European Competition Law Annual 2004 The Relationship Between Competition Law and the Liberal Professions European Competition Law Annual

(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page i

EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAW ANNUAL 2004:
The Relationship Between Competition Law and the (Liberal) Professions


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page ii


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page iii

EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAW ANNUAL:
2004

The Relationship Between Competition Law and
the (Liberal) Professions

Edited by

Claus-Dieter Ehlermann
and

Isabela Atanasiu

OXFORD – PORTLAND OREGON
2006


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page iv

Published in North America (US and Canada) by
Hart Publishing
c/o International Specialized Book Services
920 NE 58th Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97213-3786
USA
Tel: +1 503 287 3093 or toll-free: (1) 800 944 6190
Fax: +1 503 280 8832

E-mail:
Web Site: www.isbs.com
© The contributors and editors severally, 2006
The Editors and Contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any mean, without the prior permission of Hart Publishing,
or as expressly permitted by law or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographic
rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction which may not be covered by the above
should be addressed to Hart Publishing at the address below.

Hart Publishing, Salters Boatyard, Folly Bridge, Abingdon Rd, Oxford, OX1 4LB Telephone:
+44 (0)1865 245533 Fax: +44 (0) 1865 794882
email:
WEBSITE: http//:www.hartpub.co.uk

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data Available

ISBN 13: 978-1-84113-612-7 (hardback)
ISBN 10: 1-84113-612-3
Typeset by Hope Services Ltd, (Abingdon), Oxon
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
Biddles Ltd, Kings Lynn, Norfolk


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page v

PERMANENT SPONSORS OF THE
A N N UA L E U I C O M P E T I T I O N
WORKSHOPS

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Contact: Calvin S. Goldman, QC
Commerce Court West
199 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M5L 1A9
Tel: 416 863 22 80
Fax: 416 863 26 53
E-mail:
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
Contact: Prof. Mario Siragusa
Rome Office
Piazza di Spagna 15
I-00187 Rome
Tel: (06) 695 221
Fax: (06) 692 00 665
E-mail:
Hengeler, Müller, Weitzel, Wirtz
Contact: Jochen Burrichter
Trinkausstrasse 7
D-40213 Düsseldorf

Germany
Fax: 00 49 211 83 04 222
E-mail:
Howrey Simon Arnold & White
Contact: James Rill Esq.
1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: (001 202) 383 65 62
E-mail:
Fax: (001 202) 383 66 10


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

vi

16/5/06

15:32

Page vi

Permanent Sponsors of the Annual EUI Competition Workshops

Martinez Lage & Asociados
Contact: Santiago Martínez Lage
Claudio Coello 37—28001 Madrid
Tel (34) 91 426 44 70 –
Fax (34) 91 577 37 74
E-mail:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom L.L.P.
Contact: Prof. Barry Hawk
Brussels Office
523 Avenue Louise
B-1050 Brussels
Tel: (32 2) 639 03 00
Fax: (32 2) 639 03 39
E-mail:
White & Case/Forrester Norral & Sutton
Contact: Prof. Ian Forrester
Brussels Office
62, rue de la Loi
B-1040 Brussels
Tel: (32 2) 219 16 20
Fax: (32 2) 219 16 26
E-mail:
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Contact: John Ratliff
Bastion Tower
Place du Champ de Mars/Marsveldplein 5
B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (32 2) 285 49 08
Fax: (32 2) 285 49 49
E-mail:


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page vii

CONTENTS

List of Sponsors
Table of Cases
INTRODUCTION

v
ix
xix

PANEL ONE: ECONOMIC ASPECTS

1

PANEL DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT BY MARIO MONTI
DISCUSSION

3

Working Papers:
I Benito Arruñada: Managing Competition in Professional
Services and the Burden of Inertia
II Amelia Fletcher: The Liberal Professions—Getting the
Regulatory Balance Right

III Marc Hameleers, Jeroen van den Heuvel Rijnders and
Sander Baljé: Towards a Smarter Protection of Public Interests
in the Liberal Professions
IV Harald Herrmann: Antitrust Law Compliance and Professional
Governance: How Can the European Commission Trigger
Competitive Self-regulation?
V Frédéric Jenny: Regulation, Competition and the Professions
VI Frank H Stephen: The Market Failure Justification for the
Regulation of Professional Service Markets and the
Characteristics of Consumers
VII Roger van den Bergh: Towards Efficient Self-regulation in
Markets for Professional Services

49
51
73

85

101
131

143
155

PANEL TWO: LEGAL ISSUES

177

PANEL DISCUSSION

179

Working Papers:
I Pamela Brumter Coret: Freedom of Establishment and Freedom
to Provide Services for Regulated Professions in the Internal
Market: New Initiatives by the Commission
II John D Cooke: Vocation as Commodity

217

219
229


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page viii

viii Contents
III

Harry First: Liberal or Learned? European and US Antitrust
Approaches to the Professions
IV Ian S Forrester: Where Law Meets Competition: Is Wouters
Like a Cassis de Dijon or A Platypus?

V
Hans Gilliams: Competition Law and Public Interest: Do We
Need to Change the Law for the (Liberal) Professions?
VI Calvin S Goldman and Benjamin R Little: The Regulated
Conduct Defence in Canada
VII Luc Gyselen: Anti-competitive State Action in the Area of
Liberal Professions: An EU/US Comparative Law Perspective
VIII William Kolasky: Antitrust and the Liberal Professions:
The US Experience
IX Santiago Martínez Lage and Rafael Allendesalazar Corcho:
Professions and Competition in Spain: A Long and Winding
Road
X Assimakis P Komninos: Resolution of Conflicts in the
Integrated Article 81 EC

239
271
295
335
353
397

409
451

PANEL THREE: INSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL ISSUES

473

PANEL DISCUSSION

475

Working Papers

515

I
II
III

IV

V

Lowri Evans, Maija Laurila and Ruth Paserman: Professional
Services: Recent EU Developments and Work in Progress
Allan Fels: The Australian Experience Concerning Law and
the Professions
William E Kovacic: Competition Policy Research and
Development, Institutional Interdependency, and the Future
Work of Competition Agencies in the Professions
Mark C Schechter and Christine C Wilson: The Learned
Professions in the United States: Where Do We Stand Thirty
Years after Goldfarb?
Mario Siragusa: Critical Remarks on the Commission’s Legal
Analysis in its Report on Competition in Professional Services

Bibliography

517
529

547

555
583
591


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page ix

TABLE OF CASES

1.EC Courts:
Aalborg Portland A/S and Others v. Commission, Joined Cases
C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and
C-219/00 P [2004] ECR I-123 ................................................................. 313
Adoui v. Belgium and City of Liège, and Cornuaille v. Belgium (“Belgian
Barmaids”), Joined Cases 15 and 116/81, [1982] ECR 1665 .................... 291
Åklagaren v. Krister Hanner, Case C-438/02, judgment pending ... 10, 181, 271
Albany International v. Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie,
Brentjens’ Handelsonderneming v. Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de
Handel in Bouwmaterialen, and Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken v.

Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven, in Cases
C-67/96, C-115-117/97, and respectively C-219/97, [1999] ECR
I-6121 ................................................................................... 321–3, 469–70
AOK Bundesverband and Others v. Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes,
Hermani & Co., Mundipharma GmbH, Gödecke GmbH, Intersan,
Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH, Joined
Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01, [2004] ECR
I-2493 ............................................................................................ 299, 378
Asia Motor France v. Commission, Case T-154/98, [1999] ECR
II-703 ............................................................................................. 304,313
Autotrasporti Librandi, Case C-38/97 [1998] ECR I-5955 .......................... 305
Béguelin Import v. G.L. Import-Export, Case 22/71, [1971]
ECR 949 ............................................................................................... 393
BNIC v. Clair, Case 123/83, [1983] ECR 391 ....................... 302, 321, 365, 369,
370, 378, 380, 387
Bouchoucha, Case C-61/89, ECR I-3551 .................................................... 222
Brentjens’ Handelsonderneming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds
voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen, Joined Cases C-115/97 to
C-117/97, [1999] ECR I-6025 ................................................................. 470
Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr v. Gebrüder Reiff GmbH &
Co. KG, Case C-185/91, [1993] ECR I-5801 ........................................... 588
Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC) v. Aubert,
Case 136/86, [1987] ECR 4789 ............................................................... 362
Centro Servizi Spediporto, Case C-96/94, [1995] ECR I-2883 .............. 302, 588
Cipolla v. Fazari, Case 94/04, judgment pending ................................ 355, 373
CNSD v. Commission, Case T-513/93, [2000] ECR II-1807 ..... 295, 314–5, 355
Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española v. Administración
del Estado, Case C-405/01, [2003] ECR I10391 ...................................... 299

(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

x

16/5/06

15:32

Page x

Table of Cases

Commission and France v. Ladbroke Racing Ltd., Joined Cases
C-359/95 P and C-379/95 P [1997] ECR I-6265. ........................... 355, 375–6
Commission v. France, Case C-96/85, [1986] ECR 1475 ............................. 280
Commission v. Italy, Case 35/96, [1998] ECR I-3851
(CNSD) ...................................................... 243, 295, 331, 354, 366, 368–70,
372–3, 377, 382–3, 385, 388, 390, 392, 394–5, 588
Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v. Autorità Garante della
Concorrenza e del Mercato, Case C-198/01, [2004]
ECR I-8055 ........................................... 6, 8, 168, 188, 197, 239, 249, 251–2,
267, 305, 307, 312, 355, 373, 374–8, 380,
387–8, 394, 475, 495–6, 499–500, 504–5, 523, 588
Consten and Grundig v. Commission, Joined Cases 56 and 58/64,
[1966] ECR 449 .................................................................................... 357
Council of the City of Stoke on Trent and Norwich City Council v.
B and Q plc, Case C-169/91, [1992] ECR I-6635 ..................................... 288
Courage Ltd. v. Bernard Crehan, Case C-453/99, [2001] ECR I-6297 ......... 467
Criminal Proceedings against Harry Franzén, Case C-189/95, [1997]
ECR I-5909 ........................................................................................... 288

Criminal Proceedings against Ohra Schadeverzekeringen NV,
Case C-245/91, [1993] ECR I-5851 ....................................... 274, 366, 367–8
Criminal Proceedings against Wolf W. Meng, Case C-2/91, [1993]
ECR I-5751 .......................... 274, 301, 305–7, 311, 313, 315, 331, 366, 367–8
Cullet v. Leclerc, Case 231/83, ECR 305 ....................... 362–3, 364, 380–1, 390
Delta Schiffahrts- und Speditionsgesellschaft, Case C-153/93,
[1994] ECR I-2517 .................................................................. 302, 314, 588
Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen v. Gräbner, Case 294/00, [2002] ECR 6515 .... 326
Deutscher Apothekerverband eV v. 0800 DocMorris NV and Jacques
Waterval, Case C-322/01, [2003] ECR I-14886 ......................................... 68
Diego Calì & Figli, Case C-343/95, [1997] ECR I-1547 .............................. 299
DLG, Case C-250/92, [1994] ECR I-5641 ................................................... 214
Eco Swiss China Time Ltd. v. Benetton International NV, Case
C-126/97, [1999] ECR I-3055 ................................................................. 467
Édouard Leclerc v. Au Blé Vert, Case 229/83, [1985]
ECR 1 .................................................................................... 306, 308, 362
European Night Services Limited and Others v. Commission, Joined
Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 and T-388/94 [1998]
ECR II-3141 ......................................................................................... 285
Fédération française des sociétés d’assurance and Others v. Commission,
Case C-244/94, [1995] ECR I-4013 ......................................................... 299
France v. Commission Case C-202/88 [1991] ECR I-1259 ........................... 358
GB-INNO-BM v. ATAB, Case 13/77, [1997]
ECR 2115 ........................................... 196, 198, 356, 358, 363–5, 380, 388–9
Gebhard v. Consiglio dell’ordine degli Avvocato e Procuratori di
Milano, Case C-55/94, [1995] ECR I-4165 ............................... 159, 226, 280


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page xi

Table of Cases

xi

Hendrik van der Woude v. Stichting Beatrixoord, Case C-222/98,
[2000] ECR I-7111. ................................................................................ 470
HM Customs and Excise v. Gerhard and Jörg Schindler, Case
C-275/92, [1994] ECR I-1039 ................................................................. 289
Höfner and Elser, Case C-41/90, [1991] ECR I-1979 ....................... 298–9, 415
IMA v. Commission, Case T-144/99, [2001] ECR II-1087 ................... 215, 355
Institute of Professional Representatives Before the European Patent
Office, Case T-144/99, [2001] ECR II-1087 ............................................ 317
Italy v. Commission, Case C 41/83, [1985] ECR 873 .................................. 415
J.C.J. Wouters and Others v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse
Orde van Advocaten, Case C-309/99, [2002]
ECR I-1577 ................... 6, 13–4, 28, 59, 101, 106–7, 123, 166–7, 169, 180–4,
186–9, 198–9, 201–2, 204–6, 208, 211, 214–5, 220, 222, 235–7,
239, 242, 243–6, 248–9, 253, 258, 265, 268, 271–94, 296,
298–9, 302–3, 308–11, 315, 316–8, 319–20, 321–5, 326–7,
328–30, 332–3, 355, 373–4, 384, 390, 392, 449, 462–7, 470–2,
477, 480, 482–3, 494, 497, 518, 522, 584–6
Johannes Henricus Maria van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de
Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid, Case 33/74 ,
[1974] ECR 1279 ................................................................................... 290

