UCL FACULTY OF LAWS
Centre for Governance and Law in Europe

Centre for Law and Governance in Europe

'Law and Governance in Europe' Working Paper Series

No PAPER  
001/07 The Concept of Agreement in Vertical Relations: the Same and the Other
Dr Ioannis Lianos
The paper’s starting point is that EC competition law does not draw any distinction between horizontal and vertical relations when it comes to the definition of the concept of agreement. This approach could make sense if vertical and horizontal agreements were considered as equally harmful to competition. However, since the enactment of Regulation 2790/99 and the emergence of a more economic approach in interpreting Article 81, EC competition law focuses less on the protection of the freedom of action of distributors and recognizes that vertical agreements may bring important efficiency gains from which the consumers may ultimately benefit. The concept of agreement, which is of little
practical significance in cartel cases, has thus been interpreted restrictively so as to limit the scope of Article 81 with regard to vertical restraints. It is submitted that, while the aim of reducing the scope of Article 81 to vertical agreements may be legitimate, the formalistic approach currently followed by the courts in defining the concept of agreement is theoretically and practically flawed. The study will advance an alternative approach for the definition of the concept of agreement, in particular for vertical relations.
Download
002/07 REACH: Regulating Chemicals in the EU
Prof. Joanne Scott
The volume and complexity of the EU’s recent REACH regulation, concerning chemicals, is such that a lengthy book would be required to offer a full exposition and analysis. Running to 141 articles, 17 annexes, and 10 appendices, the densely printed Official Journal text amounts to 280 pages. This contribution focuses upon the governance approach embodied in the regulation, and upon certain key features (‘core elements’) which characterize this. The core elements pin-pointed in this paper are industry responsibility, contestability, provisionality and transparency.
003/07 Promoting Accountability in Multi-Level Governance: A Network Approach
By Carol Harlow and Richard Rawlings
This paper addresses problems of accountability in the system of multi-level governance, organized around networks, which obtains in the European Union. An ‘accountability deficit’ arises when gaps are left by the accountability machinery of the several levels of government, supranational and national. This paper suggests a new evaluative framework based on the concept of 'accountability network', questioning the hierarchical and pyramidal assumptions that presently underpin accountability theory in the EU context. Using case studies of the Community Courts and European Ombudsman, the paper suggests that ‘accountability networks’ may be emerging, composed of agencies specializing in a specific mode of accountability, which come together or coalesce in a relationship of mutual dependency, fortified by shared professional expertise and ethos. At present fragmentary and imperfect, these might ultimately be capable of providing effective machinery for accountability in network governance systems.
Download
004/07 The Elusive Antitrust Standard on Bundling in Europe and in the United States at the Aftermath of the Microsoft Cases
By Nick Economides & Dr Ioannis Lianos
The paper analyses and contrasts the US and EU antitrust standards on mixed bundling and tying. We apply our analysis to the US and EU cases against Microsoft on the issue of tying new products (Internet Explorer in the US, and Windows Media Player in the EU) with Windows as well as to cases brought in Europe and in the United States on bundling discounts. We conclude that there are differences between the EC and US antitrust law on the choice of the relevant analogy for bundled rebates (predatory price standard or foreclosure standard) and the implementation of the distinct product and coercion test for tying practices. The second important difference between the two jurisdictions concerns the interpretation of the requirement of anticompetitive foreclosure. The study concludes that in Europe, consumer detriment is found easily and it is not always a requirement for the application of Article 82, or at least that the standard of proof of a consumer detriment for tying cases is lower than in the US.
Download
005/08

The UK Regulatory System on GMOs: Expanding the Debate?
Prof. Maria Lee

Download
006/08 Vertical Restraints in Comparative Competition Law
conference proceedings organised by UCL in collaboration with the Collège Européen de Paris, University of Paris II in May 2008
Download
007/09 From Brussels with Love: The Transatlantic Travels of European Law and the Chemistry of Regulatory Attraction
Prof. Joanne Scott
Forthcoming 57(4) American Journal of Comparative Law (2009)
Download
008/10 Enhancing Responsibility in Financial Regulation – Critically Examining the Future of Public – Private Governance
Dr. Iris H-Y Chiu
Download
009/10 The Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change
Prof. Joanne Scott
Download
010/10 Efficient Restrictions of Trade in the EU Law of the Internal Market: Trust, Distrust and the Nature of Economic Integration
Ioannis Lianos  
Download
 011/11 Shifting narratives in European economic integration: trade in services, pluralism and trust
Ioannis Lianos & Damien Gerard
Download
012/11 Walking on a tightrope: the draft accession agreement and the autonomy of the EU legal order
Tobias Lock  
Download
013/11 Trust, distrust and economic Integration: setting the stage
Ioannis Lianos and Johanness Leblanc  
Download
014/11 Competition Law Remedies: In Search of a Theory
Ioannis Lianos  
Download