A presente dissertação abarcará cinco temas bastante específicos: a defesa da concorrência, a defesa do consumidor, a prática do cartel, as formas consensuais de seu combate e investigação e o bem-estar do consumidor. No Brasil, verifica-se que, tanto a defesa da concorrência como a do consumidor se unem por um objetivo comum: o bem-estar do consumidor. Por isso, práticas tidas como ofensivas à ordem econômica podem desencadear danos graves aos consumidores, sendo um relevante exemplo disto a formação de cartéis, especialmente os relacionados à alteração artificial de preços. Dentre as práticas abusivas previstas no CDC, foi lançada elevação de preços sem justa causa, o que torna possível que a prática do cartel ou, ao menos, os seus efeitos sobre o preço, possam vir a ser reprimidos por ambas as esferas. Nesse sentido, buscou-se analisar os institutos consensuais de combate aos cartéis previstos na lei de concorrência: o “compromisso de cessação de conduta” e o “programa de leniência”, assim como seus possíveis efeitos benéficos sobre os consumidores. Desta feita, a presente dissertação visou a responder aos seguintes problemas de pesquisa: (i) qual o arcabouço jurídico-institucional à disposição da defesa do consumidor e da concorrência? (ii) qual o liame entre estas duas esferas? (iii) o que é “cartel” e de que forma ele atinge os consumidores (iv) o que são o “compromisso de cessação de conduta” e o “programa de leniência” e qual a sua utilidade ao combate dos cartéis? A conclusão obtida é que a defesa da concorrência e a do consumidor possuem um objetivo comum, o bem-estar do consumidor, a primeira de forma mediata e a segunda, imediata. Ademais, verificou-se o “cartel” como uma conduta altamente agressiva à livre concorrência e aos interesses dos consumidores, sendo possível que seus efeitos, de forma indireta, sejam penalizados pelo CDC. Finalmente, verificou-se a grande utilidade das formas consensuais – “compromisso de cessação de conduta” e “programa de leniência” – não apenas ao combate aos cartéis quanto à imediata cessação de seus efeitos, mas também como grande ferramenta de prova de sua ocorrência e garantia do bem-estar dos consumidores. / The presente dissetation involves five very specific issues: antitrust, consumer protection, cartels, consensual forms of its combat and investigation and consumer welfare. In Brazil, it is found that both the defense of competition as the consumer defense are united by a common goal: consumer welfare. Therefore, practices seen as offensive to the economic order can trigger serious harm to consumers, being a relevant example the cartel formation, especially those related to artificial price change. Among the abusive practices set out in Brazilian Consumer Defese Code (CDC), it was registered the prices raise without just cause, which makes it possible that the cartel, or at least its effects on the price, may be suppressed by both spheres. Therefore, it sought to analyze the consensual institutes of cartel’s combat and investigation under competition law: the "Conduct Consent Decree" and "Leniency Program", as well as their possible beneficial effects on consumers. Thereby, this dissertation aimed to answer the following research problems: (i) what is the legal and institutional framework available to the consumer’s and competition’s protection? (ii) what is the link between these two spheres? (iii) what is "cartel" and how it affects consumers? (iv) what are the "Conduct Consent Decree" and "Leniency Program" and what is its usefulness to cartel’s combat? The reached conclusion is that the defense of competition and the defense of consumer have a common purpose, consumer welfare, the first in a mediate way and the second immediately. In addition, the "cartel" was established as a highly aggressive approach to free competition and to the interests of consumers, being possible that their effects, indirectly, be penalized by the CDC. - "Conduct Consent Decree" and "Leniency Program" - not only to fight against cartels to the immediate cessation of its effects, but also as a great proof tool of its occurrence and assurance of the well-being of consumers.

Protection of business competition - agreements interfering with competition Agreements interfering with competition are a significant threat to proper functioning of the competition. Leniency programmes are a powerful tool for the purpose of detection and termination of cartels. This thesis focuses mainly on the regulation contained in the Czech national law. The Community law can not be ignored though as the national law is closely connected therewith. The first part of this thesis contains mainly a basic definition of agreements interfering with competition, their division according to their content as well as division to horizontal and vertical agreements which is important to assess agreements with an insignificant impact on the competition. When assessing the influence of an agreement it is also necessary to take legal and block exemptions into account. The most important cartel assessed by the Office for the Protection of Competition so far is an agreement on the gas insulated switchgear market. For this agreement having a form of bid rigging the Office imposed the highest fine in its history. But this case also demonstrates a frequent problem of significant delays in the court proceedings, which are often initiated by legal actions of undertakings against decisions of the Office for the...

