","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.513","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the contributions of this Special Issue on the relationship between social and economic values and rights. It shows that the contributions are illustrative of the various ways in which the social market economy concept is, and could be, approached. In preparation for this Special Issue, several meetings and a work conference were organised, in which drafts of the contributions were discussed. However, this did not result in a uniform concept or uniform approaches. This diversity in viewpoints mirrors the different ways in which the concept of the social market economy can be perceived. There is no single, uniform approach, but a richness in diversity, hopefully deepening a common understanding of what the social market economy is. We expect that the contributions of this Special Issue are thus a valuable contribution to the debate on the meaning of the social market economy concept in the European Union. In this concluding article I compare the different approaches brought forward in the contributions, identify differences and similarities, and in this way show how the concept of the social market economy is useful to develop the various disciplines further. This interpretation is the sole responsibility of the author.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122292111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Social occupational pension schemes, i.e. compulsory pension schemes that are the result of collective bargaining, fulfil an important social function. At the same time, they seem to conflict with some fundamental single market tenets, such as the European Union (EU) Single Market’s four fundamental freedoms and competition law principles. In this respect, occupational pension schemes in the Member States seem to embody the inherent tensions contained within the EU’s social market economy: a clash between market and social values. This article examines the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and EU legislation on occupational pensions, in order to examine whether one of the two values can be identified as dominant. Specifically, it will answer the question whether EU law and CJEU case law can be said to support social occupational pensions, or whether internal market objectives prevail.
{"title":"Social Pensions and Market Values: A Conflict?","authors":"Q. Detienne, E. Schmidt","doi":"10.18352/ulr.512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.512","url":null,"abstract":"Social occupational pension schemes, i.e. compulsory pension schemes that are the result of collective bargaining, fulfil an important social function. At the same time, they seem to conflict with some fundamental single market tenets, such as the European Union (EU) Single Market’s four fundamental freedoms and competition law principles. In this respect, occupational pension schemes in the Member States seem to embody the inherent tensions contained within the EU’s social market economy: a clash between market and social values. This article examines the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and EU legislation on occupational pensions, in order to examine whether one of the two values can be identified as dominant. Specifically, it will answer the question whether EU law and CJEU case law can be said to support social occupational pensions, or whether internal market objectives prevail.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132130729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is a commentary of the judgement of the General Court of 12 December 2018 which dismissed the appeal brought by the French broadcaster Groupe Canal + against the Commission’s decision accepting the commitments offered by Paramount in the cross-border pay-TV case (AT.40023). This ruling confirms, on one side, the broad appreciation powers of the Commission when accepting commitments offered by an undertaking in the context of Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 and, on the other side, the anti-competitive nature of clauses included in licensing agreements between right holders and broadcasters aiming at eliminating cross-border competition through the restriction of cross-border passive sales.
{"title":"Antitrust Cross-border Pay-TV Case: Accommodating Contractual Freedom Within the EU’s Single Market Objective","authors":"A. Reyna","doi":"10.21552/core/2019/3/16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/core/2019/3/16","url":null,"abstract":"This is a commentary of the judgement of the General Court of 12 December 2018 which dismissed the appeal brought by the French broadcaster Groupe Canal + against the Commission’s decision accepting the commitments offered by Paramount in the cross-border pay-TV case (AT.40023). This ruling confirms, on one side, the broad appreciation powers of the Commission when accepting commitments offered by an undertaking in the context of Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 and, on the other side, the anti-competitive nature of clauses included in licensing agreements between right holders and broadcasters aiming at eliminating cross-border competition through the restriction of cross-border passive sales.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133576515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Spanish Abstract: Desde el concepto de empresa (underdaking) en el derecho de la competencia y la actuación de las mismas en el mercado, el TJUE se ha pronunciado estableciendo responsabilidades a filiales respecto de grupos y a grupos respecto filiales ( Vid WP Junio 2019 ). En la presente nota se trata específicamente la STJU de 21 de julio de 2016 ( Asunto C-542/14) en cuanto interesa a la extensión de responsabilidad respecto de proveedores independientes.
