Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Enhancing leniency programme in public markets
View through CrossRef
Abstract
The article focuses on the leniency programme, the key mechanism to strengthen the public enforcement of competition law, and its compatibility with the debarment mechanism and self-cleaning measures, which are both procurement remedies. As the article will show, procurement remedies interfere with cartel enforcement and the debarment mechanism undermines leniency in public procurement. The fact that firms may be banned from bidding, where there are plausible indications for their participation in agreements aiming at distorting competition, discourages infringing companies from coming forward and self-reporting. Even the self-cleaning measures under the current procurement Directive 2014/24/EU, which aim to help debarred firms to avoid exclusion or minimize its risk, undermine leniency in public procurement. This is particularly true after the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice in c-124/17 Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH case. In this case, it was held that a contracting authority must be able to ask a leniency applicant to provide the decision of the competition authority concerning it. This must apply even if there is a pending private action for damages for breach of competition law by the contracting authority against that leniency applicant. In view of the above conflicting policy objectives, a number of proposals are discussed in order to better align leniency programmes with the mechanism of debarment and self-cleaning policy in public procurement. In this way, the article contributes to the optimal design of enforcement policies.
Title: Enhancing leniency programme in public markets
Description:
Abstract
The article focuses on the leniency programme, the key mechanism to strengthen the public enforcement of competition law, and its compatibility with the debarment mechanism and self-cleaning measures, which are both procurement remedies.
As the article will show, procurement remedies interfere with cartel enforcement and the debarment mechanism undermines leniency in public procurement.
The fact that firms may be banned from bidding, where there are plausible indications for their participation in agreements aiming at distorting competition, discourages infringing companies from coming forward and self-reporting.
Even the self-cleaning measures under the current procurement Directive 2014/24/EU, which aim to help debarred firms to avoid exclusion or minimize its risk, undermine leniency in public procurement.
This is particularly true after the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice in c-124/17 Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH case.
In this case, it was held that a contracting authority must be able to ask a leniency applicant to provide the decision of the competition authority concerning it.
This must apply even if there is a pending private action for damages for breach of competition law by the contracting authority against that leniency applicant.
In view of the above conflicting policy objectives, a number of proposals are discussed in order to better align leniency programmes with the mechanism of debarment and self-cleaning policy in public procurement.
In this way, the article contributes to the optimal design of enforcement policies.
Related Results
Service leniency: a dual logics perspective
Service leniency: a dual logics perspective
Purpose
A pervasive yet underexplored phenomenon in service delivery is the tendency toward leniency, which can ultimately lead to negligence in service interac...
POTENSI PENGGUNAAN LENIENCY PROGRAM DALAM PERKARA KARTEL INDONESIA: STUDI PERBANDINGAN LENIENCY JEPANG
POTENSI PENGGUNAAN LENIENCY PROGRAM DALAM PERKARA KARTEL INDONESIA: STUDI PERBANDINGAN LENIENCY JEPANG
The leniency program is a pardon mechanism that allows cartel members to complain to the business competition authorities about cartel operations and receive partial or whole exemp...
The Future of Cartel Deterrence and Detection
The Future of Cartel Deterrence and Detection
Over the last few decades, leniency programs recorded a successful history of identifying and dismantling cartels. The essential idea is simple, that authorities will reward a cart...
Leniency policy in competition law: Legal issues and socio-cultural implications in Albania
Leniency policy in competition law: Legal issues and socio-cultural implications in Albania
Abstract
Leniency policy is an essential instrument of public enforcement of competition law, which promotes the detection of economic cartels through cooperation wi...
Game Theory Applied To The Brazilian Antitrust Leniency Program
Game Theory Applied To The Brazilian Antitrust Leniency Program
The Brazilian Antitrust Law established the Administrative Council for Economic Defence (CADE) as the body responsible for investigating and imposing sanctions for acts that violat...
Is the leniency asymmetry really dead? Misinterpreting asymmetry effects in criminal jury deliberation
Is the leniency asymmetry really dead? Misinterpreting asymmetry effects in criminal jury deliberation
Early jury simulation research, reviewed and meta-anyalysed by MacCoun and Kerr (1988), suggested a leniency asymmetry in criminal jury deliberations such that a given faction favo...
Leniency Policies and Cartel Success: An Experiment
Leniency Policies and Cartel Success: An Experiment
Abstract
Cartels are often fought by granting leniency, in the form of forgiveness of penalties, to whistle-blowers. This study employs a laboratory experiment to compare l...
Upaya Pemberantasan Kartel dengan Pemberlakuan Leniency Program
Upaya Pemberantasan Kartel dengan Pemberlakuan Leniency Program
This research is intended to explain whether the leniency program can be applied in Indonesia. In accordance with Law No. 5 of 1999, Indonesia currently has not implemented a lenie...

