Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:05:03.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anti-Competitive Practices by Private Undertakings in Ancom and Mercosur: An Analysis from the Perspective of EC Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Gabriela Mancero-Bucheli
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 1990s have been characterised by the globalisation of markets and the internationalisation of trade. Countries seem to be more interested than ever in creating new trading blocs and strengthening existing ones. As perhaps the most developed integration group in the world, the European Union has been used by framers of many other integration processes as a model on which to design their own institutional and legal structures.

Type
Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 1998 , pp. 149 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Established through the Treaty of Rome, signed 25 Mar. 1957; hereafter EC Treaty.

2. Also referred to as Andean Pact, Andean Group, ANCOM and GRAN. Hereafter Ancom.

3. From its Spanish wording “Mercado Común del Sur”.

4. Single European Act (SEA), signed by the EC heads of government on 17 and 28 Feb 1986, on institutional reform and Treaty on European Union (TEU) signed in Maastricht on 7 Feb. 1992.

5. For a detailed history of Ancom see Morawetz, D., The Andean Croup: A Case Study in Economic Integration Among Developing Countries (1974).Google Scholar

6. Cartagena Agreement or Treaty of Andean Subregional Integration (hereafter Cartagena Agreement), originally signed on 28 May 1969 and codified by Decision 236 of the Cartagena Agreement Commission on 26 May 1979 in Bogotá (Colombia).

7. Chile was a member originally but withdrew in 1976.

8. See e.g. Zelada, C. A. (1993) 196:18 INT AL 56Google Scholar; Vacchino, J. M. (1992) 185:17 INT AL 3Google Scholar; Kisic, D. W. (1992) 186:17 INT AL 13Google Scholar; Ferris, E. (1991) 32 Virginia J. Int L. 271Google Scholar; Avery (1972) 11 J. Common Market Studies 85Google Scholar; Ch. Barros, R. (1993) 196:18 INT AL 30.Google Scholar

9. Chile is an associate member.

10. The history of Mercosur can be traced back to the Iguazú Act of 1985 where Argentina developed the idea of a “preferential association” with Brazil. In 1986 the Declaration of Buenos Aires was signed for Argentinean-Brazilian integration and a broader treaty was signed on 6 July 1990. For a detailed explanation of the history of the creation of Mercosur See Hains-Ferrari, M.. “Mercosur A New Model of Latin American Economic Integration?” (1993) 25 Case W. Res. J.I.L. 413.Google Scholar

11. Providing that “before 31 Dec 1994, Member States will determine the definite institutional structure and decision-making system of Mercosur”.

12. The Economist. 12 10. 1996, p.9.Google Scholar

13. See in general the textbooks by Steiner, , Textbook on EC Law, London. 4th edn.Blackstone Press Ltd, 1995Google Scholar: Wyatt, and Dashwood, , EC Law, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1993Google Scholar; Goyder, op.cit. infra n.4O. Whish, op.cit. infra n.23; and in particular Furse, “The Role of Competition Policy: A Survey“(1996) 4 E.C.L.R. 254 and Ehlermann, “The Contribution of EC Competition Policy to the Single Market” (1992) 29 C.M.L.Rev. 261.Google Scholar

14. Nogués, “The Roles of Trade Arrangements in the Formation of Developing Countries' Trade Policies” (1991) 25 J. World Trade 41, 46.Google Scholar

15. Hains-Farrari, M., “Mercosur A New Model of Latin American Economic Integration? (1993) 25 Case W. Pres. J.I.L. 531, 532.Google Scholar

16. General Secretariat of the Cartagena Agreement, El Grupo Andino en Transición:unnuevo estilo de integración, (Lima, 1985), p.142.Google Scholar

17. E.g. the Agreement includes provisions establishing a preferential treatment for the less developed economies of the group, Bolivia and Ecuador.

18. Rioseco, A., El dúmping y las subvenciones en el marco de la ALALC y del Pacto Andino, (1979). p.84.Google Scholar

19. Cárdenas, M. J., “Legislatión sobre competencia en el Acuerdo de Cartagena” (1993) 196:18 INT AL 23.Google Scholar

20. 18 Dec 1971.