Keck and Mithouard, Joined Cases C-267 and 268/91, [1993]
ECR I-6097 ........................................................................................... 393
Louis Erauw-Jacquery v. La Hesbignonne, Case 27/87, [1988]
ECR 1919 ............................................................................................. 393
Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken BV v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de
Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven, Case C-219/97, [1999] ECR I-6121 ............ 470
Manuele Arduino, and third parties Diego Dessi, Giovanni Bertolotto
and Compagnia Assicuratrice Ras SpA, Case C-35/99, [2002]
ECR I-1529 ................... 6, 28, 101, 105–7, 124, 167, 169, 188, 196–8, 202–3,
206, 208–11, 214–5, 239, 247–8, 249, 251, 271, 283–5,
289, 293, 296, 302–3, 306–7, 310, 314–5, 331, 355, 366,
368–9, 370–3, 377, 379, 382–3, 385–90, 392, 394–5, 494–6,
499–500, 504, 513, 522, 587, 588–90
Markku Juhani Läärä et al. v. Khlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and
Finland, Case C-124/97, [1999] ECR I-6067 ........................................... 289
Masterfoods Ltd. v. HB Ice Cream Ltd., Case C-344/98, [2000]
ECR I-11369 ......................................................................................... 468
Merci convenzionali porto di Genova SpA v. Siderurgica Gabrielli
SpA, Case C-179/90, [1991] ECR I-5889 ................................................ 292
Métropole Télévision (M6) and Others v. Commission, Case
T-112/99, [2001] ECR II-2459 ................................................. 281–2, 456–7
Ministère public v. Asjes and Others (“Nouvelles Frontières”),
Joined Cases 209 to 213/84, [1986] ECR 1425 ......................... 308, 362, 365,
369, 371, 378, 382, 387


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page xii

xii Table of Cases
Ordre des avocats au Barreau de Paris v. Onno Klopp,
Case 107/83, [1984] ECR 2971. .............................................................. 279
Pavel Pavlov and Others v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten,
Joined Cases C-180/98 to 184/98, [2000] ECR I-6451 ............... 298, 321, 470
Poucet and Pistre, Joined Cases C-159/91 and C-160/91, [1991]
ECR I-637 .................................................................................. 298–9, 331
PreussenElektra AG v. Schleswag AG, Case C-379/98, [2001]
ECR I-2099 ........................................................................................... 469
Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville, Case 8/74, [1974] ECR 837 .................. 286–7
Pronuptia, Case 161/84, [1986] ECR 353 ................................................... 211
Régie des télégraphes et téléphones (RTT) v. GB-INNO-BM,
Case C-18/88, [1991] ECR I-5941 ............................................ 315, 358, 390
Reiff, Case 185/91, [1993] ECR I-5801 .................................. 274, 309–10, 314,
366, 367–8, 369, 371–4, 388
Reisebüro Broede, Case C-3/95, [1996] ECR I-6511 .................................. 226
Rewe Zentrale v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein
(Cassis de Dijon), Case C 120/78, [1979]
ECR 649 .................................................... 182–3, 184, 224, 271–2, 287, 389
SAT Fluggesellschaft, Case C-364/92, [1994] ECR I-43 .............................. 299
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd. v.
Stephen Grogan, Case C-159/90, [1991] ECR I-4685 .............................. 291
Torfaen Borough Council v. B and Q plc, Case C-145/88, [1989]
ECR 3581 ............................................................................................. 288
Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v.
Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal Club Liégeois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman

et al., and Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Case C-415/93, [1995] ECR I-4921 .............. 390, 472
van de Haar and Kaveka de Meern, Joined Cases 177-178/82, [1984]
ECR 1797 ................................................................ 362–3, 380–1, 390, 392
van Eycke v. ASPA, Case 267/86, [1988]
ECR 4769 ......................... 197, 361, 363–6, 369, 371–2, 385–6, 387, 390, 588
Vereeniging van Cementhandelaren v. Commission, Case 8/72,
[1972] ECR 977 .......................................................................... 290, 376–7
Vereniging ter Bevordering van het Vlaamse Boekwezen, VBVB, and
Vereniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des Boekhandels, VBBB v.
Commission, Joined Cases 43/82 and 63/82, [1984] ECR 19 ................... 468
Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de
Bouwnijverheid (SPO), Case T-29/92, [1995] ECR II-289 ....................... 320
Vereniging van Vlaamse Reisbureaus (VVR) v. Sociale Dienst,
Case 311/85, [1987] ECR 3801 ......... 313, 362, 365–6, 369, 371, 378, 387, 390
Walt Wilhelm and Others. v. Bundeskartellamt, Case 14/68, [1969]
ECR 1 .................................................................................................. 453
Wieger Spedition GmbH v. Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr,
Case C-17/90, [1991] ECR I-5253 .......................................................... 458


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page xiii

Table of Cases

xiii

Yvonne van Duyn v. Home Office, Case 41/74, [1974] ECR 1337 ............... 291

2. EC Commission:
Assurpol, OJ L 37 [1992] .......................................................................... 460
Baltic International Freight Futures Exchange Ltd., OJ L 222
[1987] ................................................................................................... 275
CECED, OJ L 187 [2000] .......................................................................... 460
CNSD, OJ L 203 [1993] ................................................... 295, 302–4, 306, 355
COAPI (patent agents in Spain), OJ L 122 [1995]. IMA (international
patent agents), OJ L 106 [1999] ...................................................... 296, 355
DSD, OJ L 319 [2001] ............................................................................... 460
EACEM, OJ C 12 [1998] .......................................................................... 460
EPI Code of Conduct, OJ L 106 [1999] ....................................... 296, 304, 317
EUCAR, OJ C 185 [1997] ......................................................................... 461
KSB/Goulds/Lowara/ITT, OJ L 19 [1991] ............................................ 459–60
Price Waterhouse / Coopers & Lybrand, OJ C 376 [1997] .............. 190–1, 194
Sammelrevers (Case COMP/C-2/34.657), Internetbuchhandel
(COMP/C-2/37.906), and Proxis/KNO et al. (COMP/C-2/38.019) settled (see Press Release IP/02/461 of 22.3.2002) ................................... 275

