Commitment Decisions in EU Competition Enforcement: Policy Effectiveness v. the Formal Rule of Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 361-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Stones
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Formal Rule ◽  
Subject Specific ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Competition Enforcement

Abstract Marking the fifteenth anniversary of the entry into force of Regulation 1/2003, 2019 offers a vantage point from which to analyse the rise of commitment decisions as the primary enforcement mechanism for non-cartel competition law investigations at EU level. Commitment decisions, the closure of competition cases with a package of remedial obligations in response to Commission concerns, have an undeniable administrative appeal. They afford the Commission the absolute discretion to counteract any form of market conduct, whether beyond the pre-existing scope of the law deduced by the EU Courts from Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, or below exacting thresholds for prohibition of legally controversial business practices. Furthermore, the Commission can secure any remedial outcome, even if disproportionate or seemingly disconnected from its competitive concerns, to thereby redraw markets according to its idealized vision. In this regard, commitment decisions allow the Commission to achieve its policy goals with utmost effectiveness. Nevertheless, this article argues that such a method of market intervention represents a significant divergence from realizing the ideal of the formal rule of law in EU competition enforcement: normative certainty for businesses, facilitated by the equal application of generalized legal norms, which are subject to close oversight by courts. This offers an aspirational legal form of considerable political and economic value. Using commitment decisions to enforce EU competition policy via ad hoc, subject-specific decision making, conditional upon unforeseeable remedial obligations, is of systemic detriment to the legal comprehensibility of not just future Commission decision making, but the entire edifice of norms deduced from the Treaties by the EU Courts in this field. A rather relaxed approach to judicially reviewing the remedial proportionality of commitment decisions has partly contributed to this issue. However it is suggested that the EU Courts are largely unable to remedy the problems of novel theories of harm or subject-specific determinations, delivering upon their important residual role envisaged by the rule of law ideal, because of a factor mostly beyond their control: the lack of commitment decisions brought before them for review. To that end, the article concludes by recommending the automatic review of commitment decisions by the Courts. This would hopefully foster a more balanced reconciliation of effective policy achievement by the Commission and realization of the formal rule of law ideal in contemporary EU competition enforcement.

scholarly journals NECESSITY OF MAPPING AND ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEMS AND THEIR SERVICES IN PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 234
Author(s):  
Līga Brūniņa ◽  
Elīna Konstantinova ◽  
Aija Peršēvica
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
National Level ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Integrate Assessment ◽  
Reporting Systems ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
The Eu

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 determines that “Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territory by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020”. Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services provides several benefits, one of which is baseline data providing to measure net future gains or losses and data integration into spatial development process. The aim of the paper is to present and discuss the approach taken to assessing ecosystem services in order to introduce necessity of mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services for planning and decision-making process in Latvia. The paper will focus on terminology interpretation of ecosystem services, introducing with set of developed indicators for assessment of ecosystem services and define appropriate for Latvia. The paper closes with estimation of potential benefits and necessity to integrate assessment of ecosystems services in spatial planning and decision-making process.

scholarly journals The Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Bringing the Findings of Social Psychology into the Debate

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-581
Author(s):  
Myriam Gicquello
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Current System ◽  
Psychological Perspective ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article introduces the findings of social psychology, especially group psychology, into the study of investment arbitration. It argues that arbitrators as members of small groups (i.e. tribunals or divisions in an Investment Court) might be subjected to a number of influences inherent to such collective settings—factors already proven to be at play in domestic courts. In turn, identifying those factors provides an opportunity to reduce their impact on the decision-making of legal adjudicators through the implementation of adequate remedies. Adopting one of the most popular models of group decision-making—groupthink— this article discusses the manifestations and implications of this theory for Investor-State Dispute Settlement both in its ad hoc and institutionalized forms. Specifically, it claims that the Investment Court defended by the EU and generally posited in some agreements might not be that different from the current system from a socio-psychological perspective, and hence could be further improved.

scholarly journals HOW FIRM ARE THE BONDS THAT TIE THE EU TOGETHER? EU RULE OF LAW CONDITIONALITY MECHANISM AND THE NEXT GENERATION EU RECOVERY FUND

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja Lukić Radović ◽  
Marija Vlajković
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Protection Mechanism ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The Covid-19 pandemic has generated a one-in-a-generation challenge upon the EU, consisting of immediate danger for life and health, savings and jobs of its citizens, as well as for the stability and proper functioning of political and legal systems of its Member States. The manner in which the EU as a whole reacted to such sudden and grave challenge is by no means indicative of its political and legal-constitutional substance, and, consequently, of its capacity to subsist in its present form or to develop further. The centrepiece of the Next Generation EU (NGEU) is the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which should help Member States address the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The establishment of the pandemic recovery fund may be regarded not only as an ad hoc measure, but also as a crucial milestone in the path to overcoming the disbalance between Union solidarity and national interests. However, the whole EU budget deal depended on the acceptance of the Rule of Law Mechanism by all Member States. In the first part, this paper will analyse the COVID-19 recovery fund compromise solution as it has been finally agreed. Firstly, we will try to determine the effectiveness of the conditionality mechanism, in the light of European Council Conclusions on the “interpretative declaration on the new Rule of Law Mechanism” and its legal effects. Secondly, we will tackle the issue of the enforcement of the Rule of Law protection mechanism, having in mind the causal link that should be detected, between the protection of the financial interests of the EU, with the non-respect of the EU values enshrined in the Article 2 TEU, by particular Member State(s). Consequently, we will try to envisage the impact of the implementation of this conditionality mechanism, taking into consideration which Member States, and EU citizens, would be “hit” hardest by it. In the second part of the paper an attempt shall be made to perceive the conditionality mechanism, tied to the recovery fund, from the perspective of the principle of solidarity. Ultimately, this paper will try to answer the following question: in view of the necessary shift of priorities and the need for urgent reaction to the COVID-19 crisis, is the common European answer, in view of the core values of the EU and the principle of solidarity, optimal, and above all, will it be effective?

