Papers by Cristina Volpin
Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of this century. Due to the urgency of the issu... more Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of this century. Due to the urgency of the issue and the
pressure on governments to act, the debate on climate change is moving quickly from the political level to
focused conversations on policy choices and implementation options.
This background paper discusses the role of competition policy and enforcement in supporting and
incentivising sustainable and pro-competitive business practices. It analyses the practical approaches that
competition authorities may take when assessing cases with an environmental dimension.
Looking at past experiences in cartels, co-operation agreements, abuses of dominance and merger
control, the paper explores the question of how competition authorities can integrate economic and noneconomic environmental effects into the competitive assessment from the legal and economic perspective.
It also identifies the challenges posed by the current legal and economic frameworks, highlighting best practices to overcome them.
Concurrences, 2020
Recent economic research indicates that labor markets tend to be highly concentrated, and that em... more Recent economic research indicates that labor markets tend to be highly concentrated, and that employers use mergers, no-poaching agreements, and related collusive behavior to further concentrate labor markets and exploit labor market power at the expense of workers. In the United States, this research has contributed to new interest in the use of competition law against anticompetitive behavior by employers in labor markets. We suggest that despite differences in U.S. and European labor markets, European competition authorities should also give greater attention to labor market concentration and abuses of labor market power. European competition law provides the authority to do so in most cases; regulatory reform may also be necessary.
CPI, 2021
It is considered by many that sustainability considerations should not be taken into account by c... more It is considered by many that sustainability considerations should not be taken into account by competition authorities when analyzing the effects of a conduct or transaction. This short article maintains that the impact on sustainability of certain types of conduct or transactions can be considered in the analysis of their price or non-price effects on quality, choice and innovation. This approach has the advantage of bringing sustainability considerations within the traditional competitive assessment framework, as opposed to characterizing them as public policy considerations that are outside the realm of competition law. This can be done by means of a relatively light fine-tuning of the current analytical toolbox and of the design of competition investigations, and it can help ensure that competition on sustainability, when it affects demand and supply in a particular market, is preserved.
Companies increasingly recur to digital communications and storage of documents. The change broug... more Companies increasingly recur to digital communications and storage of documents. The change brought by digitalisation to the way in which companies operate creates opportunities but also a number of challenges for competition enforcement.
Competition authorities may adopt a number of digital tools and resources to strengthen their fight against cartels, which may allow them to search through high volumes of data in a swift manner and with a high degree of accuracy. However, the implementation of these tools may not always be straightforward. A few legal and practical challenges may arise in relation to the protection of the authenticity of the seized evidence and of the rights of defence of the company and its employees. In addition, internal coordination of resources and external co-operation may need to be implemented to ensure the full exploitation of the opportunities offered by these tools. This Issues Note will discuss some advantages and disadvantages of the most common digital tools for evidence gathering, and it will explore some of the legal and practical issues arising from their use, drawing from cases where competition authorities across the world dealt with the delicate phase of evidence gathering in cartel enforcement.
This paper explores the interaction between the governmental policies adopted to face the COVID-1... more This paper explores the interaction between the governmental policies adopted to face the COVID-19
emergency and competition policy. As the COVID-19 crisis develops and moves through different stages,
governments, policymakers and regulators, including competition authorities, face different challenges in
order to support a swift and robust recovery.
In most jurisdictions, the state has been playing a role in minimising the direct hit from the crisis and can
be expected to continue to play a role in the shaping of the economic recovery. In this context, the question
therefore arises: how can competition policy and competition authorities contribute to a faster and more
sustained economic recovery?
The paper concludes that competition policy and competition authorities have a very relevant role to play
to ensure a robust economic bounce-back and recovery in the long-term.
Competition advocacy by competition authorities can be expected to play a more relevant role in the near
future, helping policy makers make full and well-informed policy choices, accounting for competition
distortions from state interventions, and designing support measures. Strong competition enforcement will
also be important, and competition authorities will have to carefully prioritise in order to help ensure the
drive for economic recovery.
In the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 crisis, there are a number of reasons that may... more In the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 crisis, there are a number of reasons that may push competing companies to collaborate with one another and a number of ways in which consumers and the economy may benefit from these collaborations. This note examines some typical situations where cooperation between competitors may be lawful or pro-competitive and discusses the main challenges that competition authorities face in analysing or dealing with them. The note also raises some open questions that will be explored on a webinar meeting between competition authorities on 28 May 2020. This publication is part of a series of COVID-19 related pieces prepared by the OECD Competition Division to assist governments and competition authorities in the challenging times of this epidemic. In times of a severe crisis such as the one provoked by COVID-19, cooperation between competing firms may benefit consumers in many ways, for example, by assuring an essential service (e.g. transport) or by distributing scarce but essential goods (e.g. maintaining the food chain). Cooperation may be necessary to R&D projects related to the development of vaccines and medicines, activities which can entail substantial investments and risks for a single firm. While cooperation between firms, particularly during the immediate and urgent phase of the crisis, may be beneficial for specific purposes, competition authorities are required to strike the right balance between allowing such private initiatives to address market failures in the short-run and avoiding distortion of competition in the long-run. This note analyses a number of examples of cooperation agreements from different jurisdictions and identifies some common criteria of lawful cooperation. It also identifies some emerging challenges and solutions that competition authorities have developed during the crisis, as well as open issues that may require further research and discussion.
