The EC commission’s modernization of competition policy: A challenge to the community’s constitutional order

European Business Organization Law Review

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 401-444

  Mestmäcker, Ernst Joachim ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LAW   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881823730     PISSN: 15667529     EISSN: 17416205     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s1566752900000215     Document Type: Article

References (177)

1. White Paper on Modernization of the Rules Implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, Commission Programme No. 99/027, Brussels 28.4.1999, OJ [1999] C 132 (12.5.1999). Papers and proceedings of the EU Competition Workshop 2000 held in Florence on June 2 and 3, 2000 are in the process of being published. They deal with the White Paper only. It is unfortunate that this international forum had no opportunity to discuss the full Commission proposals and their implications for competition policy. Parts 2 and 3 of this article are amended versions of the author's contribution to the Florence Conference.
2. Communication pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2821/71 of 20 December 1971 on the Application of Article 81 (3) of the Treaty to categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices modified by Regulation (EEC) 2743/72, OJ [2000] C 118/3 (27.4.2000).
3. Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Implementation of the Rules of Competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty and amending Regulations (EEC) 1017/68, (EEC) 2988/74, (EEC) 4056/86 and (EEC) 3975/87 ("Regulation Implementing Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty"). Article 1 reads: "Agreements, decisions and concerted practices caught by Article 81 (1) of the Treaty which do not satisfy the conditions of Article 81 (3), and the abuse of a dominant position referred to in Article 82, shall be prohibited, no prior decision to that effect being required."
4. Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR1-6079, at p. 1-6102, nos. 16 and 21.
5. Case 26/62, [1963] ECR 5,25.
6. Case 127/73 BRT v. SABAM, [1974] ECR 51. European Commission, White Paper on Modernization of the Rules Implementing Arts. 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, Commission Programme No. 99/027, Brussels 28.4.1999.
7. White Paper no. 82
8. Draft Regulation Article 6.
9. Marenco, "Does a Legal Exemption System Require an Amendment of the Treaty?" Manuscript EU Competition Workshop (Florence 2000)
10. Schaub, "Modernisation of EC Competition Law: Reform of Regulation No. 17," in: 7999 Fordham Corp. L.Inst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 143, at p. 155.
11. Wils, "Notification, Clearance and Exemption in EC Competition Law: An Economic Analysis," 24 ELRev. (1999) 139, 156.
12. Schaub, "Modernization of EC Competition Law: Reform of Regulation No. 17," 23 Fordham Int'l. LJ (2000) 752, 764.
13. White Paper no. 90.
14. For an excellent analysis of the early development
15. Handler, A study of the Construction and Enforcement of the Federal Antitrust Laws, Temporary National Economic Committee, Monograph no. 38 (Washington D.C.: US GPO 1941) pp. 9-29.
16. Cartel Control. A Record of Failure, (1946) in: Kronstein, Ausgewahlte Schriften (Selected Essays) (Karlsruhe: Müller 1962) p. 125.
17. For a detailed account see: Mestmacker, "Offene Markte im System unverfalschten Wettbewerbs in der EWG," in: Coing/ Kronstein/ Mestmacker (eds.), Wirtschaftsordnung und Rechtsordnung. Festschrift für Franz Bohm zum 70. Geburtstag am 16. Februar (Karlsruhe: Müller 1965) pp. 345-391, at pp. 349-352.
18. League of Nations, Commission of Enquiry for European Union, Minutes of the 3rd Session the Commission, held in Geneva from May 15 to 21,1931, Doc. no. C 395.M. 158.1931. VII p. 20: Proposals for Remedying the Present European Crisis, Memorandum from the French Government, Annex pp. 79-88.
19. Report of Governments' Committee, established following the Conference of Messina (May 1955), presented to the Foreign Ministers of the Six in Brussels on 21 April 1956, at pp. 57- 61.