3. France:
Décision n° 98-D-56 du Conseil de la concurrence en date du 15 septembre
1998 relative à des pratiques relevées dans le secteur des officines de pharmaciens du Val d’Yerres dans l’Essone, Rapport Annuel du Conseil
de la concurrence pour l’année 1998, 652- .............................................. 131
Décision n° 98-D-28 du conseil de la concurrence en date du 21 avril 1998
relative à une saisine et à une demande de mesures conservatoires
présentée par M. Seguin, géomètre-expert, Rapport annuel du Conseil
de la concurrence pour l’année 1998, p 399 ............................................ 132

Décision n° 98-D-81 du Conseil de la concurrence en date du 21 décembre
1998 relative à des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur de l’expertise
des objets d’art et de collection, Rapport annuel du Conseil de la concurrence pour l’année 1998, p 829- ............................................................. 132
Avis 87-A-12 du 18 décembre 1987 relatif au secteur de la publicité,
BOCCRF, 26 December 1987 ................................................................ 132
Avis 89-A-12 du 12 septembre 1989 relatif à un projet de préambule des
statuts de la chambre syndicale des opticiens de la région Rhône Alpes,
BOCCRF, 30 September 1989 ............................................................... 132
Décision n° 89-D-36 du 7 novembre 1989 relative aux pratiques relevées
sur le marché des prothèses dentaires, BOCCRF, 1 December 1989 ........ 132


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

xiv

16/5/06

15:32

Page xiv

Table of Cases

Avis n°90-A-02 du 4 janvier 1990 concernant l’avant-projet de loi
relatif à l’exercice sous forme de sociétés des professions libérales
soumises à un statut legislatif ou règlementaire dont le titre est protégé,
BOCCRF, 22 février 1990 ..................................................................... 132
Décision n° 90-D-08 du 23 janvier 1990 relative à des pratiques constatées
en matière de fixation de la durée d’ouverture des pharmacies libérales,

BOCCRF, 22 February 1990 ................................................................. 132
Décision n° 92-D-39 du 16 juin 1992 relative à des pratiques relevées dans le
secteur des agents privés de recherches, BOCCRF, 15 August 1992 ........ 132
Décision n° 95-D-35 du 10 mai 1995 relative à des pratiques relevées dans
le secteur de la distribution pharmaceutique dans la vallée de l’Arve,
BOCCRF, 25 July 1995 ......................................................................... 132
Décision n° 95-D-6 du 24 octobre 1995 relative à des pratiques mises en
œuvre par des entreprises de transport sanitaire avec le centre hospitalier
Robert-boulin de Libourne, BOCCRF, 24 January 1996 ........................ 132
Avis n° 95-A-19 du 7 novembre 1995 relatif à une demande d’avis présentée
par le conseil régional de l’ordre des architectes de la région Aquitaien
sur les prestations de maîtrise d’œuvre effectuées par les associations
Pact-Arim, BOCCRF, 12 February 1996 ................................................ 132
Décision n° 95-D-8 du 19 décembre 1995 relative à certaines pratiques relevées
dans le secteur des prothèses articulaires, BOCCRF, 15 May 1996 ............. 132
Décision n° 96-D-18 du 26 mars 1996 relative à des pratiques mises en
eouvre par le conseil régional de l’ordre des architectes d’Auvergne
et des cabinets d’architecture à l’occasion d’un marché public,
BOCCRF, 27 July 1996. ........................................................................ 132
Décision du 9 avril 1996 relative à des pratiques relevées dans le secteur
de l’administration de bien et de l’expertise immobilière, BOCCRF,
3 September 1996 .................................................................................. 132
Décision n° 96-D-49 du 3 juillet 1996 relative à certaines pratiques mises
en œuvre dans l’organisation des services de garde des médecins du
Grand Amiens ...................................................................................... 132
Décision n° 97-MC-01 du 4 février 1997 relative à une demande de mesures
conservatoires présentée par le ministre délégué aux finances et au
commerce extérieur dans le secteur du contrôle technique des
constructeurs, BOCCRF, 11 June 1997 .................................................. 132
Décision n° 97-D-18 du 18 mars 1997 relative à des pratiques relevées

dans le secteur du portage des médicaments à domicile, BOCCRF,
29 April 1997 ........................................................................................ 132
Décision n° 97-D-25 du 22 avril 1997 relative à des pratiques mises en
œuvre par les syndicats de chirurgien-dentistes de l’Indre et Loire
CNSD 37 et du Rhône CNSD 69, BOCCRF, 8 July 1997 ........................ 132
Décision n° 97-D-26 du 22 avril 1997 relative à des pratiques mises en
œuvre dans le secteur du portage de médicaments à domicile,
BOCCRF, 8 July 1997 ........................................................................... 132


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page xv

Table of Cases xv
Avis 97-A-12 du 17 juin 1997 relatif à une demande d’avis présentée
par l’ordre des experts comptables, les syndicats professionnels
IFEC (Insititut Français des experts comptables), ECF (Federation
des experts comptables de France) et l’association syndicale «Promouvoir
la profession comptable», portant sur la restriction d’exercice de leur
activité professionnelle dans le domaine juridique, BOCCRF,
18 November 1997 ................................................................................ 132
Décision du Conseil de la concurrence en date du 4 février 1998 relative
à une saisine et une demande de mesures conservatoires présentées
par Mme Slamon Evrard, in Rapport Annuel du Conseil de la
concurrence pour l’année 1998, p 852 .................................................... 131

4. Ireland:
Donovan v. ESB (1994) II IR 305 ........................................................... 232–4

5. Spain:
Decision of 10 October 1990 (TDC), Proceedings A3/90, Colegio de
enfermería de Barcelona ....................................................................... 419
Decision of 16 October 1990 (TDC), Proceedings A4/90, Colegio de
Médicos de Sevilla ................................................................................ 419
Decision of 12 November 1990 (TDC), Proceedings A7/90, Colegio de
Médicos de Valencia ............................................................................. 419
Decision of 10 November 1992 (TDC), Proceedings A 30/92, Agentes de
la propiedad inmobiliaria .............................................................. 419, 431
Decision of 20 November 1992 (TDC), Proceedings 313/92, Colegio de
Arquitectos Vasco-Navarro .................................................................. 422
Decision of 30 December 1993 (TDC), Proceedings 333/92, Placonsa ......... 415
Decision of 28 July 1994 (TC), Proceedings 339/93, COAM............. 416–7, 433
Decision of 2 November 1994 (TDC), Proceedings R83/94, Publicidad
Abogados ............................................................................................. 421
Decision of 4 March 1999 (TDC), Proceedings R335/98, Colegios
Notariales ............................................................................................ 415
Decision of 29 October 1999 (TDC), Proceedings 444/98, Colegio de
Arquitectos Vasco-Navarro .................................................................. 418
Decision of 18 January 2000 (TDC), Proceedings 455/99, Abogacía
Española .............................................................................................. 436
Decision of 12 February 2001 (TDC), Proceedings R437/00, Laboratorios
Farmacéuticos ...................................................................................... 425
Decision of 11 October 2001 (TDC), Proceedings 504/00, Abogados
de Madrid ............................................................................................ 436

