ݺߣ

ݺߣShare a Scribd company logo

Анализ по количеству наложенных штрафов

•
•
Reforma FAS
Reforma FAS

This document analyzes data on cartel enforcement and dominance investigations from competition authorities around the world in 2015. It finds that the US Department of Justice issued the largest total cartel fines, driven largely by a foreign exchange rate collusion case. The European Commission had a relatively slow year for cartel fines. Many authorities conducted few or no dawn raids or issued small cartel fines. Leading authorities are increasingly investigating potential anticompetitive conduct by technology companies in relation to issues like data collection and use.

1 of 15
Download to read offline
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 1/15 RATING ENFORCEMENT 2016 ANALYSIS: PART 3 Thursday, 7 July 2016 (2 weeks ago) Buy PDF Share via e­mail Rating Enforcement: Analysis Part 3 Table 22: Number of leniency applications Authority No. of leniency applications Germany 76 Brazil 69 Japan 61 Canada 51 Russia 46 DG Comp 32 UK 24 Australia 19 Mexico 18 Austria 12 Singapore 11 Czech Republic 10 Latvia 9 Belgium 8 Colombia 8 France 8 Italy 8
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 2/15 Romania 6 Finland 5 Sweden 5 New Zealand 4 India 3 Norway 3 Portugal 3 Chile 2 Poland 2 Turkey 1 Israel 0 Lithuania 0 Pakistan 0 (Click for larger image) Table 23: Cartel fines Authority Cartel fines (€ million)
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 3/15 US (DOJ) 3,200 France 881.3 Spain 506 Korea 473.9 DG Comp 364.5 Italy 235 Germany 208 Belgium 173.8 India 134 Switzerland 75 Colombia 74.7 Czech Republic 74.6 Chile 55 Brazil 45 Romania 42 Austria 34.5 Russia 21.1 Japan 18 Netherlands 15.2 Mexico 5.2 Sweden 3 New Zealand 2.2 Norway 2.1 Lithuania 2 Canada 1.97 UK 1.3 Pakistan 1.18 Israel 1 Denmark 0.981 Portugal 0.83 Latvia 0.3 Poland 0.28 Australia 0 Finland 0 Ireland 0 Singapore 0 Turkey 0
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 4/15 With the conclusion of the mammoth Forex investigation, it has been clear for some time that the DoJ would be the top authority for cartel fines in 2015. Of the total €2.9 billion fines ordered by the antitrust division, €2.3 billion came from the forex case alone, as the agency wound up its international investigation of foreign exchange rate collusion between the world’s biggest banks. It’s worth pointing out that if those fines had not been handed down in 2015, the remaining €700 million in fines would have been a €500 million dip from 2014, but would still have left the agency in a comfortable second place, behind France’s €881 million. DG Comp, easily the DoJ’s peer in cartel enforcement, had a much slower year, especially compared to its usual high fines. While its €365 million total is nothing to be sniffed at, and slots the agency in at number five, it is peanuts compared to the amounts it has been able to extract over the last decade; indeed, it is the the lowest cartel fine total since the regulation that established the current European enforcement regime came into force. Given that the average total fines per year for 2010 to 2014 inclusive come to around €1.8 billion, it marks an extremely quiet year. Observers say that this may be down to the commission’s top brass being kept busy by the huge transfer pricing state aid investigations and the ambitious e­ commerce inquiry, but whatever the explanation may be, 2015 stands as a low point for European cartel enforcement. The bottom of the table is crowded: Australia, Finland, Ireland, Singapore and Turkey all reported no cartel fines in 2015. Meanwhile, Denmark, Portugal, Latvia and Poland all issued less than €1 million in total fines. Portugal is perhaps the most disappointing of that list: despite the agency publicly stating it plans to reinvigorate its cartel enforcement, which traditionally lagged behind its track record in mergers, the effect of that stance was nowhere to be seen in terms of
