To what extend might (and should) the competition law apply to public authorities

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54201/iajas.v2i1.38

Keywords:

competition law, competition advocacy, distortion of competition, public authorities

Abstract

Even though public authorities, in particular the Government and the municipalities, may disturb effective competition by their exercise of public powers, the competition law does not apply to them, but for the specific and limited circumstances when it can be used in connection with other Treaty provisions. This article first explores the limits of applicability of EU competition law on public authorities; it concludes that even though EU competition law as such does not provide protection against conduct of public authorities distorting competition, its scope should not be expanded. The aim of competition law is to limit market power, not official authority. Instead, after discussing the legislation of selected countries from Central Europe, it is put forward that specific domestic legislation, applied by competition authorities, may provide an effective remedy to this problem. As comparative research of these issues has been rather limited so far, further elaboration of this topic is also suggested.

References

Bach, A. (1994). Case C-185/91, Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr v. Gebrüder Reiff GmbH & Co. KG, preliminary ruling of 17 November 1993 requested by the Bunde. Common Market Law Review, 31 (6), 1357–1374. https://doi.org/10.54648/cola1994063

Bailey, D., & John, L. E. (Eds.) (2018). Bellamy & Child (8th Edition): European Union Law of Competition. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law-ocl/9780198794752.001.0001

Faull, J., & Nikpay, A. (Eds.) (2014). The EU Law of Competition (3rd Edition). Oxford University Press.

Khemani, R. S. (1998). A Framework for the Design and Implementation of Competition Law and Policy. World Bank Group. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-4288-6

Kindl, J., & Munková, J. (2016). Zákon o ochraně hospodářské soutěže. Komentář. 3. vydání [Competition Act. A commentary. 3rd edition]. C. H. Beck.

Kolářová, T., Kubeša, T., Kuncová, L., Petr, M., & Pospíšil, I. (2014). Dozor nad orgány veřejné správy [Supervision over the public authorities]. Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže [Office for the Protection of Competition] Informační list [Informative Bulletine], 4. Online: https://bit.ly/3y0grDV

Kuncová, L. (2014). Antitrust Supervision of the Regulatory Activities of Public Bodies: One Step Forward, two Steps Back? Global Antitrust Review, 7.

Lapšanský, L. (2020). Ochrana hospodárskej súťaže pred protisúťažnými zásahmi orgánov verejnej moci [Protection of competition against anticompetitive measures of public authorities]. Ústav štátu a práva SAV.

Lithuanian Competition Council. (2020). Annual Report – 2020. Online: https://bit.ly/3Oc4IHw

Nečas, P. (2012, July 11). Vážený pane předsedající, vážené paní poslankyně, páni poslanci, s touto novelou jsem vás seznámil v průběhu prvního a druhého čtení... [transcript of speech in the Parliament]. Online: https://bit.ly/3y1hq6N

Odudu, O. (2006). The Boundaries of EC Competition Law: The Scope of Article 81. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278169.001.0001

OECD. (2014). Competition Law and Policy in Romania. A Peer Review. Online: https://bit.ly/3MYWYaW

OECD. (2019). Lithuania. Assessment of Competition Law and Policy. Online: https://bit.ly/3HxmH91

Pera, A. (2008). Changing Views of Competition, Economic Analysis and EC Antitrust Law. European Competition Journal, 4(1), 127–168. https://doi.org/10.5235/ecj.v4n1.127

Petr, M. (2020). Czech Republic – First Decision Concerning Anticompetitive Conduct of Public Authorities Approved by Court. European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, 4(2), 120–123. https://doi.org/10.21552/core/2020/2/9

Plachý, J. (2012, June 20). Děkuji. Vážená paní předsedkyně, vážená vládo, dámy a pánové… [transcript of speech in the Parliament]. Online: https://bit.ly/3zOGnUl

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže – ÚOHS [Office for the Protection of Competition]. (2014). Stanovisko Úřadu pro ochranu hospoidářské soutěže k regulaci provozu loterií a jiných podobných her obcemi [Guidance of the Office for the Protection of Competition on municipal regulation of lotteries and similar games]. Online: https://bit.ly/3xy8Smq

Whish, R., & Bailey, D. (2018). Competition Law (9th Edition). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law-ocl/9780198779063.001.0001

Wils, W. (2000). The undertaking as subject of E.C. competition law and the imputation of infringements to natural or legal persons. European Law Review, 99–116.

Legal sources

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation). Online: https://bit.ly/3O2whmY

Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. Online: https://bit.ly/3tGCf4T

Z. č. 63/1991 Sb., o ochraně hospodářské soutěže [Act on the Protection of Competition], as amended. Online: https://bit.ly/3b8Wn95

Z. č. 188/1994 Z.z., o ochrane hospodárskej súťaže [Act on the Protection of Competition]. Online: https://bit.ly/3O3yhv7

Act No. 61/96 Coll., Competition Law. Online: https://bit.ly/3zGLTIv

Act No. VIII-1099 Coll., Law on Competition. Online: https://bit.ly/3O1ZIFL

Z. č. 136/2001 Z.z., o ochrane hospodárskej súťaže [Act on the Protection of Competition]. Online: https://bit.ly/3QukkIc

Z. č. 143/2001 Sb., o ochraně hospodářské soutěže [Act on the Protection of Competition], as amended. Online: https://bit.ly/3b8MzMz