A recent fall in the labour share of income in some countries has stirred a debate
on monopsony a... more A recent fall in the labour share of income in some countries has stirred a debate
on monopsony and the market power of employers to reduce workers’ wages or
working conditions below competitive levels. The debate focused attention on the
role that competition agencies may have to help ensure efficient labour input
purchasing markets.
This paper sets out the economic drivers and effects of employer monopsony power
in labour markets. It analyses when the creation or exercise of monopsony power by
employers may infringe competition law and identifies the cases where competition
enforcement can effectively address monopsony power in such markets.
It also looks at how monopsony power is exercised in digital markets, examining
how the intermediation power of some big platforms may negatively affect wages
and working conditions of self-employed platform workers.
Whilst competition law enforcement has been so far limited, competition
authorities may have an increased role to play in labour input markets, particularly
in addressing anticompetitive agreements that artificially creates monopsony
power, abuses of monopsony power and merger transactions leading to increased
monopsony power.
Finally, the paper looks at some practical and analytical challenges to the
application of the traditional tools of competition enforcement analysis in these
markets. It then discusses ways to overcome such challenges and proposed
adjustments to these tools suggested in the recent literature, as well as competition
advocacy solutions to address monopsony power in these markets.
Most consumers are offered products at a price of zero on a daily basis. Business models
centred ... more Most consumers are offered products at a price of zero on a daily basis. Business models
centred around the zero-price products are not new. However, in the digital economy, new
zero-price markets have arisen with their own unique characteristics and vast scope.
This paper sets out the potential dimensions of quality competition in zero-price markets
and the business models associated with them, including privacy and data security,
advertising content, ease of switching, and choice in complement markets, among others.
While there is a conceptual basis for identifying competition problems in zero-price
markets, there are numerous practical analytical and legal challenges that may arise.
However, these challenges may be surmountable by competition authorities in many cases.
When competition may not be functioning as expected in a zero-price market but
competition enforcement tools cannot remedy the situation, there are numerous
opportunities for consumer or data protection authorities to act.
In any event, competition, data, and consumer protection authorities have a complementary
role in promoting competitive zero-price markets, and so cooperation between them is
essential, particularly with respect to advocacy and regulatory solutions
This article deals with the application of the principle of effectiveness in EU competition law. ... more This article deals with the application of the principle of effectiveness in EU competition law. While the distinction between the principle of full effectiveness of EU law and the principle of effective judicial protection has long been identified, its application in EU competition law is more diversified and it goes beyond the domain of the private enforcement. By analysing the case law and providing a mapping of the areas in which this principle is applied, this article proposes a new comprehensive account of the different dimensions of effectiveness and it provides a new conceptual framework of its role in competition law, which also helps to understand its evolution in the broader context of EU law. The analysis unveils the theory underlying the principle of the effet utile in EU competition law, understanding its relevance, assessing the legitimacy of its application and determining the limits within which it is invoked. This article shows that the application of the effet utile in the public enforcement is guided by the objective of safeguarding the effective enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and is aimed at protecting their deterrence and dissuasiveness.
After Pfleiderer, Donau Chemie and Kone the CJEU returned on the topic of the effectiveness of le... more After Pfleiderer, Donau Chemie and Kone the CJEU returned on the topic of the effectiveness of leniency programmes with a key judgment on multijurisdictional leniency applications. The preliminary reference ruling in DHL Express stated how, absent a European Union-wide harmonised system of leniency programmes, the relationship between the leniency application for immunity made to the Commission and a summary application made to an NCA for the same cartel is one of mutual autonomy. According to the CJEU, the purpose of leniency programmes might be impaired by the elimination of uncertainty regarding the exact amount of information that is required to trigger the granting of immunity or reductions of fines. By establishing that unpredictability is one of the intended features of EU leniency policy, the CJEU has once again prioritised the effectiveness of the Commission’s investigation over the rights of defence of the undertakings, also at the preliminary stage of the gathering of evidence by means of leniency programmes. This article is aimed at describing how the judgment gave a prominent role to the principle of effectiveness, also in regard to leniency programmes.
