HIDDEN EFFICIENCIES: THE RELEVANCE OF BUSINESS JUSTIFICATIONS IN ABUSE OF DOMINANCE CASES

Hans Friederiszick and Linda Gratz

Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2015, vol. 11, issue 3, 671-700

Abstract: This article assesses the relevance of efficiencies and other justifications in recent Article 102 TFEU cases. Based on a review of all EU decisions and openings between 2009 and mid-2013, we find that procompetitive justifications still play an unsatisfactory role in the EU Commission's evaluations, except in IT-related abuse cases. This stands in contrast to the policy goals expressed during the reform phase (from 2005 to 2009), the Guidance Paper, and the increasing relevance of efficiency considerations in merger proceedings. We argue that this development is due to a malfunctioning of the balancing test—that is, the weighting of pro- and anticompetitive effects, as pro- and anticompetitive effects are often non-separable and non-monotone in Article 102 TFEU cases. Policy options are discussed, and it is argued that a fully integrated analysis is the only policy option fully addressing the problem.

JEL-codes: K21 L21 L40 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhv021 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:11:y:2015:i:3:p:671-700.

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Competition Law and Economics is currently edited by Nicholas Economides, Amelia Fletcher, Michal Gal, Damien Geradin, Ioannis Lianos and Tommaso Valletti

More articles in Journal of Competition Law and Economics from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().