EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF EU COMPETITION LAW

My final dissertation explores the issue of extraterritoriality, as far as competition law is concerned. It starts from its foundations under public international law, since it historically tried to give an answer to jurisdictional claims by drawing the principles of extraterritorial application of States’ laws.  Lotus case represents the first occasion where an international body, namely the Permanent Court of International Justice, in 1927 solved a jurisdictional conflict by holding that extraterritoriality does not set in conflict with the principles of international law. Then, the principle of territoriality is examined and its exceptional principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction such as the nationality principle, the protective principle and the universality principle. However, I argue that none of the aforementioned principle is able to solve jurisdictional claims when competition law is at stake. Therefore, in Chapter 2, I look at the US experience where the courts, under the principle of territoriality under public international law, have given birth to a new principle of extraterritoriality when applying the US antitrust law: the effects doctrine. Since Alcoa case in 1945, the effects doctrine have been constantly applied by the US judges and an overview of the most relevant case law on the matter is provided in the Chapter concerned, together with an analysis of the legislative framework in which the long-arm of the US antitrust law has developed. The effects doctrine has had a great success to the extent that it is now considered one of the principle of extraterritoriality under public international law.In the second part of the thesis, the analysis regards the EU law experience.  Considering that it lacks of the characteristics of the traditional nation-state of international law but States have conferred significant powers to the EU institutions, in competition matters in particular, I have considered the extraterritoriality of EU competition law in the light of its vocation to act in the international sphere. Therefore, it can be considered a global regulatory power and the extraterritoriality witnesses such willingness. Thus, I have analysed the relevant case law of the Commission’s decisions, the Advocate Generals’ opinions and European Courts’ judgements (General Court of First Instance and European Court of Justice). I have classified the extraterritorial assertions of European jurisdiction under three principles: single economic entity doctrine, implementation doctrine and effects doctrine. Surprisingly, for the latter one it is discussed whether it exists in EU law. Indeed, it has been advocated just in several Commission’s decisions and by some Advocate Generals but never by the European Court of Justice which prefers to rely on the implementation doctrine and on the economic entity one. However, this longstanding panorama in EU law has been discussed by the General Court of First Instance in 2014, which in Intel has recognised the doctrine of qualified effects as principle of extraterritoriality under EU law. Moreover, it can be applied as only principle and no more in conjunction with the implementation doctrine, as it had been traditionally considered. This ruling has been appealed to the ECJ which could confirm this position, thus officially welcoming the effects doctrine in EU law. In the last Chapter, I provide a general picture of the  most recent developments of EU competition law, as regards the Google case. The American firm is one of the biggest company in the world, which holds a monopoly position in the digital market. The European institutions are currently investigating on Google Search, Google Shopping and Android in order to ascertain whether it has abused of its dominant position in the European market. These are the challenges EU competition law will face in the next future and new horizons are opening both in EU competition law and ultimately in the EU extraterritoriality.