Convergence of competition policy, competition law and public interest in India

Judging a Book by Its Cover?: Analysing the Indian Approach to Defining Platform Markets

Unfair Trade Practices in India: A Comparative Analysis Between the Competition and Consumer Laws

This monograph is the definitive work on the application of antitrust and competition law in blockchain, decentralized finance, and virtual asset markets. It covers all aspects of antitrust and competition law, including market definition, market power, abuse of dominance and monopolization, and anticompetitive agreements and restraints of trade. Completely up to date with all recent literature and case law, this monograph is a key companion to academics, practitioners, competition authorities, and anyone with an interest in competition law and policy in the decentralized economy. Both EU competition law and US antitrust law are covered, and the legal analysis is complemented by extensive economics and computer science literature. Keeping in pace with recent industry developments, this monograph not only systematizes extant scholarship but also breaks new ground, introduces new concepts of the decentralized economy, and integrates them in the analytical framework of competition and antitrust law, making it readily usable by academics, practitioners, and regulators.

Independence in Competition Policy and Enforcement

Interface between Competition Law and Patents Law: A Pandora Box

Competition law provides the formation and protection of free competition. Modern market economy is the basis of the principle of free competition. Free competition provides an effective utilization of resources, price goes down, saving to reduce costs, find new technologies and their use in production. Desired markets, although a perfect competition market, because of market failures rather than the ideal situation monopolies, cartels can occur. At this stage, competition policies become important because they provide an efficient resource allocation, and constitutes an important element in raising the level of social welfare. Competition law is state intervention tool in order to establish and maintain free competition in the economy. Competition laws is seen as the constitution of the economy. In Russia, first competition authority was created in 1990 and the Law “On Competiton and Ristriction of Monopolistic Activity on Goods Markets” passed in 1991. After the OECD Peer Rewiew Report on Russia’s Competition Policy and Law, competition authority was abolished, new Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) established in 2004. Also new competition law passed in 2006. In Turkey, competition law passed in 1994, Turkish Competiton Authority was established in 1997. The aim of this study is to analyze competition law rules is implemented in Turkey and Russia. Also Examples of decisions issued by the Turkish competition authority and FAS Russia will be presented.

This chapter will review competition policy and law (CPL) in ASEAN and provide some lessons for improving legal technical assistance (LTA) on CPL to ASEAN and intensifying intra-ASEAN cooperation in competition law enforcement. In 2021 Cambodia finally enacted its competition law and all ASEAN Member States have established respective competition law regimes. While they share various common features in the texts of the laws, the degree of implementation varies. The independence of competition authorities is one of the underlying causes of this difference and the lack of enforcement resources and expertise is crucial, particularly for CLMV Countries. The chapter will propose Japan Fair Trade Commission to extend LTA based on its experiences of the Antimonopoly Act enforcement for 75 years. Intra-ASEAN cooperation on CPL could support the efforts by young competition authorities in CLMV Countries to implement respective competition laws and coordinate enforcement activities to address anticompetitive mergers and other practices with regional dimension. In this context, the chapter will also examine the future developments of ASEAN-wide CPL, comparing with EU competition law and its institution.

Competition Law for the Digital Era: A Complex Systems’ Perspective

The interrelation between competition law and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), emerges primarily in cases of combinations of entities under Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002. Such combinations begin with the resolution plans proposed by bidders to revive financially distressed companies. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves only those combinations that do not create any appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) in the market, except where approval is granted under the ‘failing firm defence’ or through the green channel mechanism. This applies to transactions that are not expected to alter the existing market structures. However, the legislative framework places ceilings on the CCI’s oversight of combinations under Section 5, and the applicability of this section does not extend to the bidding processes conducted under the IBC. This creates a regulatory gap, wherein anticompetitive practices such as violations of Section 3 (anti-competitive agreements) and Section 4 (abuse of dominant position) of the Competition Act rooted within predatory resolution plans remain unregulated. Currently, neither the Competition Commission of India nor the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) assesses resolution plans for such violations of competition law. Therefore, this paper seeks to examine what constitutes a predatory resolution plan and proposes regulatory interventions to ensure fair competition during the bidding process. It suggests the inclusion of explicit provisions defining predatory resolution plans and examines whether fair value can serve as a benchmark cost for assessing such plans. The paper also recommends involving either the CCI or the NCLT in overseeing the bidding process to safeguard competitive fairness in the rescue of financially distressed companies. This research adopts a doctrinal methodology, drawing upon statutory provisions, case laws, regulatory reports, and scholarly contributions from eminent authors in the fields of competition law and insolvency law in India.

There have long been concerns and speculation that China’s competition authorities are using the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) to pursue public interest objectives and prioritizing them over competition. This article explores whether and how public interest factors are relevant to the administrative enforcement of the AML. It shows that, rather than public interest, it is “state interest” and China’s state-centered approach to competition law that more aptly explains the AML and its administrative enforcement.

The interplay between intellectual property rights and competition law is crucial for fostering a competitive and dynamic economic market. This paper aims to explore the connection between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Laws through an analysis of the Delhi High Court's decision in the recent case of Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson v Competition Commission of India (CCI) in July 2023. It highlights the challenges faced by the Competition Commission of India in asserting its authority over patent-related matters. The authors have thoroughly examined the concepts of Standard Essential Patents (SEP), Standard Setting Organizations (SSO), and other important aspects of Competition law to highlight the intricacies involved in the ever-evolving relationship between Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Competition Policies. The paper aims to find a balance and proposes that these provisions should be applied in a comprehensive and cohesive manner to ensure that the objectives of IPR law and competition law are properly aligned within the framework of Indian law.