English Abstract: From the concept of the company (undertaking) in competition law and the performance of the same in the market, the ECJ has pronounced establishing responsibilities to subsidiaries with respect to groups and groups with respect to subsidiaries. This note deals specifically with the STJU of 21 July 2016 (Case C-542/14) insofar as it concerns the extension of liability to independent suppliers.
摘要:从竞争法中的公司概念(underdaking)及其在市场上的表现来看，cjeu已经宣布了自己的立场，确立了子公司对集团的责任，以及集团对子公司的责任(Vid WP june 2019)。本说明特别涉及2016年7月21日的STJU(案例C-542/14)，涉及对独立供应商的责任扩展。英文摘要:从竞争法中的公司(承诺书)概念和公司在市场上的表现来看，欧洲法院已宣布对子公司确立了与集团有关的责任，集团也对子公司确立了与集团有关的责任。本说明特别涉及与STJU 2016年7月21日的交易(案件C-542/14)，因为它涉及将责任扩大到独立供应商。
{"title":"NOTA SOBRE LOS PROVEEDORES INDEPENDIENTES Y LAS PRÁCTICAS CONCERTADAS. RÉGIMEN DE CORRESPONSABILIDAD (Note on Independent Suppliers and Concerted Practices. Co-Responsibility Regime)","authors":"E. Sanjuan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3441282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3441282","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Spanish Abstract:</b> Desde el concepto de empresa (underdaking) en el derecho de la competencia y la actuación de las mismas en el mercado, el TJUE se ha pronunciado estableciendo responsabilidades a filiales respecto de grupos y a grupos respecto filiales ( Vid WP Junio 2019 ). En la presente nota se trata específicamente la STJU de 21 de julio de 2016 ( Asunto C-542/14) en cuanto interesa a la extensión de responsabilidad respecto de proveedores independientes. <br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> From the concept of the company (undertaking) in competition law and the performance of the same in the market, the ECJ has pronounced establishing responsibilities to subsidiaries with respect to groups and groups with respect to subsidiaries. This note deals specifically with the STJU of 21 July 2016 (Case C-542/14) insofar as it concerns the extension of liability to independent suppliers.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124564288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Prieger, M. Kleiman, Jonathan Kulick, Alberto Aziani, M. Levi, Sam Hampsher, Clarissa Manning, Richard Hahn
This paper contains the appendices to the report "The Impact of E-Cigarette Regulation on the Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products in the European Union" (https://ssrn.com/abstract=3435177). The contents will be of interest to researchers studying EU regulations regarding tobacco and e-cigarette sales and usage.
Appendix 1 includes tables and data covering regulation of tobacco and a detailed description of tobacco policies as of 2018 across the EU. These data include the regulatory group based on the Tobacco Control Scale by country and year, policies concerning age restrictions and use of tobacco by adults, cigarette prices and taxation, smoking bans, advertising restrictions, tobacco control expenditure, WHO FCTC status, and support for smoking cessation.
Appendix 2 contains information and data on e-cigarette regulation in the EU. Regulatory groupings and detailed data are included. Data include information on product bans, advertising bans, age restrictions, size limits on e-liquid cartridges, nicotine limits in e-liquids, banned substances in e-cigarettes, flavor bans, distance sales bans, and public use bans, by country and year.
The empirical work in the report demonstrated that there is a positive association between e-cigarette sales revenue and the price of cigarettes in the EU. Appendix 3 shows the implications of that association for whether the two goods are substitutes. Under plausible economic assumptions for the markets considered here, it is shown that the former implies the latter. It is not necessarily the case that a positive association between e-cigarette revenue and the price of cigarettes implies that the two goods are substitutes. However, in two important cases, that implication does follow, and plausible cases can be made for both of those cases for the market under consideration. Those cases are when there is no connection between cigarette prices and the supply curve for e-cigarettes, and when the supply curve is perfectly elastic.