21. Commission of the CA, Lima, 11 Dec. 1987.

22. For an analysis of Decision 230 see Cárdenas, op. cit. supra n.19.

23. For a detailed analysis of Art.85 EC see Whish, R., Competition Law (3rd edn, 1993), p.187Google Scholar, and Jo Shaw. “A Review of Recent Cases on Articles 85 and 86 EC: Issues of Substantive Law” (1995) 20 E.L.R. 66.Google Scholar

24. Bellamy, and Child, , Common Market Law of Competition (4th edn, 1993). para.2–003.Google Scholar

25. Case C-364/92 [1994] E.C.R. 1–43.Google Scholar

26. The original Art. in Spanish uses the word “empresa” which is usually identified as meaning “company or enterprise”. However, Spanish-English dictionaries define the word “empresa” as “enterprise, undertaking, company, firm”. Due to the similarities in the wording of Art 3 and Art.85 ECI will use the word “undertaking” as the translation of “empresa”.

27. Even though the literal translation of the Art. from Portuguese would be “and”, the word “or” has been used to preserve the intended meaning of the Art.

28. Case 48/69, ICI v. Commission [1972] E.C.R. 619.Google Scholar

29. (1986) O.J. L230/1. para.99.Google Scholar

30. Case 170/83 [1984] E.C.R. 2999. para.11.Google Scholar

31. (1995) O.J. L95/45 (27 Apr.).Google Scholar

32. Whish, , op. cit. supra n.23. at p.191.Google Scholar

33. Cases 41, 44 and 45/69. ACF Chemiefarma v. Commission [1970] E.C.R. 661.Google Scholar

34. Case 227/87, Sandoz [1990] E.C.R. 145.Google Scholar

35. See e.g. Case 45/85. Verband des Sachversicheres v. Commission [1987] E.C.R. 405. where a group of companies set up a non-profit association in order to co-ordinate aspects of their activities and use it for anti-competitive purposes such as deciding to give special benefits to the association members. Under EC law such a case was indeed held to fall under Art.85(1) by the Commission.Google Scholar

36. Case C–89/85. Ahlstrom Oy v. Commission [1993] 4 C.M.L.R. 407, para.64.Google Scholar

37. This was held in Case 56/65, Société Technique Minière v. Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] E.C.R. 235, para.249.Google Scholar

38. Whish, , op. cit. supra n.23, at p.223.Google Scholar

39. Case 5/69, Volk v. Vervaecke [1969] E.C.R. 295.Google Scholar

40. Goyder, D. G., EC Competition Law (2nd edn, 1995), p.109.Google Scholar

41. Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance (1986) O.J. C231/2. as amended (1994) O.J.C368/20.Google Scholar

42. Whish, , op. cit. supra n.23, at p.203.Google Scholar

43. See Maschinenbau Ulm. supra n 37; VdS, supra n.35.

44. Goyder, , op. cit. supra n.40, at p. 119.Google Scholar

45. Von Bael, and Bellis, , Competition Law of the European Community, 3 edn, CCH Europe, 1994, 44.Google Scholar

46. Case C–234/89, Delimitis v. Henninger Brau [1992] 5 C.M.L.R. 210.Google Scholar

47. Whish, , op. cit. supra n 23, at p.207.Google Scholar

48. See eg. Case 26/76 Metro [1977] E.C.R. 1875Google Scholar; Case 161/84 Pronuptia [1986] C.M.L.R. 414Google Scholar; Case 42/84 Remia [1987] 1 C.M.L.R. 1Google Scholar; Case 258/78 Nungesser (Maize Seeds) [1983] 1 C.M.L.R. 278.Google Scholar

49. For an analysis of the rule of reason under EC law See Whish, R. and Sufrin, B. (1987) 7 Ox.Y.E.L. 29.Google Scholar

50. Reg.17/62 implementing Arts. 85 and 86 EC (1959–1962) O.J. Sp.Ed. p.87; as lsst amended by the 1985 Act of Accession.Google Scholar

51. Ibarra, P. G., (1993) 196:18 INTAL 48.Google Scholar

52. Goyder, op. cit. supra n.40, at p.13.Google Scholar

53. Whish, , op. cit. supra n.23, at p.13.Google Scholar

54. Op. cit. supra n.51, at pp.48–50.Google Scholar

55. Art, J.-Y. and Van Liedekerke, D. (1995) 31 C.M.L. Rev. 936.Google Scholar

56. Horton, S. (1982) 17 Texas Int.L.J. 39.Google Scholar

57. (1996) O.J. C262/5 (10 Sept.).Google Scholar