Part One Introduction 1 Introduction and Framework for Analysis I. Introduction II. General Approach to the Interrelationship between Competition and Public Procurement Law III. Aim of the Study IV. Structure of the Study and General Overview V. Methodology: An Eclectic and Heuristic Multi-Disciplinary and Functional Approach to EU Law VI. Normative Assumptions VII. Delimitation of the Study: Exclusions and Limitations Part Two Foundations and Principles: The Economic and Legal Basics of Public Procurement and Competition Law 2 An Economic Approach to Public Procurement and Competition I. Introduction II. Types of 'Public Procurement Markets' III. Economic Dimensions of Public Procurement IV. The Role of Public Authorities as Purchasing and Contracting Authorities V. Public Procurement as a Market Failure: Difficulties in Recreating a Competitive Scenario and Competition- Restricting Effects 60 VI. Conclusions to this Chapter 3 Basics of Competition and Public Procurement Regulation I. Introduction II. Principles Common to Competition and Public Procurement Law as Two Sets of Economic Regulation III. The Goal(s) of Competition Law IV. Goals of Public Procurement V. Conclusions to this Chapter: Common Goals of Competition Law and Public Procurement Conclusions to Part Two: Legal and Economic Normative Foundations of a More Competition-Oriented Public Procurement System Part Three General Part: The Building Blocks of a Framework for the Competition Analysis of Public Procurement 4 EU Competition Law and Public Procurement: The Inability of EU Competition Rules to Rein in Anti-Competitive Public Procurement I. Introduction II. The Inability of Rules on the Grant of State Aid and Special or Exclusive Rights to Tackle Anti-Competitive Public Procurement III. The Inapplicability of 'Core' EU Antitrust Rules to Public Procurement: A Jurisprudentially Created Gap in EU Competition Law IV. The Insufficiency of State Action Doctrine to Capture Most of the Anti-Competitive Public Procurement Regulations and Practices V. Preliminary Conclusions: The Insufficiency of Current Competition Institutions and Potential Improvements to Achieve Better Results VI. A Revision of Current Doctrine to Achieve Better Results (1): A More Economic Approach to the Concept of 'Economic Activity' in the Public Procurement Field VII. A Revision of Current Doctrine to Achieve Better Results (2): Setting the Proper Bounds to the State Action Doctrine VIII. Conclusions to this Chapter 5 The Principle of Competition Embedded in the EU Public Procurement Directives I. Introduction II. The Competition Principle Embedded in the pre-2014 EU Public Procurement Directives III. The Principle of Competition Consolidated in Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24: A Critical Assessment of the Interpretative Difficulties it Creates IV. Implications of the Competition Principle for the Shaping of Public Procurement Rules by Member States: The General Obligation to Develop a Pro-Competitive Public Procurement Framework V. The Principle of Equal Treatment and the Principle of Competition Distinguished VI. Conclusions to this Chapter Part Four Analysis of Competition Distortions Caused by Public Procurement 6 A Critical Assessment of the 2014 EU Public Procurement Directives and the Existing Case Law from a Competition Perspective: Preventing Competitive Distortions by the Public Buyer I. Introduction II. A Competition Appraisal of Potential Distortions Derived from Public Procurement Processes III. Two Examples of Potential Distortions Derived from the Exercise of Public Entities' Market Power IV. Conclusions to this Chapter 7 Complementary Proposals for the Development of a More Competition-Oriented Public Procurement Framework I. Introduction II. Complementary Proposals Aimed at Limiting Publicly Created Restraints of Competition III. Complementary Proposals Aimed at Limiting Privately Created Restraints of Competition IV. Complementary Measures Aimed, in General, at Strengthening the Relationships between Competition and Procurement Authorities V. Conclusions to this Chapter Part V General Conclusions 8 Conclusions: Towards a More Competition-Oriented Procurement System References

The present study aims to make comparative analysis of competition law in Pakistan and China by analyzing the leniency programs that whether or not they are in accordance with market structure or not, and investigating the mechanism to evidences while applying leniency policies and its value in competition law. The study adopts qualitative data analysis in order to analyze the respective aims and objective. It is found out by this research that progressive and unconventional are very important to be taken by both countries in order to ingeniously enforce competition law. Although competition law is supposed to prevent anti competition rituals and practices by nurturing free and fair competition in the market. It promotes a greater competition in the market by safeguarding customers against inaccurate means, which are adopted by firms. Therefore, competition law can be regarded as highly essential for regulating businesses by ensuring producer and consumer welfare. It ultimately promotes healthy growth of the economy and social justice. While on the other hand, a huge budget is entailed by investigation procedures which have been regarded as a huge financial resources’ loss by experts. In addition to this, there is also a greater risk of surcharges of violation, punishment and legal costs, which sometimes lead to harm corporate image. Moreover, the leniency programs in both Pakistan and China cover administrative liability only. Therefore, it is important to voluntarily comply with competition rules, regulations and laws, which would play an immensely significant role in minimizing the social costs which occur due to this law enforcement. Qualitative research methodology has been applied to the following article.

Policy Report: Priority Setting in EU and National Competition Law Enforcement

'A Barking Dog that Never Bites - Not Really!' - Competition Commission of India and Its Recent Orders