{"title":"Appendices to The Impact of E-Cigarette Regulation on the Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products in the European Union","authors":"J. Prieger, M. Kleiman, Jonathan Kulick, Alberto Aziani, M. Levi, Sam Hampsher, Clarissa Manning, Richard Hahn","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3435260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3435260","url":null,"abstract":"This paper contains the appendices to the report \"The Impact of E-Cigarette Regulation on the Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products in the European Union\" (<a href=\"https://ssrn.com/abstract=3435177\">https://ssrn.com/abstract=3435177</a>). The contents will be of interest to researchers studying EU regulations regarding tobacco and e-cigarette sales and usage.<br><br>Appendix 1 includes tables and data covering regulation of tobacco and a detailed description of tobacco policies as of 2018 across the EU. These data include the regulatory group based on the Tobacco Control Scale by country and year, policies concerning age restrictions and use of tobacco by adults, cigarette prices and taxation, smoking bans, advertising restrictions, tobacco control expenditure, WHO FCTC status, and support for smoking cessation. <br><br>Appendix 2 contains information and data on e-cigarette regulation in the EU. Regulatory groupings and detailed data are included. Data include information on product bans, advertising bans, age restrictions, size limits on e-liquid cartridges, nicotine limits in e-liquids, banned substances in e-cigarettes, flavor bans, distance sales bans, and public use bans, by country and year.<br><br>The empirical work in the report demonstrated that there is a positive association between e-cigarette sales revenue and the price of cigarettes in the EU. Appendix 3 shows the implications of that association for whether the two goods are substitutes. Under plausible economic assumptions for the markets considered here, it is shown that the former implies the latter. It is not necessarily the case that a positive association between e-cigarette revenue and the price of cigarettes implies that the two goods are substitutes. However, in two important cases, that implication does follow, and plausible cases can be made for both of those cases for the market under consideration. Those cases are when there is no connection between cigarette prices and the supply curve for e-cigarettes, and when the supply curve is perfectly elastic.<br>","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134504336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Unfair practices by online platforms have not only exclusionary effects on relevant markets but also exploitative effects on captive business users (and/or individual users). Nevertheless, attention is lopsided with most of the focus having been placed on the exclusionary abuse. With the aim of provoking a further discussion on the platform’s exploitative conduct, this paper seeks to clarify the state of the economic dependence of business users on online platforms and exploitative practices by those platforms, mainly against business users, from the point of view of EU competition law. Through this study, the authors aim at contributing to the conceptual development of the power to exploit customers/suppliers and the dominance threshold in exploitative abuse cases under Art.102(a) TFEU.
{"title":"Platform Dependence and Exploitation","authors":"Sangyun Lee, Jan Schißler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3403002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3403002","url":null,"abstract":"Unfair practices by online platforms have not only exclusionary effects on relevant markets but also exploitative effects on captive business users (and/or individual users). Nevertheless, attention is lopsided with most of the focus having been placed on the exclusionary abuse. With the aim of provoking a further discussion on the platform’s exploitative conduct, this paper seeks to clarify the state of the economic dependence of business users on online platforms and exploitative practices by those platforms, mainly against business users, from the point of view of EU competition law. Through this study, the authors aim at contributing to the conceptual development of the power to exploit customers/suppliers and the dominance threshold in exploitative abuse cases under Art.102(a) TFEU.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121568807","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Procurement law is rising in importance year after year. According to the European Commission, public procurement now accounts for over 14% of the EU’s gross domestic product. Also at the ECB, spending through procurement is growing, and the evolution of its procurement law from non-binding internal guidelines to a transparent and comprehensive legal framework is a clear reflection of this development.
The purpose of this working paper is to summarise the legal framework for public procurement at the ECB, to compare it to the procurement rules of other EU institutions, and to analyse four key issues in contract award procedures, with due regard to the EU procurement directives and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU.
Due to its specific legal status and organisational autonomy, the ECB can define and adopt its own procurement rules. It is not subject to the EU procurement directives. They are addressed to Member States and not to EU institutions. The ECB is also not bound by the EU Financial Regulation, which applies to most other EU institutions financed from the EU budget.