<p>According to the Leniency programme that was implemented in Sweden in 2002, a company participating in a cartel can escape administrative fines if it exposes the cartel to the Swedish Competition Authority and cooperates with the Authority during its investigation. Whether cartels should be criminalized, or not, has been debated in the Swedish Parliament in recent years. If cartels are turned into a felony, the leaders of the companies involved risk being held personally responsible.</p><p>This essay discusses how the incitements for unveiling cartels take form, drawing on game-theoretical models. The essay, in addition, analyses how the incitement-structure would change if cartels would become a felony, compared to the current legislation, in the form of the Leniency programme.</p><p>The conclusions that the author arrives at are that the incitements to expose cartels would increase if fines were to increase. The incitements would furthermore increase if the company feared that someone within the organization could expose the cartel to the Competition Authority. Turning cartels into a felony would on the contrary decrease the incitements for unveiling the cartel. The key task for the Competition Authority, as regards to cartels, should hence be to create uncertainty for firms participating in cartels and increase the security of employees if and when exposing their employer as a participant in a cartel.</p> / <p>År 2002 skrevs Leniencyprogrammen in i svensk konkurrenslagstiftning. Ett företag som ingår i ett kartellsamarbete kan i enlighet med programmen undslippa konkurrensskadeavgift ifall företaget avslöjar kartellen och samarbetar med konkurrensverket. Under senare år har en debatt kring huruvida karteller bör kriminaliseras eller inte förts i Riksdagen. En kriminalisering skulle innebära personligt straffansvar för bland annat företagsledare.</p><p>Uppsatsens syfte är att med spelteoretiska modeller och resonemang kartlägga och analysera hur incitamentsstrukturen för avslöjandet av karteller kan tänkas se ut. Vidare syftar uppsatsen till att föra en diskussion kring hur incitamentsstrukturen kan tänkas förändras om nuvarande lagstiftning ändras till att medföra en kriminalisering av karteller.</p><p>Slutsatser som kan dras av uppsatsens analys är att incitamenten för avslöjande med nuvarande lagstiftning skulle öka om konkurrensskadeavgifterna höjs. En kriminalisering skulle minska incitamenten för avslöjande, jämfört med nuvarande lagstiftning. Incitamenten för företagen att avslöja karteller ökar om företagen befarar att någon inom organisationen har för avsikt att avslöja kartellen till konkurrensverket. Konkurrensverkets viktigaste uppgift vad gäller kartellbekämpning torde därmed bli att skapa osäkerheter för företagen på flera områden för att öka misstron mellan aktörerna samt att arbeta för att öka anställdas incitament att avslöja sin arbetsgivares inblandning i kartellsamarbeten.</p>

According to the Leniency programme that was implemented in Sweden in 2002, a company participating in a cartel can escape administrative fines if it exposes the cartel to the Swedish Competition Authority and cooperates with the Authority during its investigation. Whether cartels should be criminalized, or not, has been debated in the Swedish Parliament in recent years. If cartels are turned into a felony, the leaders of the companies involved risk being held personally responsible. This essay discusses how the incitements for unveiling cartels take form, drawing on game-theoretical models. The essay, in addition, analyses how the incitement-structure would change if cartels would become a felony, compared to the current legislation, in the form of the Leniency programme. The conclusions that the author arrives at are that the incitements to expose cartels would increase if fines were to increase. The incitements would furthermore increase if the company feared that someone within the organization could expose the cartel to the Competition Authority. Turning cartels into a felony would on the contrary decrease the incitements for unveiling the cartel. The key task for the Competition Authority, as regards to