In the lack of a harmonised system of leniency at the EU level, the principle of autonomy of nati... more In the lack of a harmonised system of leniency at the EU level, the principle of autonomy of national leniency programmes may give rise to serious disparities. Namely, disparities arise in the treatment of firms submitting both a leniency application for immunity with the Commission and a summary application to an NCA for the same cartel, if there are discrepancies in the description of the anticompetitive practice submitted to the two authorities. This Highlight analyses the DHL Express (Italy) v Commission judgment of the Court of Justice, according to which there is no hierarchy nor any legal link between the two leniency applications. It is contended that the ruling of the Court reflects a proper objective of leniency programmes: encouraging the race for leniency that is crucial to their effectiveness.
This article addresses the boundaries of application of presumptions of fact in EU competition la... more This article addresses the boundaries of application of presumptions of fact in EU competition law. It describes the most common presumptions of fact in competition law and their implications on the evidential responsibilities of the parties. It illustrates the emergence of the proof-proximity principle, which allocates the evidential burden of proof on the party to whom the evidence is available or who is better situated to easily and promptly lead it. This principle ensures the effectiveness of the fact-finding process in the public and the private enforcement, while, at the same time, guaranteeing that Article 2 of Regulation (EC) 1/2003 is not violated. After describing other areas of law where the proof-proximity principle is applied, the article analyzes the compatibility of the principle with fundamental rights of the defence in EU competition law. It is contended that the proof-proximity principle plays a major role in rendering presumptions of fact compliant with the presumption of innocence enshrined in Articles 6(2) ECHR and 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Uploads
Papers by Cristina Volpin
pressure on governments to act, the debate on climate change is moving quickly from the political level to
focused conversations on policy choices and implementation options.
This background paper discusses the role of competition policy and enforcement in supporting and
incentivising sustainable and pro-competitive business practices. It analyses the practical approaches that
competition authorities may take when assessing cases with an environmental dimension.
Looking at past experiences in cartels, co-operation agreements, abuses of dominance and merger
control, the paper explores the question of how competition authorities can integrate economic and noneconomic environmental effects into the competitive assessment from the legal and economic perspective.
It also identifies the challenges posed by the current legal and economic frameworks, highlighting best practices to overcome them.
Competition authorities may adopt a number of digital tools and resources to strengthen their fight against cartels, which may allow them to search through high volumes of data in a swift manner and with a high degree of accuracy. However, the implementation of these tools may not always be straightforward. A few legal and practical challenges may arise in relation to the protection of the authenticity of the seized evidence and of the rights of defence of the company and its employees. In addition, internal coordination of resources and external co-operation may need to be implemented to ensure the full exploitation of the opportunities offered by these tools. This Issues Note will discuss some advantages and disadvantages of the most common digital tools for evidence gathering, and it will explore some of the legal and practical issues arising from their use, drawing from cases where competition authorities across the world dealt with the delicate phase of evidence gathering in cartel enforcement.
emergency and competition policy. As the COVID-19 crisis develops and moves through different stages,
governments, policymakers and regulators, including competition authorities, face different challenges in
order to support a swift and robust recovery.
In most jurisdictions, the state has been playing a role in minimising the direct hit from the crisis and can
be expected to continue to play a role in the shaping of the economic recovery. In this context, the question
therefore arises: how can competition policy and competition authorities contribute to a faster and more
sustained economic recovery?
The paper concludes that competition policy and competition authorities have a very relevant role to play
to ensure a robust economic bounce-back and recovery in the long-term.
Competition advocacy by competition authorities can be expected to play a more relevant role in the near
future, helping policy makers make full and well-informed policy choices, accounting for competition
distortions from state interventions, and designing support measures. Strong competition enforcement will
also be important, and competition authorities will have to carefully prioritise in order to help ensure the
drive for economic recovery.
on monopsony and the market power of employers to reduce workers’ wages or
working conditions below competitive levels. The debate focused attention on the
role that competition agencies may have to help ensure efficient labour input
purchasing markets.
This paper sets out the economic drivers and effects of employer monopsony power
in labour markets. It analyses when the creation or exercise of monopsony power by
employers may infringe competition law and identifies the cases where competition
enforcement can effectively address monopsony power in such markets.
It also looks at how monopsony power is exercised in digital markets, examining
how the intermediation power of some big platforms may negatively affect wages
and working conditions of self-employed platform workers.
Whilst competition law enforcement has been so far limited, competition
authorities may have an increased role to play in labour input markets, particularly
in addressing anticompetitive agreements that artificially creates monopsony
power, abuses of monopsony power and merger transactions leading to increased
monopsony power.
Finally, the paper looks at some practical and analytical challenges to the
application of the traditional tools of competition enforcement analysis in these
markets. It then discusses ways to overcome such challenges and proposed
adjustments to these tools suggested in the recent literature, as well as competition
advocacy solutions to address monopsony power in these markets.
centred around the zero-price products are not new. However, in the digital economy, new
zero-price markets have arisen with their own unique characteristics and vast scope.
