Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article proposes two broad ways to conceptualise EU competition law. EU competition law could be viewed as 'autonomous law' ('AL'), namely as a closed normative system a technocratic tool consisting in a set of rules that prohibit undue restraints of trade. Or, EU competition law could be viewed as 'responsive law' ('RL'), namely as a relatively open normative system and an interpretive practice that oscillates between openness and integrity. The responsiveness approach offers a compelling conceptualisation as it explains certain endogenous features of EU competition law: its fuzzy mandate, conceptually elastic vocabulary, and use of rules and standards. In addition, the responsiveness approach can clarify the role economics plays in EU competition law. It views economics as an 'ideological science', which, even though it cannot insulate this legal field from value disagreements and make it 'autonomous', it can provide a source for positive and normative interpretive statements. On this basis the responsiveness approach maintains that EU competition law is by design open—ie conceptually elastic and factually sensitive—and that its openness can enhance, but also undermine its integrity—ie its capacity to realise its objective in a rule of law compatible manner. These conflicts between openness and integrity are the cause of EU competition law's relative indeterminacy. To deal with the problem of indeterminacy, the RL approach proposes a tripartite legal-institutional modus operandi consisting in constructive interpretation, responsive enforcement, and catalytic adjudication. Hence, considering EU competition law as a form of responsive law has three major implications: first, it offers a new way for understanding how this legal field works and changes; second, it suggests a strategy for dealing with EU competition law's indeterminacy, and third it proposes a new framing for the discursive practices of EU competition law's epistemic community.

The present article purports to shed a new light on ordoliberalism and to explore its role in EU Competition Law. For this purpose, the article analyses the ordoliberal school of thought in its historical context and re-conceptualizes its understanding of competition law that has been subjected to numerous misrepresentations in the existing literature. The main argument presented here is that the ordoliberals perceived a direct link between competition and democracy as the normative underpinning of competition law. This competition-democracy nexus rests upon the assumption of interdependence between the economic, social and political order and argues that both consequentialist and deontological values legitimize competition law and should guide its interpretation. Thus, competition should be protected as such, since it sets the boundaries of economic power and creates the preconditions for economic freedom and equality of opportunity. In this sense, competition law seeks to ensure that the functioning of the market does not undermine and is conducive to a democratic society. Further, we claim that the nexus idea could provide us with a better understanding of EU Competition Law than a fully-fledged welfarist approach. In particular, the nexus idea could be traced in the field of Art. 101 and Art. 102 TFEU in the CJEU's deontological understanding of competition (i); the Court's balancing between procedural and consequentialist goals (ii), and in the Court's form-based approach (iii) that is responsive to input from economics (iv).

The present article purports to shed a new light on ordoliberalism and to explore its role in EU competition law. For this purpose, the article analyses the ordoliberal school of thought in its historical context and re-conceptualizes its understanding of competition law that has been subjected to numerous misrepresentations in the existing literature. The main argument presented here is that the ordoliberals perceived a direct link between competition and democracy as the normative underpinning of competition law. This competition-democracy nexus rests upon the assumption of interdependence between the economic, social and political order and indicates that both consequentialist and deontological values legitimize competition law and should guide its interpretation. In other words, competition law relies on both input- and output-oriented legitimacy. For this reason, ordoliberals praised competition not only for its welfare-maximizing qualities but also for its deontological dimension. Thus, competition should be protected as such, since it sets the boundaries of economic power and creates the preconditions for economic freedom and equality of opportunity. In this sense, competition law seeks to ensure that the functioning of the market does not undermine and is conducive to a democratic society. For this purpose, though, the pursuit of consequentialist goals must be constrained by the protection of the procedural elements of competition. Further, we claim that the nexus idea could provide us with a better understanding of EU competition law than a fully-fledged welfarist approach. Even though, the nexus idea could be traced in the field of Art. 101 and Art. 102 TFEU in the CJEU's deontological understanding of competition (i); the Court's balancing between procedural and consequentialist goals (ii), and in the Court's form-based approach (iii) that is responsive to input from economics (iv).