The working paper starts with a look back on the evolution of the ECB’s procurement rules since the establishment of the bank in 1998. We then analyse the current framework, laid down in Decision ECB/2016/2, in more detail.
The second chapter summarises public procurement rules of other EU institutions, namely, the Financial Regulation and the procurement guide of the European Investment Bank which, like the ECB, is not subject to the Financial Regulation.
The third chapter analyses how the differences in these legal frameworks affect procurement procedures in practice, with a focus on four key aspects of the award process: selection and award criteria, transparency and publication, proportionality and legal remedies.
The working paper concludes with a comparative summary of the current state of public procurement law at the EU institutions.
{"title":"The European Central Bank and EU Procurement Law: A Comparative Outlook","authors":"Fabian von Lindeiner, G. Bitti, M. Hermans","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3664896","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3664896","url":null,"abstract":"Procurement law is rising in importance year after year. According to the European Commission, public procurement now accounts for over 14% of the EU’s gross domestic product. Also at the ECB, spending through procurement is growing, and the evolution of its procurement law from non-binding internal guidelines to a transparent and comprehensive legal framework is a clear reflection of this development.<br><br>The purpose of this working paper is to summarise the legal framework for public procurement at the ECB, to compare it to the procurement rules of other EU institutions, and to analyse four key issues in contract award procedures, with due regard to the EU procurement directives and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU.<br><br>Due to its specific legal status and organisational autonomy, the ECB can define and adopt its own procurement rules. It is not subject to the EU procurement directives. They are addressed to Member States and not to EU institutions. The ECB is also not bound by the EU Financial Regulation, which applies to most other EU institutions financed from the EU budget.<br><br>The working paper starts with a look back on the evolution of the ECB’s procurement rules since the establishment of the bank in 1998. We then analyse the current framework, laid down in Decision ECB/2016/2, in more detail.<br><br>The second chapter summarises public procurement rules of other EU institutions, namely, the Financial Regulation and the procurement guide of the European Investment Bank which, like the ECB, is not subject to the Financial Regulation.<br><br>The third chapter analyses how the differences in these legal frameworks affect procurement procedures in practice, with a focus on four key aspects of the award process: selection and award criteria, transparency and publication, proportionality and legal remedies.<br><br>The working paper concludes with a comparative summary of the current state of public procurement law at the EU institutions.<br><br>","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116736977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We show how price leadership bans, imposed as part of the European Commission's State aid control on all main mortgage providers except the largest bank, shifted the Dutch mortgage market from a competitive to a collusive price leadership equilibrium. In May 2009, mortgage rates in the Netherlands suddenly rose against the decreasing funding cost trend to almost a full percentage point above the Eurozone average. We derive equilibrium best-response functions, identify the price-leader, and estimate response adjustments in daily household mortgage rates between 2004 and 2012. Around the Spring of 2009, when the bans were collectively negotiated, we find structural decreases in the leader's cost pass-through, much closer following of its price, and strongly reduced transmissions of common cost changes into price-followers' mortgage rates. Indicative predicted overcharges are 125 basis points or 26%, on average.
