Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy

Xiaowen Tan

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy

Xiaowen Tan

Published in International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 4, Issue 1)

Received: 22 December 2020 Accepted: 5 January 2021 Published: 15 January 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In EU competition law, presumptions are widely used for reasons of efficiency. However, the legal mechanism for the establishment and application of presumptions in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union may not always support efficiency. Instead, the fact that CJEU not only considers the systematic concept of presumptions per se, but also takes into account the full effect of EU law and any directly applicable general legal principles renders the establishment and the application of presumptions unpredictable and sometimes inconsistent. This phenomenon owes largely to the CJEU’s contextual approach in interpreting EU law and the fragmentary nature of this approach. To have a better understanding of this phenomenon, this article first explores the operation of presumptions in EU competition law; second, through concrete examples, it examines the Court’s approach to establishing and applying the presumptions; third, it identifies the potential impacts of the Court’s contextual approach on the enforcement of EU competition law. The article seeks to demonstrate that the Court’s interventions in presumption-related issues have blurred the boundary between substantive and procedural law, and thus risk narrowing the principle of national procedural autonomy. The Court’s approach also presents challenges for the current system of decentralised enforcement of EU competition law by national courts.

Published in	International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 4, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11
Page(s)	1-9
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Presumptions, EU Competition Law, Case Law, Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy

References

[1]	Bruzzone, G. and Boccaccio, M. (2009). “Impact-based Assessment and Use of Legal Presumptions in EC Competition Law: The Search for the Proper Mix”. World Competition, 32, 465; Heydon, D. (2013). Cross on Evidence, 9th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, p. 299; Castillo de la Torre, F. and Gippini-Fournier, E. (2017). Evidence, Proof and Judicial Review in EU Competition Law, Edward Elgar, p. 58.
[2]	Ritter, C. (2018). “Presumptions in EU Competition Law”. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 6 (2), 189-191. For an earlier attempt at classification, see Bailey, D. (2010). “Presumptions in EU Competition Law”. E. C. L. R. 31, 362.
[3]	Volpin, C. (2014). “The Ball is in Your Court: Evidential Burden of Proof and the Proof-proximity Principle in EU Competition Law”. C. M. L. Rev. 51 (4), 1159-1164. See also Decker, C. (2009). Economics and the Enforcement of European Competition Law, Edward Elgar, pp. 193–194.
[4]	T-Mobile (C-8/08) EU: C: 2009: 110, Opinion of AG Kokott.
[5]	Emson, R. (2008). Evidence, 4th edn, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 407.
[6]	Akzo Nobel (C-97/08 P) EU: C: 2009: 536; [2009] 5 C. M. L. R. 23 at –.
[7]	A “virtually wholly-owned subsidiary” refers to the situation where a parent company owns 99% or 98% of a subsidiary and exercises a decisive influence. Arkema (C-520/09 P) EU: C: 2011: 619.
[8]	Portielje (C-440/11 P) EU: C: 2013: 514.
[9]	Edison (T-196/06) EU: T: 2011: 281.
[10]	Aalborg Portland (C-204/00, C-205/00, C-211/00, C-213/00, C-217/00 and C-219/00) EU: C: 2004: 6.
[11]	Griffiths, J., McKeown, P. and McPeake, R. (2012). Evidence, 16th edn, OUP, p. 36.
[12]	Expedia (C-226/11) EU: C: 2012: 79.
[13]	Duff, R. (2005). “Strict Liability, Legal Presumptions, and the Presumption of Innocence” in Simester, A. (ed), Appraising Strict Liability, OUP, p. 130.
[14]	Arnull, A. (2006). The European Union and Its Court of Justice, 2nd edn, OUP, p. 612. See also Schilling, T. (2010). “Beyond Multilingualism: On Different Approaches to the Handling of Diverging Language Versions of a Community Law”. European Law Journal 16 (1), 47-60.
[15]	Elf Aquitaine (C-521/09 P) EU: C: 2011: 620.
[16]	Leddy, M. and Van Melkebeke, A. (2019). “Parental Liability in EU Competition Law”. E. C. L. R., 40 (9), 407-410.
[17]	Eturas (C-74/14) EU: C: 2016: 42.
[18]	Charter of Fundamental Rights [2016] OJ C 202/389.
[19]	Franchet and Byk (T-48/05) EU: T: 2008: 257.
[20]	To that effect, see, e.g. Blanco, L. (2006). European Community Competition Procedure, 2nd edn, OUP, p. 162; Lenaerts, K. (2007). “Some Thoughts on Evidence and Procedure in European Community Competition Law”. Fordham International Law Journal, 30 (5), 1463-1471.
[21]	Capobianco, A. (2011). “OECD Roundtable on Safe Harbours and Legal Presumptions in Competition Law”. 128th Meeting of the OECD Competition Committee, Paris, para 11.
[22]	E.ON Energies (C-89/11 P) EU: C: 2012: 738.
[23]	For example, the presumption of parental liability has only been rebutted four times to date. See Air Liquide (T-185/06) EU: T: 2011: 275.
[24]	Spector Photo Group and Van Raemdonck (C-45/08) EU: C: 2009: 806.
[25]	Montecatini (C-235/92 P) EU: C: 1999: 362.
[26]	T-Mobile (C-8/08) EU: C: 2009: 343.
[27]	Hüls (C-199/92 P) EU: C: 1999: 358.
[28]	Anic Partecipazioni (C-49/92 P) EU: C: 1999: 356.
[29]	Total Marketing Services (C-634/13 P) EU: C: 2015: 614.
[30]	See e.g. Technische Unie (C-113/04 P) EU: C: 2006: 593—exclusive dealing agreements.
[31]	See relevant factors for assessment of vertical agreements under art.101(1) in, Commission, “Commission Notice — Guidelines on Vertical Restraints” [2010] OJ C 130/1, paras 111-121.
[32]	Bayer (C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P) EU: C: 2004: 2.
[33]	For other legal presumptions applying to vertical restraints, see Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101 (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices [2010] OJ L102/1.
[34]	Enichem Anic (T-6/89) EU: T: 1991: 74.
[35]	Coats Holdings (T-439/07) EU: T: 2012: 320. The infringers held clandestine meetings in different countries, most frequently in a non-member country. The associated documents were reduced to a minimum.
[36]	Verhuizingen Coppens (C-441/11 P) EU: C: 2012: 778.
[37]	BPB (T-53/03) EU: T: 2008: 254.
[38]	Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH (C-626/13 P) EU: C: 2017: 54.
[39]	Wood Pulp (C-89/85), EU: C: 1993: 120.
[40]	Generics (C-307/18) EU: C: 2020: 52.
[41]	Directive 2014/104/EU on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union [2014] OJ L 349/1 (“Damage Directive”), art.2.
[42]	Cartes Bancaires (C-67/13 P) EU: C: 2014: 2204.
[43]	BIDS (C-209/07) EU: C: 2008: 643.
[44]	Allianz Hungária Biztosító (C-32/11) EU: C: 2013: 160.
[45]	Budapest Bank (C-228/18) EU: C: 2020: 265.
[46]	Murphy (C-403/08 and C-429/08) EU: C: 2011: 631.
[47]	Zelger, B. (2017). “‘By Object’ Restrictions Pursuant to Article 101 (1) TFEU: A Clear Matter or a Mess, and a Critical Analysis of the Court's Judgement in Expedia?”. European Competition Journal, 13 (2-3), 356.
[48]	This is dissimilar to the position of per se infringements under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Ibáñez Colomo, P. and Lamadrid, A. (2017). “On the Notion of Restriction of Competition: What We Know and What We Don't Know We Know” in Gerard, D., Merola, M. and Meyring, B. (eds), The Notion of Restriction of Competition: Revisiting the Foundations of Antitrust Enforcement in Europe, Bruylant.
[49]	Hoffmann-La Roche (C-85/76) EU: C: 1979: 36.
[50]	Akzo Chemie (C-62/86) EU: C: 1991: 286.
[51]	Lowe, P. (2006). “Remarks on Unilateral Conduct”, Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division Hearings on Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Washington D.C.
[52]	Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings [2009] OJ C45/7, para 13.
[53]	Intel (C-413/14 P) EU: C: 2017: 632.
[54]	Tetra Pak (C-333/94 P) EU: C: 1996: 436.
[55]	Fernández, C. (2009). “Presumptions and Burden of Proof in EU Competition Law: The Intel Judgment”. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 10 (7), 448.
