The European Union’s Trade Defence Modernisation Package: A Missed Opportunity at Reconciling Trade and Competition?

342 Pages·5.278 MB·English

by  Patricia Trapp

EYIEL Monographs
Studies in European and International Economic Law 23
Patricia Trapp
The European
Union’s Trade
Defence
Modernisation
Package
A Missed Opportunity at Reconciling
Trade and Competition?
European Yearbook of International Economic Law
EYIEL Monographs - Studies in European and
International Economic Law
Volume 23
SeriesEditors
MarcBungenberg,Saarbrücken,Germany
ChristophHerrmann,Passau,Germany
MarkusKrajewski,Erlangen,Germany
JörgPhilippTerhechte,Lüneburg,Germany
AndreasR.Ziegler,Lausanne,Switzerland
EYIEL Monographs is a subseries of the European Yearbook of International
EconomicLaw(EYIEL). It contains scholarly worksinthe fields ofEuropeanand
international economic law, in particular WTO law, international investment law,
internationalmonetarylaw,lawofregionaleconomicintegration,externaltradelaw
oftheEUandEUinternalmarketlaw.Theseriesdoesnotincludeeditedvolumes.
EYIELMonographsarepeer-reviewedbytheserieseditorsandexternalreviewers.
Moreinformationaboutthissubseriesathttps://link.springer.com/bookseries/15744
Patricia Trapp
’
The European Union s Trade
Defence Modernisation
Package
A Missed Opportunity at Reconciling Trade
and Competition?
PatriciaTrapp
Düsseldorf,Germany
ISSN2364-8392 ISSN2364-8406 (electronic)
EuropeanYearbookofInternationalEconomicLaw
ISSN2524-6658 ISSN2524-6666 (electronic)
EYIELMonographs-StudiesinEuropeanandInternationalEconomicLaw
ISBN978-3-030-91362-5 ISBN978-3-030-91363-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91363-2
©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerland
AG2022
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether
thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseof
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this
bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG.
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Acknowledgments
This book was submitted as a PhD thesis at the University of Passau in February
2021. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor
Dr. Christoph Herrmann, LL.M., for his support during the entire PhD process. I
benefitted immensely from his academic guidance and profound knowledge in EU
tradedefence law.Iamalso verythankfultoProf. Dr.TillMüller-Iboldforkindly
agreeingtobethesecondexaminer.Beinganinternationallyrecognizedexpertboth
inEUtradedefencelawandEUcompetitionlaw,hiscommentsonmyworkwere
extremelyvaluable.
As part of my PhD project, I was able to spend two months working in the
CabinetofJudgeIanS.ForresterattheGeneralCourtinLuxembourg.Iamdeeply
grateful for this opportunity to pursue my PhD project at the very place where EU
lawisshapedandtobenefitfromtheinspiringenvironmentthere.
IwouldfurtherliketoexpressmygratitudetotheStudienstiftungdesdeutschen
Volkese.V.forfundingmyPhDthesis.
Pursuing a PhD can sometimes be quite a challenge, and it is easier to face this
challengeifonedoesnothavetodoitonone’sown.Therefore,Iwouldliketothank
Kara,SimonG.,Chris,Gideon,Mareike,SimonM.,Sebihaandallothermembers
oftheChairfortwowonderfulyears(andthemanycupsofcoffeewehadtogether).
Lastly, on a personal note, I would like to thank my family and my friends for
their support and understanding. They have been at my side and encouraged me
throughout this project. This, of course, also applies to you, Philip—thank you for
being my emotional support system, for always believing in me and for being
endlesslypatientandunderstanding.
v
Contents
1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 TheChangingLandscapeofInternationalTrade. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 ResearchQuestion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Scope. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. 7
1.4 Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 CompetitionandCommercialPolicyintheEuropeanTreaties. . . . 13
2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 TheTreatyofParis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.1 CompetitionPolicyintheTreatyofParis. . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.2 TradePolicyintheTreatyofParis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 TheTreatyofRome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.1 CompetitionPolicyintheTreatyofRome. . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.2 TradePolicyintheTreatyofRome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 TheTreatyofLisbon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.1 CompetitionPolicyintheTreatyofLisbon. . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.1.1 TheAmendmentstoCompetitionPolicy
IntroducedbytheTreatyofMaastricht. . . . . . . 22
2.4.1.2 TheRepealofArticle3(1)lit.g)ECTreaty. . . 23
2.4.1.3 TheRepealofArticle4ECTreaty. . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.1.4 TheInclusionoftheTerm‘SocialMarket
Economy’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.2 TradePolicyintheTreatyofLisbon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.5 ChapterConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3 TheLegalFrameworkGoverningEUCompetitionandTrade
DefenceLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2 CompetitionLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.1 InstitutionalStructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
vii
viii Contents
3.2.2 Article101TFEU:ProhibitionofAgreementsBetween
UndertakingsRestrictingCompetition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2.2.1 TheElementsofArticle101(1)TFEU. . . . . . . 38
3.2.2.1.1 UndertakingsasAddressees. . . . . . . 38
3.2.2.1.2 Agreement,DecisionandConcerted
Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2.2.1.3 ObjectorEffectofthePrevention,
RestrictionorDistortionof
Competition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2.2.1.4 ThedeminimisDoctrine. . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.2.2 NullityAccordingtoArticle101(2)TFEU. . . . 41
3.2.2.3 TheExceptionContainedinArticle101(3)
TFEU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.3 Article102TFEU:AbuseofaDominantPosition. . . . . . 42
3.2.3.1 DominantUndertakingsasAddressees. . . . . . . 42
3.2.3.2 MarketDefinition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2.3.2.1 TheRelevantProductMarket. . . . . . 44
3.2.3.2.2 TheRelevantGeographicMarket. . . 45
3.2.3.2.3 TheTemporalMarket. . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.3.3 DominantPosition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.3.4 Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2.3.5 Defence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2.3.6 EffectonTradeBetweentheMemberStates. . . 49