20. German Parliament (Bundestag), Stenographic Reports, Plenary Protocol 2nd Election Period, 76th Session.
21. Bork, Robert H., The Antitrust Paradox. A Policy at War with Itself, 2nd ed. (New York: Free Press 1993) p. 54
22. National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 US 679, 690 (1978).
23. National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regions of the University of Oklahoma, 104 S. Ct. 2948, 2962 (1984). For a comprehensive analysis
24. Areeda, Antitrust Law. An analysis of antitrust principles and their application, Vol. VII (Boston: Little, Brown 1986) para. 1502.
25. S. Ct. 1604,1617 (1999)
26. for a comprehensive analysis
27. Areeda/ Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law 2000 Supplement, para. 1511.1.
28. White Paper no. 48. For a critical review of the assumptions on which the proposed switch to a system of ex post control is based, namely the assumption that sufficient legal certainty has been gained
29. Forrester, "Modernization of EC Competition Law," 23 Fordham Int'l L.J. (2000) 1028, at pp. 1040-1041.
30. White Paper no. 78.
31. Cases 43/82 and 63/82 VBVB and VBBB, [1984] ECR 19, no. 52.
32. Case T-17/93 Martha Hachette, [1994] ECR 11-595, at p. 11-625, no. 85.
33. Academic Advisory Council of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, Reform of European Antitrust Policy, Document no. 480 (August 2000) p. 3.
34. For different evaluations of such "self-governance"
35. Mersing, "The Modernization of EC Competition Law - The Need For a Common Competition Culture," in: 1999 Fordham Corp.Linst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 259, at p. 262
36. Schaub, "EC Competition System - Proposals for Reform," 22 Fordham Int'l L.J. (1999) 853, 874, on the one hand
37. Möschel, "Systemwechsel im Europaischen Wettbewerbsrecht," JZ (2000) 61, 63, on the other hand.
38. Cases 56 and 58/64 Grundig/Consten [1966] ECR 322, at pp. 396-397.
39. An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (General Editors: A.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner) (Oxford: OUP 1976) p. 456.
40. Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos, [1963] ECR 5, 26.
41. Wolf, "Comment on the White Paper on the Reform of EC Competition Law," in: 1999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 307, at p. 311
42. Todino, "Modernisation from the Perspective of National Competition Authorities: Impact of the Reform on Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law," ECLR (2000) 348,350-351
43. Kon, "The Commission's White Paper on Modernisation: The Need for Procedural Harmonisation," in: 7999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 233, at pp. 236-252.
44. Rittner, "Zurück zum Missbrauchsprinzip im EG-Kartellrecht?," Der Betrieb (1999) 1485
45. Mestmäcker, "Versuch einer kartellpolitischen Wende in der EU," EuZW (1999) 523-529
46. Deringer, "Stellungnahme zum Weissbuch der Europäischen Kommission liber die Modemisierung der Vorschriften zur Anwendung der Artt. 85 und 86 EG- Vertrag [Artt. 81, 82 EG]," EuZW (2000) 5-11
47. Paulweber/ Kögel, "Das europäische Wett- bewerbsrecht am Scheideweg. Die Reformvorhaben der Kommission zur Modemisierung des europäischen Kartellverfahrens in der Kritik"‚AG (1999) 500-515.
48. Kartellpolitische Wende in der EU? Zum Weissbuch der Kommission v. 28. April 1999: Sondergutachten 28 (Baden-Baden, Nomos 1999).
49. Wolf, "Comment on the White Paper on the Reform of EC Competition Law," in: 1999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 307, at p. 311
50. Boge, Das deutsche Kartellrecht in der europaischen Wettbewerbsordnung, FlW-Symposion "Zukunft der Wettbewerbsordnung und des Kartellrechts" 9.-11. March 2000, Innsbruck (not yet published, available on the website of the Bundeskartellamt last updated on Nov. 24,2000).