cartels, should hence be to create uncertainty for firms participating in cartels and increase the security of employees if and when exposing their employer as a participant in a cartel. / År 2002 skrevs Leniencyprogrammen in i svensk konkurrenslagstiftning. Ett företag som ingår i ett kartellsamarbete kan i enlighet med programmen undslippa konkurrensskadeavgift ifall företaget avslöjar kartellen och samarbetar med konkurrensverket. Under senare år har en debatt kring huruvida karteller bör kriminaliseras eller inte förts i Riksdagen. En kriminalisering skulle innebära personligt straffansvar för bland annat företagsledare. Uppsatsens syfte är att med spelteoretiska modeller och resonemang kartlägga och analysera hur incitamentsstrukturen för avslöjandet av karteller kan tänkas se ut. Vidare syftar uppsatsen till att föra en diskussion kring hur incitamentsstrukturen kan tänkas förändras om nuvarande lagstiftning ändras till att medföra en kriminalisering av karteller. Slutsatser som kan dras av uppsatsens analys är att incitamenten för avslöjande med nuvarande lagstiftning skulle öka om konkurrensskadeavgifterna höjs. En kriminalisering skulle minska incitamenten för avslöjande, jämfört med nuvarande lagstiftning. Incitamenten för företagen att avslöja karteller ökar om företagen befarar att någon inom organisationen har för avsikt att avslöja kartellen till konkurrensverket. Konkurrensverkets viktigaste uppgift vad gäller kartellbekämpning torde därmed bli att skapa osäkerheter för företagen på flera områden för att öka misstron mellan aktörerna samt att arbeta för att öka anställdas incitament att avslöja sin arbetsgivares inblandning i kartellsamarbeten.

Det svenska samhället och dess konkurrenslagstiftning bygger på principer om frihandel och perfekt konkurrens där monopol i princip är förbjudna. Tanken bakom detta är att konkurrens är något bra som leder till välfungerande marknader. Den rivalitet som uppstår mellan företag som konkurrerar med varandra föder ett större utbud för konsumenterna med varor och tjänster till bättre kvalité och lägre priser än om konkurrensen inte funnits. Samhällskollektivet som helhet vinner också på konkurrens då det bl a möjliggör nya innovationer, forskning och utveckling, högre sysselsättning och en starkare internationell ställning i världshandeln – något som främjar samhällsekonomin. För att konkurrensen ska fungera på ett bra sätt måste marknadens aktörer hålla sig till samma spelregler. Dessa spelregler återfinns i konkurrenslagen. Lagen innehåller två centrala förbudsbestämmelser varav en förbjuder konkurrensbegränsande samarbeten d v s karteller. Karteller stör konkurrensen på marknaden, något lagstiftaren och samhället ser mycket allvarligt på. Bryter ett företag mot förbudet kan det åläggas att betala konkurrensskadeavgift till staten, en slags böter som kan uppgå till mycket stora belopp. Konkurrensskadeavgifterna ska verka avskräckande och på så sätt motverka kartellbildning. Som ett komplement till detta finns det också inom konkurrensrätten utrymme för eftergift och nedsättning av konkurrensskadeavgifter för de företag som avslöjar en kartell som de medverkar i. Denna uppsats frågar sig vad syftet och tanken bakom detta eftergiftsprogram är då benådning är en aning främmande i den svenska rättsordningen samt om det finns andra åtgärder för att avskräcka företag från att bilda karteller.   Tanken bakom det svenska eftergiftsprogrammet är att det ska motverka företag från att medverka i karteller då incitamenten för alla deltagande parter att avslöja det förbjudna samarbetet och komma undan utan böter är påtagligt stor. Att delta i en kartell är förbjudet och osäkerheten i vilka man kan och inte kan lita på i ett förbjudet samarbete är något som bör få en part som överväger att ingå i ett sådant samarbete att tänka till igen. Vidare ska konkurrensmyndighetens arbete med att utreda kartellsamarbeten underlättas med hjälp av eftergiftsprogrammet, något det sannolikt också gör. Men, genom att snegla på länder som USA och Kanada från vilka inspirationen till eftergift i huvudsak kommer, skulle det även kunna finnas andra åtgärder att tillgripa i jakten på karteller.