[56]	Communication from the Commission–Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings (Guidance Paper) (2009) OJ C 45/7, paras 28–31.
[57]	General Quı´mica (C-90/09 P) EU: C: 2010: 517.
[58]	Skanska Industrial Solutions (C-724/17) EU: C: 2019: 204.
[59]	Oxera and others, (2009). “Quantifying Antitrust Damages – Towards Non-Binding Guidance for Courts”. Study prepared for the European Commission, < https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fc667387-4658-48de-aa44-0f9b0dd3327d/language-en>, p. 91, accessed 23 June 2020. As quoted by Practical Guide, 93% of the cartel cases in the sample resulted in overcharges. Commission, “Commission Staff Working Document – Practical Guide on Quantifying Harm in Actions for damages based on breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”, SWD (2013) 205, (“Practical Guide”).
[60]	Filippeli, M. (2020). “Presumption of Harm in Cartel Damages Cases”. E. C. L. R. 41 (3), 137-140.
[61]	Malinauskaite, J. and Cauffman, C. (2018). “The Transposition of the Damages Directive in the Small Member States of the EU – A Comparative Perspective”. Journal of Competition Law & Practice, 498.
[62]	Odudu, O. and Sanchez-Graells, A. (2017). “The Interface of EU and National Tort Law”, in Giliker, P. (ed), Research Handbook on EU Tort Law. Edward Elgar, p. 164.
[63]	Faull, J. and Nikpay, A. (eds), (2007). The EC Law of Competition, 2nd edn OUP, pp. 94–95.
[64]	Bobek, M. (2014). “The Effects of EU Law in the National Legal Systems”, in Barnard, C. and Peers, S. (eds), European Union Law, OUP, p. 165.
[65]	See the principle of national procedural autonomy in Rewe (C-33/76) EU: C: 1976: 188.
[66]	EU Parliament, (2017). “The EU as a Community of Law: Overview of the Role of Law in the Union”, Briefing, , p. 7, accessed 18 June 2020.
[67]	Weatherill, S. (2011). “Interpretation of the Directives: The Role of the Court”, in Hartkamp, A., Hesselink, M., Hondius, E., Mak, C. and du Perron, E. (eds), Towards a European Civil Code, Wolters Kluwer, p. 185.
[68]	Damage Directive, art.5. See also Donau Chemie (C-536/11) EU: C: 2013: 366.
[69]	Prechal, S. (2006) “National Courts in EU Judicial Structure”. Yearbook of European Law, 25 (1), 429-436.
[70]	von Bogdandy, A. (2010) “Founding Principles of EU Law”. Revus, 12, para 41.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Xiaowen Tan. (2021). Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy. International Journal of Law and Society, 4(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Xiaowen Tan. Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy. Int. J. Law Soc. 2021, 4(1), 1-9. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Xiaowen Tan. Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy. Int J Law Soc. 2021;4(1):1-9. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11,
  author = {Xiaowen Tan},
  title = {Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {4},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-9},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20210401.11},
  abstract = {In EU competition law, presumptions are widely used for reasons of efficiency. However, the legal mechanism for the establishment and application of presumptions in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union may not always support efficiency. Instead, the fact that CJEU not only considers the systematic concept of presumptions per se, but also takes into account the full effect of EU law and any directly applicable general legal principles renders the establishment and the application of presumptions unpredictable and sometimes inconsistent. This phenomenon owes largely to the CJEU’s contextual approach in interpreting EU law and the fragmentary nature of this approach. To have a better understanding of this phenomenon, this article first explores the operation of presumptions in EU competition law; second, through concrete examples, it examines the Court’s approach to establishing and applying the presumptions; third, it identifies the potential impacts of the Court’s contextual approach on the enforcement of EU competition law. The article seeks to demonstrate that the Court’s interventions in presumption-related issues have blurred the boundary between substantive and procedural law, and thus risk narrowing the principle of national procedural autonomy. The Court’s approach also presents challenges for the current system of decentralised enforcement of EU competition law by national courts.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy
AU  - Xiaowen Tan
Y1  - 2021/01/15
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 1
EP  - 9
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11
AB  - In EU competition law, presumptions are widely used for reasons of efficiency. However, the legal mechanism for the establishment and application of presumptions in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union may not always support efficiency. Instead, the fact that CJEU not only considers the systematic concept of presumptions per se, but also takes into account the full effect of EU law and any directly applicable general legal principles renders the establishment and the application of presumptions unpredictable and sometimes inconsistent. This phenomenon owes largely to the CJEU’s contextual approach in interpreting EU law and the fragmentary nature of this approach. To have a better understanding of this phenomenon, this article first explores the operation of presumptions in EU competition law; second, through concrete examples, it examines the Court’s approach to establishing and applying the presumptions; third, it identifies the potential impacts of the Court’s contextual approach on the enforcement of EU competition law. The article seeks to demonstrate that the Court’s interventions in presumption-related issues have blurred the boundary between substantive and procedural law, and thus risk narrowing the principle of national procedural autonomy. The Court’s approach also presents challenges for the current system of decentralised enforcement of EU competition law by national courts.
VL  - 4
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Xiaowen Tan

