Collective Dominance Through Tacit Coordination: The Case for Non-Coordination Between Article 82 and Merger Control “Collective Dominance” Concept

This article is part of a Chronicle. See more from this Chronicle

Sophia Stephanou, Oct 08, 2009

Intervention in oligopolistic markets or to be more precise oligopolistic markets in which firms appear to be coordinating their actions, is a multifaceted topic; aspects of which have sparked some of the most intense debates in competition policy. The oligopoly problem, as it is often termed, refers to firms acting in a parallel manner in the market in such a way that competition between these firms is dampened with the ultimate effect of the consumer being harmed. Oligopolies may be targeted by EC competition laws through the application of Article 81 (where behavior is explicitly coordinated), Article 82 (where behavior is explicitly or implicitly coordinated) or, prospectively, through the application of merger control rules to concentrations which are likely to enable or further facilitate coordination in a given market. The analytical issues surrounding competition law intervention in oligopolistic markets entail theoretical and practical difficulties; it is notable that the Commission’s new guidance on Article 82 has explicitly excluded collective dominance from the ambit of its application. This article will briefly outline the application of EC competition law to oligopolistic markets, with particular focus on tacit collusion between firms, the relationship between Article 82 and merger control in this respect, and the judicial pronouncement in Airtours of the conditions…

ACCESS TO THIS ARTICLE IS RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS

Please sign in or join us
to access premium content!