(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

xvi

16/5/06

15:32

Page xvi

Table of Cases

Decision of 7 April 2003 (TDC), Proceedings 535/02, Eléctrica Eriste ......... 416
Decision of 3 July 2003 (TDC), Proceedings 545/02, Colegio Notarial
de Granada ........................................................................................... 414

5. The Netherlands:
Hof van Cassatie, 25 September 2003, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Case
No C.03.0139.N ................................................................................... 325

6. US Cases:
American Medical Association, 94 F.T.C. 701 (1979), 638 F.2d 443
(2d Cir. 1980), 455 U.S. 676 (1982) ........................................................ 489
Arizona v. Maricopa County Med. Soc., 457 US 332, 354-55
(1982) ........................................................... 252, 268, 401–2, 403, 557, 567
Bates et. Al. v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 US 350
(1977) ................................................. 215, 260–2, 267–8, 381, 399–400, 405
California Dental Association v. FTC, 128 F.3d 720, vacated and
remanded, 526 U.S. 756 (1999) ................................ 35, 39, 43, 188–90, 213,

252–3, 256–8, 266, 286, 404–7, 424, 436, 550, 558
California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminium, 445 U.S. 97
(1980) .................................... 196, 261–5, 267, 308, 337, 379–84, 386, 388–9
Camps Newfound/Owatonna v. Town of Harrison, 520 US 564
(1998). ....................................................................................... 361, 394–5
Cantor v. Detroit Edison, 428 US 579 (1976) ............................................. 260
Casket Royale v. Mississippi, 124 F. Supp. 2d 434 (S.D. Miss. 2000) .......... 577
Chicago Board of Trade v. US, 246 US 231, 38 SCt 242 (1918) ................... 123
Communications Co v. City of Boulder 455 US 40 (1982) .......................... 345
Cornwell v. Hamilton, 80 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1118 (1999) ..................... 492, 564
Craigmiles v. Giles, 110 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D. Tenn. 2000), aff’d,
Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220 (6th Cir. 2002) .................................... 577
Re Disposal Contact Lens Litigation, MDL Docket No 1030 (MD Fla) ...... 568
Earles v. State Board of Certified Public Accountants, 139 F.3d 1033
(5th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................... 383–4
Edenfield v Fane 507 US 761 (1993) ........................................................... 406
FTC v. Ticor Title Insurance Co., 504 US 621
(1992) .................................................................. 196, 214, 263, 345, 382–4
FTC v. Procter & Gamble (Clorox), 386 US 568 (1967) ............................. 399
Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 US 200, 209 (1922) ............. 254
Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 US 618 (1995) ............................. 406, 557
FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447
(1986) ........................................................... 252, 259, 402–3, 405, 550, 557


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page xvii

Table of Cases xvii
FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n, 493 US 411
(1990) ................................................................................. 252, 404, 567–8
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773
(1975) ........................................ 190, 195, 215, 241, 253–4, 257–9, 267, 304,
337, 381, 383–4, 397–402, 405, 407, 491, 508, 555–81
Granholm v. Heald, No 03-1116, 2004 US LEXIS 3697 (US, 24 May 2004) ... 564
Hass v. Oregon State Bar, 883 F.2nd 1453 (9th Cir. 1989 ........................... 384
Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558 (1984) .................................... 189–90, 262–9
In re Estate of Freeman, 34 N.Y.2d 1, 311 N.E.2d 480, 355
N.Y.S.2d 336 (1974) .............................................................................. 254
In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973) ............................................................ 290
In re Stock Exch. Options Trading Antitrust Litig., 2001-1 Trade Cas.
(CCH) para. 73,186 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ..................................................... 578
In the Matter of Polygram Holding, Inc., Docket No. 9298 (Federal Trade
Comm’n, 2003), ... 552
Lawline v. American Bar Ass’n, 956 F.2d 1378, 1383 (7th Cir. 1992),
cert. denied, 510 US 992 (1993) .............................................................. 268
Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 US 667 (1987)) ................................................ 381
Marjorie Webster Junior College, Inc. v. Middle States Ass’n, 432 F.
2d 650 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 965 (1970) .............................. 254
Meadows v. Odom, No 03-CV-960 (MD La). pending .............................. 564
Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Ass’n v. Heald, No 03-1120,
2004 US LEXIS 3698 (US, 24 May 2004) ................................................ 564
Miller v. American Stock Exchange (In re Stock Exch. Options Trading
Antitrust Litig.), 317 F.3d 134, 149 (2d Cir. 2003) .................................. 578
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co 458 US 886 (1982) .............................. 567

National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S.
679 (1978) ..................... 241, 257–8, 323, 332, 400–1, 403, 405, 550, 557, 567
Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) ..................................... 196–7, 259, 336,
359–60, 379, 380, 385, 398
Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94 (1988)....................................................... 382–4
Peachtree Caskets Direct, Inc. v. State Board of Funeral Service of
Georgia, No. 1:98-CV-3084-MHS (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 1999) ..................... 578
Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission 496
US 91 (1990) ......................................................................................... 406
People v. Roth, 52 N.Y.2d 440, 420 N.E.2d 929, 438 N.Y.S.2d 737
(1981) ................................................................................................... 254
Powers v. Harris, No CIV-01-445-F, 2002 US Dist LEXIS 26939
(WD Okla, 2002) .................................................................................. 577
Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association 486 US 466 (1988) ............................ 406
Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States,
471 U.S. 34 (1985) ................................................................ 337, 345, 381-2
Swedenburg v. Kelly, No 03-1274, 2004 US LEXIS 3699
(US, 24 May 2004) ................................................................................ 564


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

xviii

16/5/06

15:32

Page xviii

Table of Cases

Midcal Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire 471 U.S. 34
(1985) .................................................................................... 337, 345, 380
U.S. v. American Bar Association, Complaint No. 95-1211 (CR),
60 Fed. Reg. 39,421, 39,424 (27 June 1995), text available at
................................... 492, 565-6
U.S. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 416 F. Supp. 316 (D. N.J. 1976) .......... 579
U.S. v. Brown Univ 5 F 3d 658 (3rd Cir, 1993) ........................................... 566
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer
Council 425 US 748 (1976) ................................................................. 398–9
Verizon Communications Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko,
124 U.S. 872 (2004).................................................................. 191, 214, 408

