Анализ по количеству наложенных штрафов

27.07.2016 Analysis: Part 3 GCR Global Competition Review

http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/41418/analysispart3 1/15

RATING ENFORCEMENT 2016

ANALYSIS: PART 3Thursday, 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 leniencyapplications

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

http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/1419/rating-enforcement-2016

http://globalcompetitionreview.com/shop/article/41418/analysis-part-3

mailto:?subject=A%20GCR%20reader%20thought%20this%20article%20might%20interest%20you&body=Depending%20on%20your%20e-mail%20client,%20you%20may%20be%20able%20to%20follow%20the%20link%20in%20the%20email.%20If%20not,%20please%20open%20a%20web%20browser%20and%20open%20this%20link:%20%0A%0Ahttp://globalcompetitionreview.com/news/article/41418/analysis-part-3%0A%0AFor%20more%20please%20visit%20http://globalcompetitionreview.com/



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)

http://www.globalcompetitionreview.com/cdn/images/gcr/surveys/re_extras/analsyis-graph3-2016.jpg



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



With the conclusion of the mammoth Forex investigation, it has beenclear for some time that the DoJ would be the top authority for cartelfines in 2015. Of the total €2.9 billion fines ordered by the antitrustdivision, €2.3 billion came from the forex case alone, as the agencywound up its international investigation of foreign exchange ratecollusion between the world’s biggest banks. It’s worth pointing outthat 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 muchslower year, especially compared to its usual high fines. While its€365 million total is nothing to be sniffed at, and slots the agency inat number five, it is peanuts compared to the amounts it has beenable to extract over the last decade; indeed, it is the the lowest cartelfine total since the regulation that established the current Europeanenforcement regime came into force. Given that the average totalfines per year for 2010 to 2014 inclusive come to around €1.8 billion,it marks an extremely quiet year. Observers say that this may bedown to the commission’s top brass being kept busy by the hugetransfer pricing state aid investigations and the ambitious ecommerce inquiry, but whatever the explanation may be, 2015 standsas 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 millionin total fines. Portugal is perhaps the most disappointing of that list:despite the agency publicly stating it plans to reinvigorate its cartelenforcement, which traditionally lagged behind its track record inmergers, the effect of that stance was nowhere to be seen in terms of



closed cartel investigations.

The number of dawn raids (see table 24) conducted by enforcementagencies changed considerably in 2015. Turkey’s CompetitionAuthority remains the world leader, with 96 dawn raids conducted –that’s 20 more than in 2014. Given that GCR asks agencies not to referto the number of searched premises, but to the number of cases inwhich dawn raids were conducted, it is an impressively high number.Korea’s Fair Trade Commission and Germany’s Federal Cartel Officeremain reliably busy; they respectively conducted 49 and 14 raidslast year, taking the fourth and fifth places in the table. Colombia, anew entrant to Rating Enforcement this year, conducted 57 raids, placing it insecond 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



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 cartelinvestigation (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



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 abuseinvestigations 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



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 globalmarketplace, leaving antitrust enforcers scrambling to catch up tocompanies that have mastered new technologies and, in doing so,have become dominant in their respective industries. Antitrust caselaw books are riddled with examples of such enforcement; think ofthe transatlantic investigations of Microsoft at the turn of the 20thcentury. At the moment, the countries at the top of this year’sdominance tables are building new case law.

Russia is something of an exception here; because of the country’santitrust law and the Federal Antimonopoly Service’s structure, a hostof minor matters are considered dominance investigations. Thisbloats the agency’s statistics beyond the work it does on majorcases, including its case against Google. Below Russia, the top of



our table is occupied by agencies on the cutting edge of singlefirmconduct enforcement. The European Commission, Brazil, Korea,France and the US Federal Trade Commission all conduct extensiveand sophisticated investigations of hightech industries, includingthose in which data collection may allow companies to build andexploit power over rivals and consumers.

The European Commission, which opened 35 new dominanceprobes in 2015 after opening another 40 the year before, broughtheadlinegrabbing actions against Qualcomm and Google for theiralleged anticompetitive conduct in the tech industry last year, while itsinquiry into the digital single market continues. Korea has beenconducting its own Qualcomm investigation, as well as examiningGoogle’s use of its Android mobile operating system. And all of thetop agencies, particularly the FTC, Germany’s Federal Cartel Officeand France’s Competition Authority, have begun looking into “bigdata” as a possible competition concern.

Becket McGrath, a partner at Cooley in London, says Germany haslong 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 itsenormous 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 inunilateral conduct, and I think we are seeing that being consciouslyexpanded into different areas,” McGrath says.

Indeed, older, more established enforcers seem intent on bringinginnovative dominance cases against major multinational companies,particularly in the tech sector, RCAA partner Marc Reysen says. Butyounger agencies often turn to dominance cases as a way to



establish their presence in an economy and score secure, and whatthe enforcer may see as easy, victories against powerful localcompanies. “This can really happen anywhere – where localcompetition authorities are coming under pressure to “do something”against large companies by the general populace,” Reysen says. “Inthis respect, any very successful company – whether it is soft drinkmanufacturer or operator of a chain of cinemas – may be a target ofenforcement behaviour.”

These kinds of cases may be deceptively easy to bring, Reysensays, but if the targeted company does in fact have a significantshare of a supply market, they may be keen to settle their exposurequickly. They may not be headlinegrabbingcases against majorcompanies, but if a client is the target of such a probe, they’ll likely bejust as unhappy, he says.

Table 27: Total number of dominance investigations closed

Authority No. of abuseinvestigations 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



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

AuthorityAverage duration ofabuse 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



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 runninginvesigation (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



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 investigationsclosed 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



Sweden 1

Table 31: Percentage of budget spent on advocacy

Authority Per cent of budgetdedicated 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 beforelawmakers

France 23

Chile 20

Japan 17

Germany 15

DG Comp 12

Australia 11

Czech Republic 11

Russia 10

Italy 9



Copyright © 2016 Law Business Research Ltd. All rights reserved. | http://www.lbresearch.com87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK | Tel: +44 207 908 1188 / Fax: +44 207 229 6910http://www.globcompetitionreview.com | [email protected]

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

Анализ по количеству наложенных штрафов

Business

Transcript of Анализ по количеству наложенных штрафов