51. Reform of European Antitrust Policy, Document no. 480 (August 2000).
52. Monti, "A European Competition Policy for today and tomorrow," 23(2) Journal of World Competition (2000) 1.
53. Case 48/72 Brasserie de Haecht/Wilkin, [1973] ECR 77, at pp. 86-87, no. 6.
54. In addition to the authors referred to above, see Wesseling, "The Commission White Paper on Modernization of EC Antitrust Law: Unspoken Consequences and Incomplete Treatment of Alternative Options," ECLR (1999) 420-433
55. Approving the Commission's proposals without going into the details of Treaty compatibility are Geiger, "Das Weissbuch der EG-Kommission zu Article 81, 82 EG - eine Reform, besser als ihr Ruf\ EuZW (2000) 165
56. Deselaers/ Obst, "Weissbuch zum Europäischen Kartcllrecht — Rechtssicherheit adé"? Europäisches Wirtschafìs- und Steuerrecht (EWS) (2000) 41-46
57. Bartosch, "Von der Freistellung zur Legalausnahme — was geschieht mit der Rechtssicherheit?," WuW (2000) 462-473
58. Schaub/ Dohms, "Das Weissbuch der Europäischen Kommission über die Modemisierung der Vorschriften zur Anwendung der Artt 81 und 82 EG-Vertrag. Die Reform der Verordnung Nr. 17," WmW (1999) 1055-1070.
59. Deringer, "Stellungnahme zum Weissbuch der Europäischen Kommission liber die Modemisierung der Vorschriften zur Anwendung der Artt. 85 und 86 EG- Vertrag [Artt. 81, 82 EG]," EuZW (2000) 5-11
60. For the consequences to be drawn from this finding
61. Schulze, Reiner/ Hoeren, Thomas (eds.), Dokumente zum europäischen Rechî Bd. III: Kartellrecht (bis 1957) (Berlin: Springer 2000).
62. To this effect, however: Schaub, Alexander, Die Zukunft des europäischen Kartellrechts (Zentrum für europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht Nr. 112) (Bonn : Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms- Univ., 2000) p. 28.
63. Document no. 70
64. Document no. 75, Article 43.
65. For a detailed summary of die negotiations
66. Schulze, Reiner/ Hoeren, Thomas (eds.), Dokumente zum europäischen Rechî Bd. III: Kartellrecht (bis 1957) (Berlin: Springer 2000).
67. Schaub, "EC Competition System - Proposals for Reform," 22 Fordham Int'l L.J. (1999) 853, 874, on the one hand
68. White Paper no. 89.
69. Case 48/72, [1973] ECR 77, at pp. 86-87, no. 6.
70. Case 127/73 BRT/SABAM, [1974] ECR 51, 62, nos. 15-17.
71. Case 37/79 Marty/Lauder, [1980] ECR 2481, 2500, no. 13.
72. Schaub, "EC Competition System - Proposals for Reform," 22 Fordham Int'l L.J. (1999) 853, 874, on the one hand
73. Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos, [1963] ECR 5, 25.
74. Case 106/77 Simmenthal, [1978] ECR 629,643-644, nos. 14-16.
75. Cases 43 and 46/82 VBVB and VBBB, [1984] ECR 19, 68, no. 52
76. Case T-17/93 Martha Hachette, [1994] ECR 11-595, H-631, no. 104.
77. Cases 56 and 58/64 Grundig/Consten, [1966] ECR, 322, 396.
78. Schaub, "EC Competition System - Proposals for Reform," 22 Fordham Int'l L.J. (1999) 853, 874, on the one hand
79. Case C-234/89 Delimitis, [1991] ECR 1-935,1-991, no. 44.
80. Case T-9/93 Schoeller [1995] ECR 11-1611,11-1662-1663 nos. 139-40, quoted in support of this proposition, applies, however, both of these rules simultaneously, proving that they are not at variance and not mutually exclusive.
81. Ehlermann, "The Modernization of EC Antitrust Policy: A Legal and Cultural Revolution," 37 CMLRev (2000) 537, 559.
82. An example is Section 71, para. 5 clause 2 of the German Act against Restraints of Competition of 26 August, 1998, BGBl. I, p. 2546. Judicial review of cartel authority decisions: "The appraisal by the cartel authority of general economic situations and trends shall not be subject to review by the Court."
