Cartel Cases and the Cartel Enforcement Process in the European Union 2001 2015: A Quantitative Assessment

Abstract

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. CARTEL CASES AND AbstractWe provide a comprehensive quantitative assessment of cartels and the related cartel enforcement process in the European Union (EU) from 2001 to 2015. In a first step, we present a detailed characterization of all cartel cases decided by the European Commission (EC) with respect to various criteria such as the number of involved firm groups, cartel market shares and market share asymmetries, involved industries, affected countries, types of infringement, types of cartel breakdown as well as cartel duration. In a second step, we complement this cartel-based analysis with a quantitative assessment of the public cartel enforcement process in the European Union -subdivided further into its duration, types of cartel detection, the leniency program, the settlement procedure, overall fines imposed, and the conclusive appeals process with the General Court (GC) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). JEL Class K21, L41

Minority Share Acquisitions and Collusion: Evidence from the Introduction of National Leniency Programs

“…Column (8) shows that the effect is present only in the year in which the LP is introduced, but not in subsequent years. The finding that the introduction of an LP encourages acquisitions of stakes in large rivals is consistent with Hellwig and Hüschelrath (2016), who find that large firms are often involved in cartel activity, and with Hoang et al (2014), who find that large cartel members are most likely to become the chief witness under an LP. Unfortunately, we do not observe the size of the acquirers and therefore cannot investigate whether the introduction of LP also affects the acquirer's size.…”