Karteliai yra slapti konkurentų susitarimai, kuriais koordinuojamos ar nustatomos kainos, ribojama pasiūla, gamybos apimtys, dalinamasi rinkomis ar vartotojais, sumažinama prekių kokybė ar jų pasirinkimas, todėl yra pripažįstami vienais iš rimčiausių konkurencijos pažeidimų. Susitarimai dėl kartelių yra slapti, gerai koordinuoti, o jų dalyviai, vengdami griežtos atsakomybės ir prisidengdami slapyvardžiais, susitikimus organizuoja užsienio kurortuose. Vis dažniau sudaromi tarptautiniai karteliai, kuriais nustatomos kainos, ribojama pasiūla pasauliniu mastu. Tai apsunkina kartelių atskleidimą bei konkurencinės teisės įgyvendinimą, todėl reikalingas specialus mechanizmas, ardantis ir užkertantis kelią kartelių egzistavimui. 1978 m. pirmąkart atleidimo nuo bausmių programą pritaikė JAV Konkurencijos skyrius. 1996 m. Komisija paskelbė pranešimą, kuris numatė, jog kartelio dalyviui, kuris bendradarbiaus kartelio tyrimo metu, gali būti nepaskirta arba sumažinta bauda. Nuo 2006 m. gruodžio mėn. 8 d. taikoma jau trečioji atleidimo nuo baudų ir baudų sumažinimo kartelių bylose programa. Šis magistro darbas analizuoja atleidimo nuo bausmių programų įgyvendinimo efektyvumo prielaidas: griežtos atsakomybės, kartelių kriminalizavimo, kartelių demaskavimo rizikos, programų sąlygų aiškumo bei lankstumo, harmonizavimo įtaka. Taip pat atskleidžiama viešo ir privataus konkurencijos teisės įgyvendinimo reikšmė sėkmingam atleidimo nuo bausmių programų taikymui. JAV ir EB bendradarbiavimo aspektai... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Cartels are agreements or concerted practices between two or more competitors aimed at coordinating their competitive behaviour on the market or influencing the relevant parameters of competition through practices such as the fixing of purchase or selling prices or other trading conditions, the allocation of production or sales quotas, the sharing of markets including bid – rigging, restrictions of imports or exports or anti-competitive actions against other competitors. Such practices are among the most serious violations of Article 81 EC. The amount of international cartels is constantly growing. The members of cartels create sophisticated schemes, hold meetings in hotels and use pre-paid phone – cards. All these facts makes the investigation of cartel complicated. Therefore, there is a trong need to have a special programme able to combat illegal agreements. The original version of the U.S. Corporate Leniency programme traces back to 1978. In 1996 Commission announced Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases. Since the 8 th of December 2006 the new Notice replaced the 2002 Leniency Notice in which no undertaking has contacted the Commission in order to take advantage of the favourable treatment set out in the previous Notice. These master thesis analyses the key features that determine the effective enforcement of leniency programme: the importance of strict sanctions, criminal penalties for cartels, clarity and flexibility, harmonisation of... [to full text]

A presente dissertação abarcará cinco temas bastante específicos: a defesa da concorrência, a defesa do consumidor, a prática do cartel, as formas consensuais de seu combate e investigação e o bem-estar do consumidor. No Brasil, verifica-se que, tanto a defesa da concorrência como a do consumidor se unem por um objetivo comum: o bem-estar do consumidor. Por isso, práticas tidas como ofensivas à ordem econômica podem desencadear danos graves aos consumidores, sendo um relevante exemplo disto a formação de cartéis, especialmente os relacionados à alteração artificial de preços. Dentre as práticas abusivas previstas no CDC, foi lançada elevação de preços sem justa causa, o que torna possível que a prática do cartel ou, ao menos, os seus efeitos sobre o preço, possam vir a ser reprimidos por ambas as esferas. Nesse sentido, buscou-se analisar os institutos consensuais de combate aos cartéis previstos na lei de concorrência: o “compromisso de cessação de conduta” e o “programa de leniência”, assim como seus possíveis efeitos benéficos sobre os consumidores. Desta feita, a presente dissertação visou a responder aos seguintes problemas de pesquisa: (i) qual o arcabouço jurídico-institucional à disposição da defesa do consumidor e da concorrência? (ii) qual o liame entre estas duas esferas? (iii) o que é “cartel” e de que forma ele atinge os consumidores (iv) o que são o “compromisso de cessação de conduta” e o “programa de leniência” e qual a sua utilidade ao combate dos cartéis? A conclusão obtida é que a defesa da concorrência e a do consumidor possuem um objetivo comum, o bem-estar do consumidor, a primeira de forma mediata e a segunda, imediata. Ademais, verificou-se o “cartel” como uma conduta altamente agressiva à livre concorrência e aos