7. Canada:
Alex Couture Inc. et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (1991),
38 C.P.R. (3d) 292 (Que. C.A.) .............................................................. 348
Attorney General of Canada v. Law Society of British Columbia
[1982] 2 S.C.R. 307 ............................................................................... 337
Director of Investigation and Research v. Tele-Direct (Publications)
Inc. (1995), 59 C.P.R. (3d) 398 (Comp. Trib.) ........................................ 350
Director of Investigation and Research v. Laidlaw Waste Systems
Ltd. (1992), 40 C.P.R. (3d) 282 (Comp. Trib.) ........................................ 348
Ebert Howe and Associates v. British Columbia Optometric Association
(1984), 57 B.C.L.R. 153 (S.C.) (WL), rev’d [1985] B.C.J. No. 1672
(C.A.) (QL)) ......................................................................................... 338
Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co. [2004] S.C.C. 25 .................... 195, 339, 341–2
In re Law Society of Upper Canada and Attorney General of Canada
et al. (1996), 67 C.P.R. (3d) 48 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.) .................. 337, 347–50
Industrial Milk Producers Association v. B.C. Milk Board (1988),

47 D.L.R. (4th) 710 ........................................................................ 340, 343
Mortimer v. Corp. of Land Surveyors (British Columbia), (1989)
35 B.C.L.R. (2d) 394 (S.C.) (QL) ................................................ 195, 344–5
R. v. Can Breweries Ltd. [1960] O.R. 601 ..................................... 339–40, 343
R. v. Independent Order of Foresters (1989), 26 C.P.R. 229 (Ont. C.A.) ..... 344
R. v. Kent County Law Association et al. (1988), 7 L.W. 738-021
(Ont. S.C.) ............................................................................................ 337
Reference Re: The Farm Products Marketing Act [1957]
1 S.C.R. 198 ........................................................................... 339, 343, 347
Regina v. British Columbia Professional Pharmacist’s Society and
Pharmaceutical Association of the Province of British Columbia
(1970), 64 C.P.R. 129 (B.C.S.C.) (QL)) .................................................. 338
Waterloo Law Association v. Attorney General of Canada (1986),
58 O.R. (2d) 275 (Ont. S.C.) ................................................ 337, 343–4, 350


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page xix

I N T RO D U C T I O N

This volume includes the written contributions presented at the ninth edition of
the Annual EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop, held on 11-12 June 2004
at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University
Institute (EUI) in Florence, as well as the (edited) transcripts of the debate that

took place at the event.
Background. The Annual EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop was set
up in 1996, at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the EUI, by
Law Professors Giuliano Amato and Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. The Workshop
brings together every year top-level EU and international policy-makers, academics and legal practitioners to discuss in an informal environment topical issues
of EC competition law and policy.
The objective of the 2004 edition of the Workshop was to examine some of
the economic, legal and institutional/political aspects of the relationship
between EC competition law and the regulation of the liberal professions, in the
context of the ongoing public debate on the modernization of professional regulation in the EU Member States.1 ‘Liberal professions’ are usually defined as
occupations requiring special training in the arts or sciences–including, for
example, lawyers, notaries, accountants, architects, engineers, pharmacists,
doctors, etc. Liberal professions and the rules governing their functioning have

1 Some information about earlier editions of the Annual EU Competition Law and Policy
Workshop and the corresponding volumes in the European Competition Law Annual series might
be useful to the readers of the present publication.
The first Workshop (June 1996) examined problems of implementation of competition law and
policy in a ‘federal’ context (see Claus D. Ehlermann and Laraine L. Laudati, eds. (1997): The
Robert Schuman Centre Annual on European Competition Law 1996, Kluwer Law International,
London).
The second Workshop (June 1997) discussed the objectives of competition law and policy in general (see Claus D. Ehlermann and Laraine Laudati, eds. (1998): European Competition Law Annual
1997: Objectives of Competition Policy, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland Oregon).
The third Workshop (June 1998) concentrated on the application of competition policy in the
evolving communication and information markets ( see Claus D. Ehlermann and Louisa Gosling,
eds. (2000): European Competition Law Annual 1998: Regulating Telecommunications, Hart
Publishing, Oxford and Portland Oregon).
The fourth Workshop (1999) studied three groups of problems in the field of EU state aid control:
the economic justifications for granting state aid, state aid in the banking sector, and the possibilities for a decentralised approach to the control of state aid in the EU (see Claus D. Ehlermann and
Michelle Everson, eds. (2001): European Competition Law Annual 1999: State Aid Control in the

European Union–Selected Problems, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland Oregon).
The fifth Workshop (June 2000) examined the European Commission’s proposal to modernize
and decentralize EC antitrust enforcement, as published in the ‘Modernization White Paper’ of May
1999, and the public reactions provoked by it (see Claus D. Ehlermann and Isabela Atanasiu, eds.
(2001): European Competition Law Annual 2000: The Modernization of EC Antitrust Policy, Hart
Publishing, Oxford and Portland Oregon).


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

xx

16/5/06

15:32

Page xx

Introduction

become of interest for EC competition law enforcement since the early Nineties,
and they have been the subject of a series of Commission decisions and judgments of the European Courts. The regulation of liberal professions is also a
matter of concern from the perspective of the freedom of services in the Internal
Market.
In recent years, the modernization and decentralization of EC antitrust
enforcement, on the one hand, and the Lisbon Agenda on the other, have generated a perceived need to reconsider and better define the relationship between
EC competition law and professional regulation in the Member States.
Regulation 1/2003 empowered the competition authorities of the Member States
and national courts to apply EC competition rules in full, including in the area
of the liberal professions. In 2000, in Lisbon, the European Council set out the