83. Wolf, "Comment on the White Paper on the Reform of EC Competition Law," in: 1999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 307, at p. 311
84. Möschel, "Systemwechsel im Europaischen Wettbewerbsrecht," JZ (2000) 61, 63, on the other hand.
85. Wissmann, "Decentralised Enforcement of EC Competition Law and the New Policy on Cartels," 23(2) Journal of World Competition (2000) 123, 138-141.
86. In addition to the authors referred to above, see Wesseling, "The Commission White Paper on Modernization of EC Antitrust Law: Unspoken Consequences and Incomplete Treatment of Alternative Options," ECLR (1999) 420-433
87. White Paper no. 100.
88. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, in: J.H. Burns and H.LA. Hart (Eds.) (Oxford: Clarendon 1970) pp. 165-170. " White Paper no. 78.
89. Kon, "The Commission's White Paper on Modernisation: The Need for Procedural Harmonisation," in: 7999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 233, at pp. 236-252.
90. BGHZ 53, 304 308
91. Kon, "The Commission's White Paper on Modernisation: The Need for Procedural Harmonisation," in: 7999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 233, at pp. 236-252.
92. Todino, "Modernisation from the Perspective of National Competition Authorities: Impact of the Reform on Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law," ECLR (2000) 348,350-351
93. White Paper no. 91.
94. In a case where a cartel was successful in driving an outsider from the market, the German Reichsgericht, in 1931, found a breach of unfair competition law and awarded damages - Reichsgericht, December 19, 1931, RGZ 134, 342
95. Mestmacker, Der verwaltete Wettbewerb (Tubingen: Mohr 1984) 162.
96. This landmark case gave rise to a revision of the traditionally privileged status of cartels under German law.
97. For an overview of the different rules that govern these aspects in different Member States
98. Kon, "The Commission's White Paper on Modernisation: The Need for Procedural Harmonisation," in: 7999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 233, at pp. 236-252.
99. Braakman, "The Application of the Modernized Rules Implementing Articles 81 and 82 EC Treaty in Injunction Proceedings: Problems and Possible Solutions," in: 1999 Fordham Corp.Llnst. 161,169-170 (Rules on Evidence) and 170-172 (Rules on Damages).
100. Wolf, "Comment on the White Paper on the Reform of EC Competition Law," in: 1999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 307, at p. 311
101. Todino, "Modernisation from the Perspective of National Competition Authorities: Impact of the Reform on Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law," ECLR (2000) 348,350-351
102. Jones, Clifford A., Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the EU, UK and USA (Oxford: OUP 1999) pp. 79-88
103. The author, however, is more optimistic concerning a transfer of US experience to the Community.
104. Kon, "The Commission's White Paper on Modernisation: The Need for Procedural Harmonisation," in: 7999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 233, at pp. 236-252.
105. Loeb v. Eastman Kodak, 183 F 704 (3d. Cir. 1910)
106. Jones, Clifford A., Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the EU, UK and USA (Oxford: OUP 1999) pp. 79-88
107. BGH, May 12, 1998 Depotkosmetik, WuW DE-R 206, 207.
108. Whish, "The Enforcement of EC Competition Law in the Domestic Courts of Member States," 15 ECLR (1994) 60, 63.
109. Ehlermann, "The Modernization of EC Antitrust Policy: A Legal and Cultural Revolution," 37 CMLRev (2000) 537, 559.
110. Mersing, "The Modernization of EC Competition Law - The Need For a Common Competition Culture," in: 1999 Fordham Corp.Linst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 259, at p. 262
111. For a critical evaluation
112. OJ [2000] C 118/3 (27.4.2000).
113. It should not be necessary to mention that this conclusion is based upon the nature of the problems to be solved and the structure of the judicial process without any reflection on the individual ability of judges. This position, however, is implied in the Commission's proposal to educate judges in the interpretation of Community competition rules.