This paper sets out the potential dimensions of quality competition in zero-price markets
and the business models associated with them, including privacy and data security,
advertising content, ease of switching, and choice in complement markets, among others.
While there is a conceptual basis for identifying competition problems in zero-price
markets, there are numerous practical analytical and legal challenges that may arise.
However, these challenges may be surmountable by competition authorities in many cases.
When competition may not be functioning as expected in a zero-price market but
competition enforcement tools cannot remedy the situation, there are numerous
opportunities for consumer or data protection authorities to act.
In any event, competition, data, and consumer protection authorities have a complementary
role in promoting competitive zero-price markets, and so cooperation between them is
essential, particularly with respect to advocacy and regulatory solutions
pressure on governments to act, the debate on climate change is moving quickly from the political level to
focused conversations on policy choices and implementation options.
This background paper discusses the role of competition policy and enforcement in supporting and
incentivising sustainable and pro-competitive business practices. It analyses the practical approaches that
competition authorities may take when assessing cases with an environmental dimension.
Looking at past experiences in cartels, co-operation agreements, abuses of dominance and merger
control, the paper explores the question of how competition authorities can integrate economic and noneconomic environmental effects into the competitive assessment from the legal and economic perspective.
It also identifies the challenges posed by the current legal and economic frameworks, highlighting best practices to overcome them.
Competition authorities may adopt a number of digital tools and resources to strengthen their fight against cartels, which may allow them to search through high volumes of data in a swift manner and with a high degree of accuracy. However, the implementation of these tools may not always be straightforward. A few legal and practical challenges may arise in relation to the protection of the authenticity of the seized evidence and of the rights of defence of the company and its employees. In addition, internal coordination of resources and external co-operation may need to be implemented to ensure the full exploitation of the opportunities offered by these tools. This Issues Note will discuss some advantages and disadvantages of the most common digital tools for evidence gathering, and it will explore some of the legal and practical issues arising from their use, drawing from cases where competition authorities across the world dealt with the delicate phase of evidence gathering in cartel enforcement.
emergency and competition policy. As the COVID-19 crisis develops and moves through different stages,
governments, policymakers and regulators, including competition authorities, face different challenges in
order to support a swift and robust recovery.
In most jurisdictions, the state has been playing a role in minimising the direct hit from the crisis and can
be expected to continue to play a role in the shaping of the economic recovery. In this context, the question
therefore arises: how can competition policy and competition authorities contribute to a faster and more
sustained economic recovery?
The paper concludes that competition policy and competition authorities have a very relevant role to play
to ensure a robust economic bounce-back and recovery in the long-term.
Competition advocacy by competition authorities can be expected to play a more relevant role in the near
future, helping policy makers make full and well-informed policy choices, accounting for competition
distortions from state interventions, and designing support measures. Strong competition enforcement will
also be important, and competition authorities will have to carefully prioritise in order to help ensure the
drive for economic recovery.
on monopsony and the market power of employers to reduce workers’ wages or
working conditions below competitive levels. The debate focused attention on the
role that competition agencies may have to help ensure efficient labour input
purchasing markets.
This paper sets out the economic drivers and effects of employer monopsony power
in labour markets. It analyses when the creation or exercise of monopsony power by
employers may infringe competition law and identifies the cases where competition
enforcement can effectively address monopsony power in such markets.
It also looks at how monopsony power is exercised in digital markets, examining
how the intermediation power of some big platforms may negatively affect wages
and working conditions of self-employed platform workers.
Whilst competition law enforcement has been so far limited, competition
authorities may have an increased role to play in labour input markets, particularly
in addressing anticompetitive agreements that artificially creates monopsony
power, abuses of monopsony power and merger transactions leading to increased
monopsony power.
Finally, the paper looks at some practical and analytical challenges to the
application of the traditional tools of competition enforcement analysis in these
markets. It then discusses ways to overcome such challenges and proposed
adjustments to these tools suggested in the recent literature, as well as competition
advocacy solutions to address monopsony power in these markets.
centred around the zero-price products are not new. However, in the digital economy, new
zero-price markets have arisen with their own unique characteristics and vast scope.
This paper sets out the potential dimensions of quality competition in zero-price markets
and the business models associated with them, including privacy and data security,
advertising content, ease of switching, and choice in complement markets, among others.
While there is a conceptual basis for identifying competition problems in zero-price
markets, there are numerous practical analytical and legal challenges that may arise.
However, these challenges may be surmountable by competition authorities in many cases.
When competition may not be functioning as expected in a zero-price market but
competition enforcement tools cannot remedy the situation, there are numerous
opportunities for consumer or data protection authorities to act.
In any event, competition, data, and consumer protection authorities have a complementary
role in promoting competitive zero-price markets, and so cooperation between them is
essential, particularly with respect to advocacy and regulatory solutions