Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Aug 2009 09:55 UTC
Earlier this year, the European Commission slammed Intel with a massive fine, penalising the chip maker for its anticompetitive practices. A report by the European Union's ombudsman has now criticised the EC for its conduct, as the EC did not perform proper record keeping, leading to the loss of some evidence. It won't turn the tide for Intel, but it does raise an important question: how fair are these EC antitrust proceedings?
Thread beginning with comment 377744
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
I keep wondering and wondering what crap people write about the EU without taking any effort in taking a looking at how the antitrust enforcement works
Thank you for this informative outline of the formal procedures. This was much needed, as certain posters to OSNews have been strongly implying, of late, that the companies under investigation have no chance to defend themselves. What is particularly disappointing to me, as someone who has harbored respect for them, is that I know these people to be otherwise well informed enough that it is very hard for me to interpret their recent posts as being in good faith. Rather, it is painfully clear that their attempts have been to deceive.
Your clear outline of the procedures laid down is most timely, helpful, and constructive.
Member since:2005-06-29
Please tell me if that is not sufficient to protect the rights of a company like Intel.
First and foremost, let me state that I'm in agreement with the fact that Microsoft and Intel have been fined. There's no doubt about the validity of those fines for me. However, what irks me, is the way we get there.
The EC is the judge, executioner, and collector. There is no possible way to justify this in any modern, Western nation. This time, we all more or less agree with the fines - but what if we did not? What if you were the accused, and were facing a administrative process where the judge, executioner, and collector were one and the same person? Would you accept that?
Sure, you can send in your complaints - but those complaints get handled by the same party that is accusing you! So, you can drag it on to court after having been fined - does that undo the damage done? Again, in this case Intel and Microsoft are probably indeed guilty - but what if they weren't? The damage to their image would've been done.
It's simply medieval. Like in any other case where laws might have been breached, it should be handled in a proper court of law, with an independent judge. Every other person and company in the EU has the right to a fair trial, and there is no reason whatsoever why monopoly abuse should somehow be handled differently for weird, magical reasons.
Edited 2009-08-08 20:58 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
What if you were the accused, and were facing a administrative process where the judge, executioner, and collector were one and the same person? Would you accept that?
This happens everytime I drive too fast. No court to defend myself, just an administrative sanction only. I can still go to court if I disagree with the fine. And I don't think I have much choice not accepting the system, this is how the system works.
Administrative enforcement happens everywhere in our society. In fact, the NMA in the Netherlands works the same way as the DG Competition. And think of the FIOD, the Keuringsdienst van Waren, the Autoriteit Financiële Markten, the OPTA, ... They all work outside the courts, and with all of them you can appeal their decisions.
It's perfectly normal what happens here, I don't think there is any civilized country where sanctions can only be imposed by courts, the legal system would get flooded by repetitive cases. As soon as the work becomes specialized or repetitive you will find a country will move the enforcement of that task outside the courts.
Edited 2009-08-08 21:19 UTC
Member since:2005-07-24
The EC is the judge, executioner, and collector.
Could you please clarify why you think that appealing in the European Court of First Instance, as Intel has done, is not sufficient due process?
A fine is levied against a company and they get to appeal it in court. I don't see what is "medieval" about that.
They even get about 2 years respite from paying the fine, simply by filing their appeal.
Member since:2009-08-08
It's simply medieval.
The European Union is quite young, and i am sure there are many areas that need improvements over time.
Even though this is an out of court proceeding, there is independant overseeing, if the findings are not to the likings of the accused, they may take it up in the European courts first instance.
So don't call it medieval and try to make it sound like an unfair situation for corporations, look at the entire chain, this is just the first part of it...
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
I keep wondering and wondering what crap people write about the EU without taking any effort in taking a looking at how the antitrust enforcement works
The argument that no defense is possible is utter nonsense. If the DG Competition finds a company in violating the rules of the internal market, it will send a "Statement of objections".
The company in question has to respond to this. If you think the DG Competition gets it wrong you have full posibilities to explain why. Address the objections and you get will away without fines in many cases. Remember the DG Competition does fine to punish, it fines to change behaviour.
True, the competition enforcement agency is not a court. It does not need to be either, I doubt that there is an EU member state that doesn't have an out-of-court competition enforcement agency.
If the company thinks the DG Competition sees it all wrong, then it can still have the court case. Not only that, like any court case, appeal is possible. So there are two opportunities to object to a ruling.
But: There is more. Like for any EU institution, the EU Ombudsman monitors if the DG Competition does it work correctly. So, there is a additional way a company can defend itself if DG Competition sees it all wrong.
Please tell me if that is not sufficient to protect the rights of a company like Intel.
Edited 2009-08-08 14:57 UTC