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 5/15 closed cartel investigations. The number of dawn raids (see table 24) conducted by enforcement agencies changed considerably in 2015. Turkey’s Competition Authority remains the world leader, with 96 dawn raids conducted – that’s 20 more than in 2014. Given that GCR asks agencies not to refer to the number of searched premises, but to the number of cases in which dawn raids were conducted, it is an impressively high number. Korea’s Fair Trade Commission and Germany’s Federal Cartel Office remain reliably busy; they respectively conducted 49 and 14 raids last year, taking the fourth and fifth places in the table. Colombia, a new entrant to Rating Enforcement this year, conducted 57 raids, placing it in second on our list. Table 24: Number of dawn raids Authority No. of dawn raids Turkey 96 Colombia 57 Korea 49 Germany 14 Austria 12 Russia 12 Italy 11 Spain 10 Greece 8 Latvia 8 Romania 8 Czech Republic 7 Denmark 7 Mexico 7 France 6 Lithuania 6 Poland 6 Finland 5 Switzerland 5 Canada 4
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 6/15 Canada 4 DG Comp 4 Israel 4 Netherlands 4 Australia 3 UK 3 Belgium 2 Brazil 2 Ireland 2 Portugal 2 Singapore 2 Chile 1 India 1 Norway 1 Pakistan 1 New Zealand 0 Sweden 0 Table 25: Average duration of a cartel investigation Authority Average length of cartel investigation (months) Chile 589 Belgium 105 Denmark 62 Romania 56 Brazil 49.2 DG Comp 48 Greece 42 Germany 36 India 36 UK 34 Canada 29 Korea 25 Australia 24 Colombia 24 Ireland 24 Switzerland 23.5 Mexico 23 Spain 22
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 7/15 Spain 22 Czech Republic 19 Lithuania 19 Finland 18 France 18 Italy 18 Portugal 18 Sweden 17 Japan 15 Singapore 14 Israel 12 Netherlands 12 Russia 12 Latvia 11 Poland 10 Turkey 8 New Zealand 5.5 Pakistan 4 Table 26: Total number of dominance investigations opened Authority No. of abuse investigations opened Russia 3,059 DG Comp 35 Denmark 31 Brazil 30 France 30 US (FTC) 25 Korea 24 India 23 Poland 23 Austria 22 Chile 18 Germany 14 Greece 10 Turkey 10 Australia 9 Sweden 9 Canada 7
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 8/15 Canada 7 Finland 7 Mexico 6 Pakistan 6 Spain 4 Italy 3 Romania 3 Belgium 2 Colombia 2 New Zealand 2 Portugal 2 Ireland 1 Israel 1 Netherlands 1 UK 1 Czech Republic 0 Latvia 0 Lithuania 0 Singapore 0 Switzerland 0 Norway 0 As ever, technology continues to shift power in the global marketplace, leaving antitrust enforcers scrambling to catch up to companies that have mastered new technologies and, in doing so, have become dominant in their respective industries. Antitrust case law books are riddled with examples of such enforcement; think of the transatlantic investigations of Microsoft at the turn of the 20th century. At the moment, the countries at the top of this year’s dominance tables are building new case law. Russia is something of an exception here; because of the country’s antitrust law and the Federal Antimonopoly Service’s structure, a host of minor matters are considered dominance investigations. This bloats the agency’s statistics beyond the work it does on major cases, including its case against Google. Below Russia, the top of
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 9/15 our table is occupied by agencies on the cutting edge of single­firm conduct enforcement. The European Commission, Brazil, Korea, France and the US Federal Trade Commission all conduct extensive and sophisticated investigations of high­tech industries, including those in which data collection may allow companies to build and exploit power over rivals and consumers. The European Commission, which opened 35 new dominance probes in 2015 after opening another 40 the year before, brought headline­grabbing actions against Qualcomm and Google for their alleged anticompetitive conduct in the tech industry last year, while its inquiry into the digital single market continues. Korea has been conducting its own Qualcomm investigation, as well as examining Google’s use of its Android mobile operating system. And all of the top agencies, particularly the FTC, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office and France’s Competition Authority, have begun looking into “big data” as a possible competition concern. Becket McGrath, a partner at Cooley in London, says Germany has long been on the cutting edge of single­firm conduct enforcement, and the Federal Cartel Office continues to do innovative work today. In 2016, it opened an investigation of Facebook over the use of its enormous cache of user data, and, along with the French authority, started a market­wide examination of big data and competition. “Historically, they’ve always been more willing to intervene in unilateral conduct, and I think we are seeing that being consciously expanded into different areas,” McGrath says. Indeed, older, more established enforcers seem intent on bringing innovative dominance cases against major multinational companies, particularly in the tech sector, RCAA partner Marc Reysen says. But younger agencies often turn to dominance cases as a way to