ambitious objective of transforming the EU into the most competitive and
dynamic knowledge-based economy of the world by 2010. Professional services
are important in this context, as they represent a key sector of the European
economy (both in terms of the employment they generate and their business
turnover - it is estimated that in 2001 professional services created approximately 600 billion Euro of total value added in the EU152) and a significant input
to a wide range of other sectors of the economy (the Italian Antitrust Authority
has estimated that in Italy an average of 6% of the costs of exporting firms are
due to professional services3). However, in Europe the liberal professions have
traditionally been characterized by a high level of regulation, which is often a
mix of state regulation, self-regulation, custom and practice. The concern is that
a high degree of restrictive regulation in this area can have knock-on effects on
the competitiveness of other economic sectors, and on employment and growth
in general.
The 2004 edition of the Annual EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop
took place at an important stage of the ongoing public debate on the reform of
professional regulation in the Member States, i.e., a few months after the publiThe sixth Workshop (2001) carried further the debate on the Commission’s modernization project by examining the conditions for effective private enforcement of EC competition law (see Claus
D. Ehlermann and Isabela Atanasiu, eds. (2003): European Competition Law Annual 2001: Effective
Private Enforcement of EC Antitrust Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland Oregon).
The seventh Workshop (June 2002) concluded the series devoted to the modernization of EC
antitrust enforcement by discussing the conditions for the set up and effective functioning of the
European network of competition authorities (ECN) (see Claus D. Ehlermann and Isabela Atanasiu,
eds. (2005): European Competition Law Annual 2002: Constructing the EU Network of
Competition Authorities, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon).
The eighth Workshop (June 2003) explored the legal and economic issues arising in the enforcement
of EC competition rules against abuses of a dominant position (see Claus D. Ehlermann and Isabela
Atanasiu, eds. (2006): European Competition Law Annual 2003: What Is an Abuse of a Dominant
Position?, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon.
Further information about the Workshop, as well as non-edited versions of the written contributions prepared starting with the 2000 edition, are available at />Research/Competition/CompetitionLawPolicy.shtml.
2 See European Commission (2004): Report on Competition in the Professional Services,
COM(2004) 83 final, of 9 February 2004, at p. 8.

3 Idem, at p. 8.


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page xxi

Introduction xxi
cation of the European Commission’s Report on Competition in the
Professional Services.4 The Report is the outcome of a ‘stock-taking’ exercise
launched in March 2003 by DG Competition, under the leadership of Mario
Monti, who was at that time the Commissioner responsible for competition.
The exercise involved consulting the interested parties (professionals, professional bodies, consumers and consumer associations) in order to identify restrictive professional regulation in the Member States and evaluate its justification
and effects. In a nutshell, the Report contains the main findings of this consultation process and invites public authorities in the Member States to screen
restrictive professional regulation on the basis of a proportionality test.
First, the Report identifies five main categories of potentially-restrictive regulation in the EU with respect to the liberal professions: 1) price-fixing; 2) recommended prices; 3) advertising restrictions; 4) entry requirements and reserved
rights; and 5) rules governing business structure and multi-disciplinary practices.
Second, the Report acknowledges that regulation may be necessary in order
to address certain problems that arise in the area of the liberal professions,
including asymmetry of information between customers and service providers,
externalities (or the impact of services on third parties) and the need to ensure
the provision of certain ‘public goods’ that are of value to society as a whole. At
the same time, the Report suggests that certain traditional restrictive regulatory
tools aimed at solving these issues should be replaced by more pro-competitive
mechanisms.
Third, the Report maps out the conditions under which EC competition rules

are applicable to restrictive professional regulation in the Member States, in
accordance with the relevant case law of the European Court of Justice (including the judgments in Arduino, Wouters and Fiammiferi5). The Report distinguishes between the liability of the Member States and that of professional
bodies, and points out that the case law of the ECJ does not solve all enforcement issues arising in this area.
Finally, the Report invited the regulatory authorities in the Member States as
well as professional bodies to review existing professional regulation on the
basis of a proportionality test according to which professional rules must be:
(i) objectively necessary in order to pursue a clearly articulated and legitimate
public interest objective, and (ii) the least restrictive way to attain that
objective.
Structure of the Workshop. Against this background, the objective of the
2004 EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop was to examine some of the
issues raised by the Commission’s Report on Competition in Professional
Services. Panel 1 (Economic Aspects) discussed the following main issues: 1)
4

Idem.
C-35/99 Arduino [2002] ECR I-1529; Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577; Case C-198/01
Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi [2003] ECR I-8055.
5


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

xxii

16/5/06

15:32

Page xxii

Introduction

whether professional services are characterized by specific market failures justifying a different treatment under EC competition rules; 2) the contribution of
economic theory and analysis to defining and assessing the public interest objectives pursued by professional regulation; and 3) the economics perspective on
the costs and benefits of different regulatory models applicable in this area.
Panel 2 (Legal Issues) focused on the following issues: 1) whether the standards
resulting from the ECJ’s case law for assessing the legality of anticompetitive
professional regulation are adequate and sufficiently well articulated; 2) similarities and differences between the EU and US approach in the application of
competition rules to restrictive professional regulation; and 3) the application of
the proportionality test in the context of the ‘state action’ doctrine. Panel 3
(Institutional/Political Issues) concentrated on three main groups of issues: 1)
complementarity between the enforcement of EC competition rules with respect
to restrictive professional regulation, the Commission’s competition advocacy
initiatives supporting the modernization of professional regulation and the
Commission’s legislative and enforcement interventions in the area of professional regulation in the context of the freedom to provide services in the Internal
Market; 2) the role played by national competition authorities (NCAs) in the
screening of restrictive professional regulation in the context of the recent modernization and decentralization of EC antitrust enforcement; and 3) lessons to
be learned from the experience of competition authorities in the US and other
international jurisdictions (particularly Australia and Canada) in terms of institutional arrangements and doctrines/concepts that affect the quality of antitrust
interventions in the area of professional regulation.
The Workshop proceedings opened with an introductory exposé by Mario
Monti, then-Commissioner responsible for competition. Commissioner Monti
started his speech by underlining the importance of liberal professions in the EU
economy, in terms of the value added and employment generated, and as an
input to the activity of several other economic sectors. The quality, competitiveness, growth and occupational potential of the professional services thus has
significant spillover effects on the rest of the economy. The objective of the
Lisbon Agenda brought into the spotlight the traditionally high level of professional regulation in Europe. Outdated and over-restrictive regulation is a matter of concern insofar as it leads to either excessive prices or poor quality of
services, removes the incentives for improvement, and generates macroeconomic allocative distortions - the extraction of excessive prices favours rentseeking behaviour, and thus distorts the allocation of human capital.
Next, Commissioner Monti outlined DG Competition’s initiatives in the area

of professional services, as undertaken within the framework of the European
Competition Network (ECN). The Commissioner emphasized the fact that DG
Competition does not advocate the total deregulation of professional services.
To the contrary, the Commission acknowledges that certain characteristics of
professional services, such as information asymmetries and externalities, may
need to be addressed with regulatory tools. The question is, rather, whether the


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page xxiii

Introduction xxiii
current regulatory mix is the most efficient possible. For example, some of the
regulatory means that were traditionally used in order to tackle information
asymmetries, such as the setting of tariffs and restrictions on advertisement, no
longer correspond to the present reality, where consumers are more educated
and better organized for defending their interests. Nowadays, consumers
appear to prefer to reduce information asymmetries by increasing the information available as to the nature, quality and availability of professional services.
By launching in March 2003 the stock-taking exercise which led to the publication in February 2004 of the Commission’s Report on Competition in the
Professional Services,6 DG Competition acted as the initiator of a public debate
on the efficiency of the current professional regulatory mix in the Member
States. DG Competition invited European professional bodies to bilateral meetings to discuss the scope for modernizing existing regulation. Similar bilateral
consultation exercises were scheduled to take place between the national competition authorities and national professional bodies. The purpose of this consultation process is to assess the justifications for and effects of professional
regulation on the basis of a proportionality test: rules must be objectively necessary to achieve a clearly articulated and legitimate public interest objective,
and must be the least restrictive means to that end.