Act No. 36/2008 Coll., on the Prevention of the Restriction of Competition. Online: https://bit.ly/3MZQJDy

Z. č. 360/2012 Sb., kterým se mění zákon. č. 143/2001 Sb., o ochraně hospodářské soutěže [Act Amending Act No. 143/2001 Coll., on the Protection of Competition]. Online: https://bit.ly/3QvkYFi

Z. č. 293/2016 Sb., kterým se mění zákon. č. 143/2001 Sb., o ochraně hospodářské soutěže [Act Amending Act No. 143/2001 Coll., on the Protection of Competition]. Online: https://bit.ly/3xZtHsg

Z. č. 187/2017 Z. z. o ochrane hospodárskej súťaže [Act on the Protection of Competition]. Online: https://bit.ly/3tEdrdO

Judgment of 16 December 1975, Coöperatieve Vereniging “Suiker Unie” UA and others v Commission of the European Communities, C-40 to 48, 50, 54 to 56, 111, 113 and 114/73, EU:C:1975:174.

Judgment of 16 November 1977, SA G.B.-INNO-B.M. v Association des détaillants en tabac (ATAB), C-13/77, EU:C:1977:185.

Judgment of 14 February 1978, United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities, C-27/76, EU:C:1978:22.

Judgment of 13 February 1979, Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission of the European Communities, C-85/76, EU:C:1979:36.

Judgment of 6 July 1982, French Republic, Italian Republic and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European Communities, C-188/80, EU:C:1982:257.

Judgment of 30 January 1985, Bureau national interprofessionnel du cognac v Guy Clair, C-123/83, EU:C:1985:33.

Judgment of 27 January 1987, Verband der Sachversicherer e.V. v Commission of the European Communities, C-45/85, EU:C:1987:34.

Judgment of 16 June 1987, Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic, C-118/85, EU:C:1987:283.

Judgment of 11 April 1989, Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V., C-66/86, EU:C:1989:140.

Judgment of 23 April 1991, Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH., C-41/90, EU:C:1991:161.

Judgment of 10 December 1991, Merci convenzionali porto di Genova SpA v Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA., C-179/90, EU:C:1991:464.

Judgment of 17 November 1993, Criminal proceedings against Wolf W. Meng, C-2/91, EU:C:1993:885.

Judgment of 18 March 1997, Diego Calì & Figli Srl v Servizi ecologici porto di Genova SpA (SEPG), C-343/95, EU:C:1997:160.

Judgment of 18 June 1998, Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic, C-35/96, EU:C:1998:303.

Judgment of 26 October 2000, Bayer AG v Commission of the European Communities, T-41/96, EU:T:2000:242.

Judgment of 9 September 2003, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, C198/01, EU:C:2003:430.

Judgment of 16 March 2004, AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, Bundesknappschaft and See-Krankenkasse v Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. (C-264/01), Mundipharma GmbH (C-306/01), Gödecke GmbH (C-354/01) and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH (C-355/01), EU:C:2004:150.

Judgment of 4 June 2009, T-Mobile Netherlands BV, KPN Mobile NV, Orange Nederland NV and Vodafone Libertel NV v Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, C-8/08, EU:C:2009:343.

Judgment of 3 March 2011, AG2R Prévoyance v Beaudout Père et Fils SARL, C-437/09, EU:C:2011:112.

Judgment of 22 March 2012, Slovak Telekom a.s. v European Commission, T-458/09 and T-171/10, EU:T:2012:145.

Judgment of 12 July 2012, Compass-Datenbank GmbH v Republik Österreich, C-138/11, EU:C:2012:449.

Judgment of 17 July 2014, European Commission v Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), C-553/12 P, EU:C:2014:2083.

Judgment of 4 September 2014, API – Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others, C-184/13, EU:C:2014:2147.

Opinion of Mr. Advocate General Mayras delivered on 28 May 1974, Jean Reyners v Belgian State, C-2/74, EU:C:1974:59.

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 28 January 1999, Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie, C-67/96, EU:C:1999:28.

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 17 May 2001, Firma Ambulanz Glöckner v Landkreis Südwestpfalz, C-475/99, EU:C:2001:284.

Krajský soud v Brně [Regional Court in Brno], judgment of 6 February 2020, 62 Af 64/2018 (Děčín). Online: https://bit.ly/3ba20Us

Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky [Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic], decision of 17 December 2004, 2004/39/2/1/218 (Ministerstvo pôdohospodárstva). Online: https://bit.ly/3OoDcqr

Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky [Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic], decision of 29 March 2006, 2005/39/2/1/111 (Ministerstvo kultury). Online: https://bit.ly/3y1d4ww

Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky [Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic], decision of 12 March 2008, 2007/39/1/1/083 (Bratislava). Online: https://bit.ly/3MZgXpR

Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky [Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic], decision of 27 November 2008, 2008/39/2/1/104 (Stará Lubovňa). Online: https://bit.ly/3mWCJ2Q

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže [Office for the Protection of Competition], decision of 20 December 2016, S538/2015/VS (Bílina). Online: https://bit.ly/3xV7xax

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže [Office for the Protection of Competition], decision of 9 July 2020, S55/2019/VS (Praha). Online: https://bit.ly/3N15XIk

Downloads

Published

2022-07-22

How to Cite

To what extend might (and should) the competition law apply to public authorities. (2022). Institutiones Administrationis - Journal of Administrative Sciences, 2(1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.54201/iajas.v2i1.38