Shanghai University of International Business and Economics, Shanghai, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Xiaowen Tan. (2021). Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy. International Journal of Law and Society, 4(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Xiaowen Tan. Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy. Int. J. Law Soc. 2021, 4(1), 1-9. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Xiaowen Tan. Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy. Int J Law Soc. 2021;4(1):1-9. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11,
  author = {Xiaowen Tan},
  title = {Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {4},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-9},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20210401.11},
  abstract = {In EU competition law, presumptions are widely used for reasons of efficiency. However, the legal mechanism for the establishment and application of presumptions in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union may not always support efficiency. Instead, the fact that CJEU not only considers the systematic concept of presumptions per se, but also takes into account the full effect of EU law and any directly applicable general legal principles renders the establishment and the application of presumptions unpredictable and sometimes inconsistent. This phenomenon owes largely to the CJEU’s contextual approach in interpreting EU law and the fragmentary nature of this approach. To have a better understanding of this phenomenon, this article first explores the operation of presumptions in EU competition law; second, through concrete examples, it examines the Court’s approach to establishing and applying the presumptions; third, it identifies the potential impacts of the Court’s contextual approach on the enforcement of EU competition law. The article seeks to demonstrate that the Court’s interventions in presumption-related issues have blurred the boundary between substantive and procedural law, and thus risk narrowing the principle of national procedural autonomy. The Court’s approach also presents challenges for the current system of decentralised enforcement of EU competition law by national courts.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Presumptions in EU Competition Law: Blurring the Substantive-Procedural Dichotomy
AU  - Xiaowen Tan
Y1  - 2021/01/15
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 1
EP  - 9
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210401.11
AB  - In EU competition law, presumptions are widely used for reasons of efficiency. However, the legal mechanism for the establishment and application of presumptions in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union may not always support efficiency. Instead, the fact that CJEU not only considers the systematic concept of presumptions per se, but also takes into account the full effect of EU law and any directly applicable general legal principles renders the establishment and the application of presumptions unpredictable and sometimes inconsistent. This phenomenon owes largely to the CJEU’s contextual approach in interpreting EU law and the fragmentary nature of this approach. To have a better understanding of this phenomenon, this article first explores the operation of presumptions in EU competition law; second, through concrete examples, it examines the Court’s approach to establishing and applying the presumptions; third, it identifies the potential impacts of the Court’s contextual approach on the enforcement of EU competition law. The article seeks to demonstrate that the Court’s interventions in presumption-related issues have blurred the boundary between substantive and procedural law, and thus risk narrowing the principle of national procedural autonomy. The Court’s approach also presents challenges for the current system of decentralised enforcement of EU competition law by national courts.
VL  - 4
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download