interesses dos consumidores, sendo possível que seus efeitos, de forma indireta, sejam penalizados pelo CDC. Finalmente, verificou-se a grande utilidade das formas consensuais – “compromisso de cessação de conduta” e “programa de leniência” – não apenas ao combate aos cartéis quanto à imediata cessação de seus efeitos, mas também como grande ferramenta de prova de sua ocorrência e garantia do bem-estar dos consumidores. / The presente dissetation involves five very specific issues: antitrust, consumer protection, cartels, consensual forms of its combat and investigation and consumer welfare. In Brazil, it is found that both the defense of competition as the consumer defense are united by a common goal: consumer welfare. Therefore, practices seen as offensive to the economic order can trigger serious harm to consumers, being a relevant example the cartel formation, especially those related to artificial price change. Among the abusive practices set out in Brazilian Consumer Defese Code (CDC), it was registered the prices raise without just cause, which makes it possible that the cartel, or at least its effects on the price, may be suppressed by both spheres. Therefore, it sought to analyze the consensual institutes of cartel’s combat and investigation under competition law: the "Conduct Consent Decree" and "Leniency Program", as well as their possible beneficial effects on consumers. Thereby, this dissertation aimed to answer the following research problems: (i) what is the legal and institutional framework available to the consumer’s and competition’s protection? (ii) what is the link between these two spheres? (iii) what is "cartel" and how it affects consumers? (iv) what are the "Conduct Consent Decree" and "Leniency Program" and what is its usefulness to cartel’s combat? The reached conclusion is that the defense of competition and the defense of consumer have a common purpose, consumer welfare, the first in a mediate way and the second immediately. In addition, the "cartel" was established as a highly aggressive approach to free competition and to the interests of consumers, being possible that their effects, indirectly, be penalized by the CDC. - "Conduct Consent Decree" and "Leniency Program" - not only to fight against cartels to the immediate cessation of its effects, but also as a great proof tool of its occurrence and assurance of the well-being of consumers.

A presente dissertação abarcará cinco temas bastante específicos: a defesa da concorrência, a defesa do consumidor, a prática do cartel, as formas consensuais de seu combate e investigação e o bem-estar do consumidor. No Brasil, verifica-se que, tanto a defesa da concorrência como a do consumidor se unem por um objetivo comum: o bem-estar do consumidor. Por isso, práticas tidas como ofensivas à ordem econômica podem desencadear danos graves aos consumidores, sendo um relevante exemplo disto a formação de cartéis, especialmente os relacionados à alteração artificial de preços. Dentre as práticas abusivas previstas no CDC, foi lançada elevação de preços sem justa causa, o que torna possível que a prática do cartel ou, ao menos, os seus efeitos sobre o preço, possam vir a ser reprimidos por ambas as esferas. Nesse sentido, buscou-se analisar os institutos consensuais de combate aos cartéis previstos na lei de concorrência: o “compromisso de cessação de conduta” e o “programa de leniência”, assim como seus possíveis efeitos benéficos sobre os consumidores. Desta feita, a presente dissertação visou a responder aos seguintes problemas de pesquisa: (i) qual o arcabouço jurídico-institucional à disposição da defesa do consumidor e da concorrência? (ii) qual o liame entre estas duas esferas? (iii) o que é “cartel” e de que forma ele atinge os consumidores (iv) o que são o “compromisso de cessação de conduta” e o “programa de leniência” e qual a sua utilidade ao combate dos cartéis? A conclusão obtida é que a defesa da concorrência e a do consumidor possuem um objetivo comum, o bem-estar do consumidor, a primeira de forma mediata e a segunda, imediata. Ademais, verificou-se o “cartel” como uma conduta altamente agressiva à livre concorrência e aos interesses dos consumidores, sendo possível que seus efeitos, de forma indireta, sejam penalizados pelo CDC. Finalmente, verificou-se a grande utilidade das formas consensuais – “compromisso de cessação de conduta” e “programa de leniência” – não apenas ao combate aos cartéis quanto à imediata cessação de seus efeitos, mas também como grande ferramenta de prova de sua ocorrência e garantia do bem-estar dos consumidores. / The presente dissetation involves five very specific issues: antitrust, consumer protection, cartels, consensual forms of its combat and investigation and consumer welfare. In Brazil, it is found that both the defense of