114. Jones, Clifford A., Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the EU, UK and USA (Oxford: OUP 1999) pp. 79-88
115. Case 158/80 REWE/Hauptzollamt Kiel, [1981] ECR 1805,1838, no. 44.
116. Joint Cases C-6/90 C-9/90 Francovich, [1991] ECR 1-5357,1-5414, no. 35.
117. Kon, "The Commission's White Paper on Modernisation: The Need for Procedural Harmonisation," in: 7999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 233, at pp. 236-252.
118. Commission comment on Draft Regulation Article 3
119. Monti, "A European Competition Policy for today and tomorrow," 23(2) Journal of World Competition (2000) 1.
120. Schaub, "Modernisation of EC Competition Law: Reform of Regulation No. 17," in: 7999 Fordham Corp. L.Inst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 143, at p. 155.
121. Salord, "Concurrent Application, the April 1999 White Paper and the Future of National Laws," ECLR (2000) 128,131-137.
122. Case 14/68 Walt Wilhelm, [1969] ECR 1, 13-15, nos. 4-9.
123. Cases 253/78 and 1-3/79 Giry and Guerlain, [1980] ECR 2321, 2375, no. 18.
124. Bellamy/ Child, Common Market Law of Competition, 4th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell 1993) Article 81, 2-129.
125. Case 8/72 Cementhandelaren v. Commission, [1972] ECR 977, 991, no. 28/30
126. Case 161/84 Pronuptia de Paris, [1986] ECR 353, no. 26
127. Case 42/34 Remia v. Commission, [1985] ECR 2545,2572, no. 22. In Cases C 215/96 and C 216/96 Bagnasco et al, [1999] ECR 1-35,1-79-
128. The Court found that the uniform banking conditions of the Italian Banking Association in relation to the opening of current account credit facilities were not liable to affect trade between Member States. The special facts of the case do not permit the conclusion that the Court reversed its position on the Trade Clause in general. And the case was not decided by the full Court. Some commentators assume nevertheless that the "interstate trade test" is undergoing a major change.
129. Wissmann, "Decentralised Enforcement of EC Competition Law and the New Policy on Cartels," 23(2) Journal of World Competition (2000) 123, 138-141.
130. Todino, "Modernisation from the Perspective of National Competition Authorities: Impact of the Reform on Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law," ECLR (2000) 348,350-351
131. Case 322/81 Michelin v. Commission, [1983] ECR 3461, 3522, no. 103.
132. Cases 6 and 7/73 Commercial Solvents Corporation v. Commission, [1974] ECR 223,254, no. 33
133. Case 27/76 United Brands v. Commission, [1978] ECR 207,299, no. 202.
134. Todino, "Modernisation from the Perspective of National Competition Authorities: Impact of the Reform on Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law," ECLR (2000) 348,350-351
135. Kon, "The Commission's White Paper on Modernisation: The Need for Procedural Harmonisation," in: 7999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 233, at pp. 236-252.
136. Brown, "The Open Economy: Mr Justice Frankfurter and the Position of the Judiciary," 67. Yale Law Journal (1957) 219, 220.
137. For a comprehensive analysis
138. Gavil, "Reconstructing the Jurisdictional Foundation of Antitrust Federalism," 61 George Washington Law Rev. (1993) 657.
139. Hovenkamp, "State Antitrust in the Federal Scheme," 58 Indiana Law Journal (1983) 375, 379.
140. Thorelli, Hans-B., Federal Antitrust Policy. Origination of an American Tradition (Stockholm 1954) pp. 96-107.
141. US 504, 573 Licence Cases.
142. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Autk,416 US 573,579 (1986).
143. Exxon Corp. v. Gov. of Maryland, 437 US 117 (1978).
144. Hovenkamp, "State Antitrust in the Federal Scheme," 58 Indiana Law Journal (1983) 375, 379.
145. Parker v. Brown, 317 US 350 (1943).
146. California v. ARC America Corp., 450 US 93, 101 (1989)
147. Hovenkamp, "State Antitrust in the Federal Scheme," 58 Indiana Law Journal (1983) 375, 379.
148. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 435 [75720](1977). For a detailed analysis of the case law
149. Areeda/ Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law 2000 Supplement, para. 1511.1.
150. Gavil, "Reconstructing the Jurisdictional Foundation of Antitrust Federalism," 61 George Washington Law Rev. (1993) 657.