scholarly journals The Identification of Mangrove Ecosystem Services for Decision Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 ◽  
pp. 01019
Author(s):  
Suharno ◽  
Emmy Saraswati
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Land Use Planning ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Mangrove Ecosystem ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Natural Ecosystems ◽  
Sustainable Business ◽  
Human Welfare ◽  
Goods And Services

Directly or indirectly, goods and services available in natural ecosystems will contribute to human welfare. The human ability to calculate the economic value of ecosystem goods and services is an important thing to do for integrated environmental decision making, sustainable business practices, and land use planning with its geographical scale, and the level of local-social wisdom. For this reason, a comprehensive review and study are needed by analyzing mangrove ecosystem services. Discussions with in-depth descriptive methods are applied to evaluate mangrove ecosystem services specifically, and focus methods and techniques are used for data analysis, and further to understand their potential and disadvantages.

The Ordinary Legislative Procedure

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja Kluger Dionigi ◽  
Anne Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Formal Rule ◽  
Rule Changes ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Legislative Procedure ◽  
Ordinary Legislative Procedure ◽  
Free Environment ◽  
The Eu

The ordinary legislative procedure (OLP), previously known as co-decision, has marked a significant milestone in the development of the European Union (EU) and transformed the way its institutions interact. What was initially seen as a cumbersome decision-making procedure subject to considerable criticism ended up being quite successful. The workings of the OLP have gradually developed, including both informal and formal rule changes to ensure a smoother functioning of the procedure. While the EU Council is still seen as the strongest body in the interinstitutional balance, the European Parliament (EP) is a co-legislator in most policy areas. After introducing the option to conclude legislation at first reading, so-called early agreements have become the norm in the OLP. The increase in early agreements by means of trilogues has speeded up decision-making but has not come without costs. Concerns have been raised about the transparency of trilogues and the accountability of the actors involved. Not surprisingly, these concerns have led to a shift in the research of the OLP from an emphasis on the powers of the different EU institutions to early agreements and their consequences for democratic legitimacy. Our careful review of the EU institutions’ own rules and practices governing trilogue negotiations shows that the rules and procedures for the conduct of negotiations have been adapted significantly over time. While there is a continued need for the EU to keep enforcing openness in its procedures, OLP interinstitutional bargaining does not operate in a rule-free environment. Yet most democratic scrutiny has been directed at the internal decision-making processes in the EP rather than at maximizing openness on the Council side or with respect to input from interest groups in the negotiation processes.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING TO THE RULE OF LAW

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 630-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Sales
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Political Will ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Formal Rule ◽  
Important Position ◽  
Law Making

AbstractDrafters of legislation occupy an important position of constitutional significance, involving the translation of political will into legal form. They help clarify and refine the instructions from politicians and create statutory schemes which are internally coherent and have external coherence with wider legal and constitutional values. They begin the process of disciplining and refining political will through application of constitutional reason, which is then continued at the stage of interpretation of statutes by the courts. Drafters of legislation thus contribute to the formal rule of law values of predictability and certainty and also to more substantive values of fairness and respect for constitutional principles and rights. The better the drafting of legislation, the smoother the integration of democracy and the rule of law and the less need there is for interstitial law-making by judges in the interpretive exercise.

strategi dalam pengambilan keputusan

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suci Handayani Handayani ◽  
Hade Afriansyah
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Imperfect Information ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Administrative Process ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Information Time ◽  
Complex Matter ◽  
General Individuals

Decision making is one element of economic value, especially in the era of globalization, and if it is not acceptable in the decision making process, we will be left behind. According to Robins, (2003: 173), Salusu, (2000: 47), and Razik and Swanson, (1995: 476) say that decision making can be interpreted as a process of choosing a number of alternatives, how to act in accordance with concepts, or rules in solving problems to achieve individual or group goals that have been formulated using a number of specific techniques, approaches and methods and achieve optimal levels of acceptance.Decision making in organizations whether a decision is made for a person or group, the nature of the decision is often determined by rules, policies, prescribed, instructions that have been derived or practices that apply. To understand decision making within the organization it is useful to view decision making as part of the overall administrative process. In general, individuals tend to use simple strategies, even if in any complex matter, to get the desired solution, because the solution is limited by imperfect information, time and costs, limited thinking and psychological stress experienced by decision makers.

Bayesian Decision-Making Based Recommendation Trust Revision Model in Ad Hoc Networks

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 2574-2586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Xing SUN ◽  
Song-Hua HUANG ◽  
Li-Jun CHEN ◽  
Li XIE
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ad Hoc Networks ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Hoc Networks ◽  
Bayesian Decision Making
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document