3.2.4 MergerControl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.3 LawofTradeDefenceInstruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 50
3.3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.3.2 InstitutionalStructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.3.3 TheBasicAnti-dumpingRegulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.3.3.1 Dumping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.3.3.1.1 NormalValue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.3.3.1.2 ExportPrice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.3.3.1.3 Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.3.3.1.4 DumpingMargin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3.3.2 DeterminationofInjurytotheUnionIndustry. . . 54
3.3.3.2.1 ProductDefinition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3.3.2.2 UnionIndustry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.3.2.3 Injury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.3.3 Causality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.3.3.4 UnionInterest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.3.3.5 Relief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3.3.5.1 Anti-dumpingDuties. . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3.3.5.2 Undertakings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3.4 TheBasicAnti-subsidyRegulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.3.4.1 SubsidisedProduct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Contents ix
3.3.4.1.1 Subsidisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3.4.1.2 Countervailability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3.4.1.3 DeterminationoftheAmountof
Subsidisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3.4.2 DeterminationofInjurytotheUnionIndustry
andCausality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3.4.3 UnionInterest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3.4.4 Relief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3.4.4.1 CountervailingDuties. . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3.4.4.2 Undertakings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3.5 TheTradeDefenceModernisationPackage. . . . . . . . . . . 65
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4 TheObjectivesofEUCompetitionLawandTradeDefenceLaw. . . 69
4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2 TheObjectivesofEUCompetitionLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2.1 WelfareStandard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.2.1.1 ThePromotionofConsumers’Welfare. . . . . . . 71
4.2.1.2 ThePromotionofSocietalWelfare. . . . . . . . . . 72
4.2.1.3 TheRoleofEfficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.2 MarketIntegration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2.3 EnsuringEffectiveCompetitionontheInternalMarket. . . 76
4.2.4 PromotingFairCompetition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.2.4.1 ProceduralFairness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.2.4.2 SubstantiveFairness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.2.5 Conclusions. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 81
4.3 TheObjectivesofEUTradeDefenceLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.3.1 TheObjectivesandPrinciplesGoverningtheCommon
CommercialPolicy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.3.1.1 IntegrationoftheCommonCommercialPolicy
IntotheWiderPlaneoftheEU’sExternal
ActionbytheTreatyofLisbon. . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.3.1.2 FreeandFairTrade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.3.1.2.1 FreeTrade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.3.1.2.2 FairTrade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.3.1.3 TheSpecificObjectivesandPrinciples
GoverningtheEU’sCommonCommercial
Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.3.1.3.1 TradeLiberalisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.3.1.3.2 Uniformity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.3.2 TheObjectivesoftheEU’sTradeDefenceInstruments. . . 89
4.3.2.1 TradeDefenceInstrumentsasaPartofthe
CommonCommercialPolicy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3.2.2 TheEconomicRationaleBehindTrade
DefenceInstruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
x Contents
4.3.2.3 TheLegalRationaleBehindTradeDefence
Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.3.2.3.1 CompensatingfortheDifferences
BetweenNationalandInternational
Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.3.2.3.2 ContributingtotheProtectionof
CompetitionontheInternalMarket. . 93
4.3.2.3.3 WelfareStandard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.3.3 Conclusions. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 97
4.4 ChapterConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5 TerminologicalOverlapsandConceptualDifferencesintheConcepts
UsedinEUCompetitionandTradeDefenceLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.2 DifferencesConcerningMarketDefinition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.2.1 TheRelevantProductMarket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.2.2 TheRelevantGeographicMarket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.3 DifferencesConcerningtheAuthorsofPracticesFallingWithin
theScopeofEUCompetitionandTradeDefenceLaw. . . . . . . . 111
5.3.1 NoCoordinationBetweentheExportersRequired. . . . . . 111
5.3.2 NoMarketPoweroftheExportersRequired. . . . . . . . . . 113
5.4 DifferencesConcerningPricingPractices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.4.1 DiscriminatoryPricing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.4.1.1 TheProhibitionofGeographicalPrice
DiscriminationinEUCompetitionLaw. . . . . . . 116
5.4.1.2 DumpingasaFormofTransnationalPrice
Discrimination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.4.1.3 LackofComparability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.4.2 PredatoryPricing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.4.2.1 CompetitionLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.4.2.1.1 TheAKZO-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.4.2.1.2 TheCommission’sGuidance. . . . . . 126
5.4.2.1.3 Justification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.4.2.2 Anti-dumpingLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5.4.2.2.1 ComparingPriceLevels. . . . . . . . . . 127
5.4.2.2.2 PricingBelowCostandthe‘Ordinary
CourseofTrade’-Requirement. . . . . 128
5.4.2.2.3 NoPredatoryIntentNecessary. . . . . 130
5.5 ChapterConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131