151. Rose, "State Antitrust Enforcement, Mergers, and Politics," 41 Wayne Law Review (1994) 71, 78-81.
152. Wegman Burns, "Embracing Both Faces of Antitrust Federalism: Parker and ARC America Corp.," 68 Antitrust Law Journal (2000) 29. The standing of states to bring cases against infringements of the federal antitrust laws must of course be distinguished from the enforcement of state antitrust laws dealt with ante 4.3.1.
153. California v. American Stores, 110 S.Ct. 275 (1990)
154. Hawai v. Standard Oil Co., 405 US 251 (1972).
155. Wegman Burns, "Embracing Both Faces of Antitrust Federalism: Parker and ARC America Corp.," 68 Antitrust Law Journal (2000) 29. The standing of states to bring cases against infringements of the federal antitrust laws must of course be distinguished from the enforcement of state antitrust laws dealt with ante 4.3.1.
156. Case C234/89 Delimitis, [1991] ECR1-935,1-992, no. 47.
157. Schaub, "EC Competition System - Proposals for Reform," 22 Fordham Int'l L.J. (1999) 853, 874, on the one hand
158. The critical commentary by Rittner, "Kartellpolitik und Gewaltenteilung in der EG," EuZW (2000) 129.
159. Commission Regulation (EC) 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ [1999] L 336/21 (29 December 1999).
160. Case C 234/89 Delimitis, [1991] ECR1-935,1-991, no. 44. also n. 62.
161. Case 161/84 Pronuptia, [1986] ECR 353,383-384, no. 24
162. Regulation 4087/88 for Certain Bilateral Service Franchise Agreements.
163. Siragusa, "A Critical Review of the White Paper on the Reform of the EC Competition Law Enforcement Rules," 23 Fordham Int'l L.J. (2000) 1089,1097-1099
164. Forrester, "Modernization of EC Competition Law," 23 Fordham Int'l L.J. (2000) 1028, 1044-1045.
165. Bartosch, "Von der Freistellung zur Legalausnahme — was geschieht mit der Rechtssicherheit?," WuW (2000) 462-473
166. Schaub, "EC Competition System - Proposals for Reform," 22 Fordham Int'l L.J. (1999) 853, 874, on the one hand
167. Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 of 21st December, 1989 on the Control of Concentrations between Undertakings, OJ [1989] L 395/1. Corrected version published in: OJ [1990] L 257/14. Amendments introduced by Council Regulation (EC) 1310/97 of 30 June 1997, OJ [1997] L 180/1.
168. Todino, "Modernisation from the Perspective of National Competition Authorities: Impact of the Reform on Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law," ECLR (2000) 348,350-351
169. Kon, "The Commission's White Paper on Modernisation: The Need for Procedural Harmonisation," in: 7999 Fordham Corp.LInst. (Barry Hawk ed. 2000) 233, at pp. 236-252.
170. Comment on Article 11 Draft Regulation.
171. Siragusa, "A Critical Review of the White Paper on the Reform of the EC Competition Law Enforcement Rules," 23 Fordham Int'l L.J. (2000) 1089,1097-1099
172. Forrester, "Modernization of EC Competition Law," 23 Fordham Int'l L.J. (2000) 1028, 1044-1045.
173. In this respect similarly: Schütz, "Zur Anderung des Kartellverfahrens gemass Artikel 81 EGV," WuW (2000) 686,693.
174. Proposed by the German Federal Government and the German Federal Cartel Authority in: Tdtigkeitsberichtdes Bundeskartellamts (1997/98) BT-Drs. 14/1139,25 June 1999, p. V and VII
175. for similar proposals
176. Möschel, "Systemwechsel im Europaischen Wettbewerbsrecht," JZ (2000) 61, 63, on the other hand.
177. Mestmacker, Der verwaltete Wettbewerb (Tubingen: Mohr 1984) 162.