{"title":"State-aided Price Coordination in the Dutch Mortgage Market","authors":"M. Dijkstra, M. Schinkel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3334888","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3334888","url":null,"abstract":"We show how price leadership bans, imposed as part of the European Commission's State aid control on all main mortgage providers except the largest bank, shifted the Dutch mortgage market from a competitive to a collusive price leadership equilibrium. In May 2009, mortgage rates in the Netherlands suddenly rose against the decreasing funding cost trend to almost a full percentage point above the Eurozone average. We derive equilibrium best-response functions, identify the price-leader, and estimate response adjustments in daily household mortgage rates between 2004 and 2012. Around the Spring of 2009, when the bans were collectively negotiated, we find structural decreases in the leader's cost pass-through, much closer following of its price, and strongly reduced transmissions of common cost changes into price-followers' mortgage rates. Indicative predicted overcharges are 125 basis points or 26%, on average.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114895593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Due diligence has a stable if malleable, presence in international law often starting as soft law guidance that over time hardens into legal rules and principles. While it is possible to refer to elements of due diligence broadly, the exact scope of the concept depends on the regulatory or international law context in which it is used – such as environmental law, human rights related to responsible business conduct, the elimination of violence against women, or rules around the supply of conflict minerals. The EU has chosen due diligence as the vehicle to support and balance the effective implementation of benefit-sharing commitments set out in EUR 511/2014. While one of the stated aims of the EUR is related to ‘improving conditions for legal certainty in connection with the utillisation of GR and ATK’ the evolving nature of access and benefit-sharing (ABS) related behavior necessitates principles that can guide individuals and institutions when faced with unprecedented circumstances. There are three critical and interconnected reasons that drive the need for this Recommendation. First due diligence lends itself well to constructive ambiguity that can be harnessed to build consensus around best practices. Secondly due diligence as a positive obligation is separate from the underlying responsibility to follow ABS rules in provider countries. Thirdly, if due diligence is not tethered to the foundational responsibility to respect ABS rules, it may encourage ‘tickbox’ compliance that will frustrate the purpose of the Nagoya Protocol and the international consensus achieved under the Convention of Biological Diversity. This document is presented as a first guide to developing principles of due diligence that are specific to the access and benefit-sharing context in international law and as a guide to scientists, universities, technology managers and businesses navigating the line between legally required and ethically aspirational behavior. It is hoped that the community will return to this document to update and consolidate practices over time. The Recommendation is the product of a Symposium on the Use and Circulation of Genetic Resources, conducted on the 11 and 12th of September at the London School of Economics. All participants are co-producers of this document. The Principles were informed by the results of a survey on 98 EU users of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. The project is led by Dr Siva Thambisetty Associate Professor of Law, LSE and was developed as part of the INMARE project funded by EU Horizon 2020.
{"title":"Due Diligence and ABS Compliance under EUR 511/2014","authors":"S. Thambisetty","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3323389","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3323389","url":null,"abstract":"Due diligence has a stable if malleable, presence in international law often starting as soft law guidance that over time hardens into legal rules and principles. While it is possible to refer to elements of due diligence broadly, the exact scope of the concept depends on the regulatory or international law context in which it is used – such as environmental law, human rights related to responsible business conduct, the elimination of violence against women, or rules around the supply of conflict minerals. The EU has chosen due diligence as the vehicle to support and balance the effective implementation of benefit-sharing commitments set out in EUR 511/2014. While one of the stated aims of the EUR is related to ‘improving conditions for legal certainty in connection with the utillisation of GR and ATK’ the evolving nature of access and benefit-sharing (ABS) related behavior necessitates principles that can guide individuals and institutions when faced with unprecedented circumstances. There are three critical and interconnected reasons that drive the need for this Recommendation. First due diligence lends itself well to constructive ambiguity that can be harnessed to build consensus around best practices. Secondly due diligence as a positive obligation is separate from the underlying responsibility to follow ABS rules in provider countries. Thirdly, if due diligence is not tethered to the foundational responsibility to respect ABS rules, it may encourage ‘tickbox’ compliance that will frustrate the purpose of the Nagoya Protocol and the international consensus achieved under the Convention of Biological Diversity. This document is presented as a first guide to developing principles of due diligence that are specific to the access and benefit-sharing context in international law and as a guide to scientists, universities, technology managers and businesses navigating the line between legally required and ethically aspirational behavior. It is hoped that the community will return to this document to update and consolidate practices over time. The Recommendation is the product of a Symposium on the Use and Circulation of Genetic Resources, conducted on the 11 and 12th of September at the London School of Economics. All participants are co-producers of this document. The Principles were informed by the results of a survey on 98 EU users of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. The project is led by Dr Siva Thambisetty Associate Professor of Law, LSE and was developed as part of the INMARE project funded by EU Horizon 2020.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116745866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：