On March 9, Positive Competition hosted Judge Paul Nihoul, of the General Court of the European Union, and Professor Pierre Regibeau, Chief Economist of DG Competition of the European Commission, for a Fireside chat organised in cooperation with Concurrences.

The audience witnessed a captivating and fruitful discussion on the role of economics in competition law proceedings. During the conversation, Judge Nihoul emphasised that the primary role of judges is to integrate the views of the parties, including those of economists. He emphasized that Courts only evolve slowly and proceed by clarifications. He advised economic experts to relate their arguments to the case law as closely as possible and to patiently wait for the right case if they want to induce a “revolution” in case law. Judge Nihoul also commented on the recent trend of increased emphasis on pro-competitive justifications and capability analyses in object restrictions.

Professor Regibeau entertained the idea of introducing a permanent chief economist to the European Court of Justice. He highlighted the importance of an unbiased economic expert assessment to determine whether a specific piece of economic evidence meets the required standard of proof. Recalling his own experience as an economic expert of one of the parties in an important case, Professor Regibeau also noted that facilitating interaction between the parties’ experts could help identify points of agreement (and hence of residual disagreement). The points on which experts on both sides agree could serve as an excellent basis for the Court’s understanding of the economic aspects of the case at hand.

The discussion also touched upon the DMA, with Judge Nihoul explaining that the General Court expects cases on gatekeeper designation to arrive towards the end of this year. Professor Regibeau, on the other hand, expressed his curiosity about how the DMA implementation will unfold.

We thank all the participants, Concurrences and our team at Positive Competition for yet another successful event. Let’s continue bridging the gap between economics and law.