At the same time, the Commission is well aware that the simple elimination
of restrictive professional rules is not sufficient to bring about more competition
in this sector. This is why DG Competition and DG Health and Consumer
Protection liaised and consulted with European consumer organizations in
order to identify other pro-competitive supporting measures–for example, the
monitoring of professional services by consumer associations, the collection and
publication of information by independent organizations, etc.
In addition to the application of EC competition rules in this area and besides
advocating the screening of current professional regulation on the basis of the
proportionality principle, the Commission also supports the modernization of
professional regulation through Internal Market legislative initiatives. For
example, the draft Directive on Services in the Internal Market,7 which also covers professional services, is a mixture of mutual recognition, administrative
cooperation, harmonization where strictly necessary, and encouragement of
self-regulation. The Directive on Recognition of Professional Qualifications
(adopted in September 2005)8 is another example in this regard.
Commissioner Monti concluded his intervention by underlining the important role played by the national competition authorities (NCAs) in the area of
liberal professions. Regulation 1/2003 empowers the NCAs and national courts
6

See supra n. 2.
The Commission’s original proposal, dated January 2004, as well as the European Parliament’s
First Reading Legislative Resolution of February 2006 and the Commission’s amended proposal of
April 2006, are available at />8 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Recognition of
Professional Qualifications, OJ L 255 [2005].
7


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

xxiv

16/5/06

15:32

Page xxiv

Introduction

to apply Article 81 EC in full, and the NCAs are very often the best placed to act
in cases of anticompetitive professional regulation. Most NCAs have in fact
pursued actions in this area (the most frequent cases involve price-fixing, discriminatory rules on access to the professions, boycotts, and advertising restrictions). By the time of the Workshop, several NCAs (including, for example,
those in Denmark, Ireland, The Netherlands, Finland and the UK) had also
undertaken general programmes of action to bring about the modernization of
professional regulation in their countries.
Panel 1: Economic Aspects. The first general issue addressed by the participants under this Panel was whether the professional services are characterized
by specific market failures that justify a different treatment under EC competition rules. From this perspective, the written contributions tackled four distinct
problem areas: asymmetric information on quality; asymmetric information on
demand; the problem of so-called ‘credence goods’ (i.e., where consumers do
not know how to evaluate the consumed services); and externalities (in the sense
that in the area of professional services there are often wider social interests to
consider than those of the directly interested parties).
From the discussion it became clear that all agree on the existence of market
failures in the area of liberal professions. At the same time, some of the participants emphasized that market failures are present in other economic sectors as
well. Information asymmetries are generally present in markets where customers’ purchases are less frequent - in other words, the information asymmetry problem is common among non-frequent purchasers, who are usually
individuals and households as opposed to firms. From an economic perspective,
repeated purchases also weaken the case for qualifying professional services as
credence goods.
Some of the participants argued that, considering the features of the modern
economy, including information and technological developments, information

asymmetries no longer justify special treatment for any of the liberal professions. The case of externalities is different: from an economic perspective, it
does not make sense to liberalize and at the same time ask the professions to produce positive externalities. The original question could therefore be rephrased,
to ask instead whether in the modern economy it still makes sense to impose
competitive constraints in order to derive positive externalities.
It therefore appears that externalities remain the strongest argument for regulation of the professions. However, economists recommend that it must first be
determined whether the markets could solve the problem themselves before it
can be decided whether to intervene through regulation. Another important policy suggestion that emerged from the debate is that, when speaking of market
failures, both regulators and competition law enforcers should seek to identify
and define the specific markets at stake rather than discussing the profession in
general–for example, within the legal services there are several distinct markets
to be considered. By the same token, regulators and competition law enforcers
should also look at the specificities of the markets from the perspective of


(A) Ehlermann 06 Prelims

16/5/06

15:32

Page xxv

Introduction xxv
differences between consumers. As already mentioned, corporations and/or
repeat customers do not face the same kind of information asymmetry problems
as non-frequent individual consumers. In other markets, the problem of
information asymmetry faced by non-frequent individual consumers was solved
through the creation of new types of contracts (e.g., leasing) or quasi-contracts
(i.e., informal contracts between the service provider and the customer). In fact,
professional regulation that limits entry, diminishes price competition, establishes price caps or prohibits advertising is an imperfect attempt to establish a

sort of ‘global quasi-contract’.
The experience of competition authorities that have been active in the area of
professional services shows that, if the intervention is not precisely calibrated
for the actual problems that occur in a specific market, the outcomes may be less
welcomed by the consumers. To avoid adverse effects, the intervention of the
competition law enforcer to eliminate restrictive professional rules should be
preceded or accompanied by other measures destined to make competition
workable - for example, it should facilitate access to information, provide independent mechanisms for the assessment of the quality of services, etc.
Another interesting and topical argument brought forward in the debate was
that, from an economic perspective, restrictions on organizational forms
imposed through professional regulation can actually be detrimental in terms of
the information asymmetry problem. Larger organizations can generate a reputation more easily than individual professionals, and in multi-professional organizations that reputation can be transferred across markets. Thus, restrictions
on multi-professional organizations prevent the reputation mechanism from
ameliorating the information asymmetry problem.
Economic theory can also be helpful in defining the public interest at stake in
the area of professional services. What is generally understood by ‘public interest’ is the social interest that governments take responsibility for protecting or
providing. One of the difficulties that arises in defining the public interest protected/promoted by professional regulation is that market failures, such as
information asymmetries, or the fact that the goods are not produced, usually
produce ‘complex negative external effects’, in the sense that several diverse
interests are involved and affected, and it is not straightforward how to balance
them. From an economic perspective, there are three broadly-defined public
interests at stake in the area of the liberal professions: quality, accessibility
(physical or financial), and macro-affordability (e.g., in health care, the need to
establish a standard for the services provided that can be sustained by the state
at macro-level).
Once the public interest at stake is identified and defined, the question that
arises is: who is better placed to protect/promote it - public authorities, professional bodies, or a combination of the two? And how may less restrictive and
more effective regulatory tools be chosen? The participants discussed in particular the advantages and disadvantages of self-regulation by professional bodies,
and weighed its efficiency against that of alternative regulatory models, such as