Jean-François Bellis: History & Future of EU Competition Law through the Prism of Landmark Cases

Jean-François Bellis – founding partner of Van Bael & Bellis Law Firm.
It is always intellectually stimulating to listen to those shaping the area of your specialism. Jean-François Bellis definitely belongs to the cohort of lawyers not only theorising about EU Competition Law (we all know numerous editions of a handbook “Competition Law of the European Union” co-authored by Jean-François) but mainly acting as a lawyer on a practical side of the field. He was and is engaged in a number of landmark EU competition law cases. Some of them changed the entire trajectory of its evolution. He is also an open, eloquent and approachable speaker – these factors motivated me to invite him to tell the story of the development of EU competition law as seen by its direct participant. The narrative is built through the prism of some high-profile cases which Jean-François Bellis was involved with (mainly on defence side). 
Starting with a fifty years old 27/76 United Brands v Commission (the first case at which the Commission reduced the level of dominance from quasi-monopolies to ordinary dominance), through 77/77 BP v Commission; 22/78 Hugin v Commission; 60/81 IBM v Commission; 322/81 Michelin v Commission I & II; 62/86 AKZO v Commission; 201/04 Microsoft v Commission and ending with Intel saga. 
Jean-François Bellis had also addressed the following: 
– the features of EU competition law in 1970s 
– instrumental application of EU competition law: not so new trend 
– competition and inflation (now and then)
– as-efficient competitor test 
– the role of Advocate General in the proceedings 
– his career as a référendaire at the CJEU
– asymmetry of knowledge (one engineer v army of engineers)
– increasing role of economists and “rationalisation” of EU competition law 
– Reg. 1/2003
– modernisation of Art 101 TFEU (narrowing down the scope of Art 101(1))
– shifting the balancing of pro- and anticompetitive elements of an agreement from Art 101(1) to Art 101(3)
– is Art 101(3) TFEU obsolete 
– is Art 101(1) TFEU becoming more similar to Section 1 of the Sherman Act 
– reforms of Art 102 TFEU (much more turbulent)
– did the Commission shot itself in the foot with reforming Art 102 TFEU in early 2000s (for 30+ years Commission Legal Service were winning all 102 TFEU cases on substantive ground)
– was the shift to a more economic approach perceived by the Commission as a “game which economists can play with total impunity”
– juristic intricacies of Intel saga 
– expert-game between economists on the Commission and Intel sides and its important consequences 
– effectiveness of MS WMP remedies 
– enforceability of the DMA
– juristic similarities of the DMA with the first wave of block exemption initiatives 
– which aspects of the DMA will be most susceptible to litigation 
– will the DMA litigation be more burdensome for the Commission in comparison with ex-post rules – or less so
– merger control 
– technical expertise in the field: how to strike the balance right 
– recommendations to students 

------------------------
The Digital Markets Research Hub is an independent academic initiative aiming at scrutinising the functioning of competition/regulation in digital markets. We host one-to-one interviews with leading policymakers, regulators and practitioners. We also organise online mini-workshops inviting high-profile experts and academics in various fields of digital competition law & policy to discuss the most vibrant issues of the ongoing regulatory reforms in digital markets. While having our clear normative stand on the matters discussed within the hub, we value different views and invite relevant stakeholders and thinkers representing the whole spectrum of reasonable positions on how to regulate competition in digital markets. All our materials are available at YouTube channel, which you are very welcome to subscribe to.

The interview is organised & conducted by Prof. Oles Andriychuk, Newcastle Law School, UK