competition as the consumer defense are united by a common goal: consumer welfare. Therefore, practices seen as offensive to the economic order can trigger serious harm to consumers, being a relevant example the cartel formation, especially those related to artificial price change. Among the abusive practices set out in Brazilian Consumer Defese Code (CDC), it was registered the prices raise without just cause, which makes it possible that the cartel, or at least its effects on the price, may be suppressed by both spheres. Therefore, it sought to analyze the consensual institutes of cartel’s combat and investigation under competition law: the "Conduct Consent Decree" and "Leniency Program", as well as their possible beneficial effects on consumers. Thereby, this dissertation aimed to answer the following research problems: (i) what is the legal and institutional framework available to the consumer’s and competition’s protection? (ii) what is the link between these two spheres? (iii) what is "cartel" and how it affects consumers? (iv) what are the "Conduct Consent Decree" and "Leniency Program" and what is its usefulness to cartel’s combat? The reached conclusion is that the defense of competition and the defense of consumer have a common purpose, consumer welfare, the first in a mediate way and the second immediately. In addition, the "cartel" was established as a highly aggressive approach to free competition and to the interests of consumers, being possible that their effects, indirectly, be penalized by the CDC. - "Conduct Consent Decree" and "Leniency Program" - not only to fight against cartels to the immediate cessation of its effects, but also as a great proof tool of its occurrence and assurance of the well-being of consumers.

Leniency programmes and private enforcement of cartel law The available data suggests that there is an indisputable correlation between the declining attractivity of the leniency programme of the European Commission on the one hand, and the recent boom of private enforcement of cartel law on the other. It seems that in the past few years companies have become demotivated to submit leniency applications, which leads to a lower level of cartel detection and ultimately results in the weakening of both the public and private pillars of cartel law enforcement. This thesis focuses on areas that have not yet been sufficiently clarified by legislation and case-law and that are - when it comes to follow-on proceedings dealing with damages claims, held before national courts - associated with substantial risks for potential leniency applicants: (i) establishing of jurisdiction of national courts in the proceedings on claims for damages caused by anticompetitive conduct, (ii) protection of confidential information within the framework of hybrid settlements with the European Commission and in the proceedings before national courts, (iii) interpretation and application of presumptions of the existence and amount of harm caused by anticompetitive conduct and (iv) determination of the amount of harm caused by...

This research clarified existing inconsistencies in self-assessment literature, and added to the body of knowledge for rating effectiveness of organizational assessments by defining relationships among rating effectiveness criteria (ratee, rater, rating scale, rating process) and measures (interrater reliability, halo error, leniency and severity, range restriction) based on extensive literature review. A research framework was developed from this review, and was employed in computing rating effectiveness measures at the individual (i.e., examiner or eight rating scale dimensions) and sector (e.g., Private Manufacturing Sector, Private Service Sector, Public Local Sector, Public State & Federal Sector) levels for a State Quality Award (SQA) using data from the 1998 applications. Interrater reliability (measured by intraclass correlations for each rating scale dimension) was low to moderate, and differed by dimension. Halo error (measured by the determinant of the dimension intercorrelation matrices for each examiner) was present for all examiners. Leniency and severity (measured by presence of statistically significant Rater main effect for each dimension) was present for 11 of 32 cases, and differed by dimension. Range restriction (measured by variance analysis for each dimension) was present for 22 of 32 cases, and differed by dimension. A post-hoc principle component analysis indicated poor internal reliability for the rating scale. To improve, the SQA should replace the existing rating scale and provide in-depth training on all elements of the rating process. The importance of the SQA using boxplots, histograms, and rating effectiveness measures to make fully informed decisions was discussed. / Master of Science