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 10/15 establish their presence in an economy and score secure, and what the enforcer may see as easy, victories against powerful local companies. “This can really happen anywhere – where local competition authorities are coming under pressure to “do something” against large companies by the general populace,” Reysen says. “In this respect, any very successful company – whether it is soft drink manufacturer or operator of a chain of cinemas – may be a target of enforcement behaviour.” These kinds of cases may be deceptively easy to bring, Reysen says, but if the targeted company does in fact have a significant share of a supply market, they may be keen to settle their exposure quickly. They may not be headline­grabbingcases against major companies, but if a client is the target of such a probe, they’ll likely be just as unhappy, he says. Table 27: Total number of dominance investigations closed Authority No. of abuse investigations closed Russia 2,542 Brazil 73 DG Comp 52 Greece 47 India 44 Poland 29 Denmark 26 Chile 25 Germany 20 France 16 Finland 10 Canada 8 Korea 8 Sweden 7 Turkey 6 Australia 5
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 11/15 Colombia 5 Spain 5 Belgium 3 Italy 3 Mexico 3 Pakistan 3 Portugal 3 Singapore 3 Czech Republic 2 Romania 2 Switzerland 1.5 Ireland 1 Israel 1 Japan 1 Latvia 1 Lithuania 1 UK 1 Netherlands 0 New Zealand 0 Norway 0 US (FTC) 0 Table 28: Average duration of dominance investigations Authority Average duration of abuse investigation (months) Sweden 383 Portugal 57 Brazil 49 Romania 49 Belgium 38 DG Comp 31 Czech Republic 30 Switzerland 25 UK 25 Colombia 24 Latvia 24 Singapore 22 Spain 22
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 12/15 Spain 22 India 18 Finland 18 France 18 Israel 18 Canada 17 Italy 16 Lithuania 16 Korea 15 Mexico 15 Australia 12 Germany 12 Poland 11 Chile 10 Denmark 9 Turkey 8 Greece 4.5 Pakistan 4 Table 29: Longest­running dominance investigation Authority Longest running invesigation (months) Brazil 132 Poland 132 US (FTC) 114 Canada 102 DG Comp 97 France 96 Belgium 72 Greece 72 UK 66 Finland 60 Czech Republic 57 Chile 54 Portugal 50 Colombia 48 Ireland 48 Norway 48 Romania 40
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 13/15 Romania 40 Sweden 36 Switzerland 36 Denmark 31 Australia 27 Korea 27 Latvia 24 Mexico 23 Lithuania 22.5 Spain 22 Netherlands 19 Italy 17 Turkey 15 Israel 13 New Zealand 7 Pakistan 5 Table 30: Dominance investigations ended with commitments Authority No. of investigations closed w/ commitments Russia 1,913 Brazil 16 Poland 11 India 7 France 6 Chile 4 Australia 3 Italy 2 Singapore 2 Spain 2 US (FTC) 2 Canada 1 DG Comp 1 Finland 1 Greece 1 Latvia 1 Mexico 1 Romania 1 Sweden 1
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 14/15 Sweden 1 Table 31: Percentage of budget spent on advocacy Authority Per cent of budget dedicated to advocacy Singapore 36 Mexico 21 Finland 18 Israel 15 Switzerland 10 Denmark 10 Pakistan 10 New Zealand 8 Spain 5 Greece 5 Poland 5 Belgium 4 UK 3 Australia 2 Canada 2 US (FTC) 2 Korea 2 Turkey 2 Lithuania 2 Austria 1 Table 32: Number of appearances before lawmakers Authority Appearances before lawmakers France 23 Chile 20 Japan 17 Germany 15 DG Comp 12 Australia 11 Czech Republic 11 Russia 10 Italy 9
27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 ­ GCR ­ Global Competition Review http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysis­part­3 15/15 Copyright © 2016 Law Business Research Ltd. All rights reserved. | http://www.lbresearch.com 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK | Tel: +44 207 908 1188 / Fax: +44 207 229 6910 http://www.globcompetitionreview.com | editorial@globalcompetitionreview.com Italy 9 Lithuania 8 Finland 8 Poland 5 Brazil 5 Canada 5 Mexico 4 Portugal 4 US (FTC) 4 India 3 Netherlands 3 Pakistan 3 Austria 2 Spain 2 Colombia 1 Ireland 1 US (DOJ) 1

More Related Content

Анализ по количеству наложенных штрафов