An analysis of the orders of the CCI and the CCP suggest that each national competition authority has its own distinct interpretive strategy which reflects the extent of compatibility and legitimacy generated for the competition legislation in the adoption stage. This chapter examines and compares the CCI and CCP’s interpretation of provisions for horizontal and vertical anti-competitive agreements to extrapolate some understanding of their overall interpretive strategies. The chapter demonstrates that despite the comparable antecedents of the relevant provisions of the Indian and Pakistani Acts, the CCP relied more heavily on foreign precedents in interpreting these provisions than the CCI. The chapter further demonstrates that the disparate interpretive strategies of the CCI and CCP may be explained by the disparity in the compatibility and legitimacy of the acts and to the CCP’s need to leverage foreign precedents to assert its international legitimacy, which in turn helped it to enhance its domestic legitimacy. The chapter finally argues that in addition to reflecting the compatibility and legitimacy generated at the adoption stage, the interpretative strategies adopted by the CCI and the CCP also shape the competition and legitimacy of the acts and chart their implementation trajectory.

After formally adopting their competition laws, India and Pakistan were faced with the task of implementing them. However, although both countries established their national competition authorities, the CCI and the CCP, almost immediately after adopting their respective legislations, the enforcement of these legislations has not been without complications. This chapter compares the structures, mandates, and compositions of these authorities and their decision-making strategies, and provides a comparative overview of implementation of competition laws in the two countries by reference indicators derived from the orders issued by the CCI and CCP in respect of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance. The chapter also links the performance of the CCI and CCP and their interactions with their countries’ pre-existing legal systems to the mechanisms and institutions employed by the countries in the adoption stage and the compatibility and legitimacy generated through them.

This chapter concludes by answering the three research questions examined in this study: How have the rationale, method, and limits for the balancing of competition and non-competition interests in the enforcement of Article 101 TFEU evolved in the first sixty years of its existence? How has this process of evolution affected the attainment of the objectives of Regulation 1/2003, namely effectiveness, uniformity, and legal certainty? And what role should non-competition interests play in order to conform to such objectives? It presents the three transitions in balancing that emerge through modernisation and discusses their impact on the effectiveness, uniformity, and legal certainty of the enforcement. In addition, it offers policy recommendations on how non-competition interests should be taken into account in the enforcement of Article 101 TFEU.

This chapter concludes by answering the three research questions examined in this study: How have the rationale, method, and limits for the balancing of competition and non-competition interests in the enforcement of Article 101 TFEU evolved in the first sixty years of its existence? How has this process of evolution affected the attainment of the objectives of Regulation 1/2003, namely effectiveness, uniformity, and legal certainty? And what role should non-competition interests play in order to conform to such objectives? It presents the three transitions in balancing that emerge through modernisation and discusses their impact on the effectiveness, uniformity, and legal certainty of the enforcement. In addition, it offers policy recommendations on how non-competition interests should be taken into account in the enforcement of Article 101 TFEU.

This chapter provides a historical overview of the development of Article 101 TFEU balancing to frame and identify the uncertainties surrounding it. The chapter begins with the EU primary and secondary law provisions, illustrating that they do not prescribe a clear balancing framework. Against this backdrop, it shows that the balancing principles have been greatly shaped by the practices of the Commission and EU Courts. It affirms that the development of the balancing principles is best understood by sorting the practices into four enforcement periods, which are then explored throughout the empirical chapters of the book. In addition to the developments at the EU level, the chapter devotes special attention to the competition law set-up and balancing approaches of each of the five Member States examined in the study.

This chapter introduces the debate over the role of non-competition interests under Article 101 TFEU and sets out the definitions used in this study (including competition and non-competition interests and the notion of balancing). The chapter also presents the empirical methodology guiding the study and discusses the methodological choices. It explores the methodology of systematic content analysis of legal text (‘coding’) used in the study and details the selection criteria used to comprise the database of cases.

This chapter introduces the debate over the role of non-competition interests under Article 101 TFEU and sets out the definitions used in this study (including competition and non-competition interests and the notion of balancing). The chapter also presents the empirical methodology guiding the study and discusses the methodological choices. It explores the methodology of systematic content analysis of legal text (‘coding’) used in the study and details the selection criteria used to comprise the database of cases.

This chapter provides a historical overview of the development of Article 101 TFEU balancing to frame and identify the uncertainties surrounding it. The chapter begins with the EU primary and secondary law provisions, illustrating that they do not prescribe a clear balancing framework. Against this backdrop, it shows that the balancing principles have been greatly shaped by the practices of the Commission and EU Courts. It affirms that the development of the balancing principles is best understood by sorting the practices into four enforcement periods, which are then explored throughout the empirical chapters of the book. In addition to the developments at the EU level, the chapter devotes special attention to the competition law set-up and balancing approaches of each of the five Member States examined in the study.