Content

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis in:

Dian Parluhutan

The Implementation of Circumstancial Evidence pursuant to the European Union Competition Law, the German Cartel Law and the Indonesian Competition Law, page I - XVI

1. Edition 2019, ISBN print: 978-3-8288-4127-7, ISBN online: 978-3-8288-7337-7, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783828873377-I

Tectum, Baden-Baden
Bibliographic information
Dian Parluhutan The Implementation of Circumstancial Evidence pursuant to the European Union Competition Law, the German Cartel Law and the Indonesian Competition Law Dian Parluhutan The Implementation of Circumstancial Evidence pursuant to the European Union Competition Law, the German Cartel Law and the Indonesian Competition Law Tectum Verlag a.t.: Freie Universität Berlin, Diss., 2017 original title: Juridicial Analysis concerning Implementation of Circumstancial (Indirect) Evidence pursuant to The European Union (EU) Competition Law, The German Cartel Law and The Indonesia Competition Law Number 5/1999 Gefördert durch die Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung e.V. The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de ISBN 978-3-8288-4127-7 (Print) 978-3-8288-7337-7 (ePDF) British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 978-3-8288-4127-7 (Print) 978-3-8288-7337-7 (ePDF) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Parluhutan, Dian The Implementation of Circumstancial Evidence pursuant to the European Union Competition Law, the German Cartel Law and the Indonesian Competition Law 336 pp. Includes bibliographic references. ISBN 978-3-8288-4127-7 (Print) 978-3-8288-7337-7 (ePDF) 1st edition 2019 © Tectum – ein Verlag in der Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 2019. This work is subject to copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Under § 54 of the German Copyright Law where copies are made for other than private use a fee is payable to “Verwertungs gesellschaft Wort”, Munich. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Nomos or the author(s)/editor(s). Preface This book provides analysis regarding the implementation of circumstantial (indirect) evidences, notably ‘facilitating practices’ and ‘plusfactors’ to prove cartel violations in the German and European Competition law’s praxis as well as the Indonesian Competition law’s practice. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. iur. Dr. rer. pol. Dres. h.c. Franz Jürgen Säcker Hon.Ph.D.(PCCC) for his genuine motivation and fatherhood guidance as well as his staff at the Institut für Energie- und Regulierungsrecht Berlin. I would also to thank sincerely Dr. jur. Udin Silalahi, SH., LL.M, Lecturer at Universitas Pelita Harapan (UPH) for having inspired and encouraged me to finalize my doctoral research project. Particulary, I would like to thank Studienförderung Ausland, Hanns-Seidel Stiftung also Mr. John Riady for having supported my doctoral study in Germany. Furthermore, I would like to thank Kanzlei Linklaters LLP Berlin as well as Faculty of Law, State University St. Petersburg for supporting my study through professional and research fellowship experiences. Also, I am very thankful to the Freie Universität Berlin’s Faculty of Law and International Office’s staff members. Moreover, I would like to thank Jusuf Indradewa and Partners, Jakarta. My deepest gratitude, however, I owe to my family and communitygroup’s friends in Berlin-Potsdam and Jakarta, who showed the best support, unlimited patience, positivity and confidence to accomplish the doctoral research and this publication. Karawaci, October 2019 V Foreword With delight I write this foreword, not only because Mr. Parluhutan has worked as a Lecturer under my leadership, but also because I believe that his book serves as a contribution to the development of teaching and research on the international business and competition law in Indonesia. I genuinely hope this book will become a primer for academicians and practitioners to enrich and to foster their expertise in the field of Indonesian and international business and competition law in the contemporaneity and in the future. Professor Dr. Bintan Saragih, SH Dean Faculty of Law VII Inhaltsverzeichnis Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chapter One 1 Research Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1 1 Discourse of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.2 8 The Cartel Prohibition Pursuant to the European Union (EU) Competition and the German Cartel Laws and the Law Number 5/1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Two 11 The Cartels Prohibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1 11 Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.1 11 Cartels and The Oligopolistic Interdependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.2 15 Cartel Prohibitions pursuant to the European Union (EU) Competition Law. . . . . . . . . . .2.2 24 Background and Objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.1 24 Statutory Element of the Cartel Prohibition of Article 101 TFEU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2 26 The Undertaking and Association of Undertakings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.1 29 The Existence of Agreements (“Concurrence of Wills”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.2 32 ‘Agreements’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.2.1 32 Decisions by Association of Undertakings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.2.2 36 ‘Concerted Practices’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.2.3 37 ‘Conscious Concertation’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.2.3.1 39 ‘Subsequent Market Conduct’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.2.3.2 41 ‘Causality’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.2.3.3 42 The Concerted Practices’ Main Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2.3.4 43 The Concerted Practices and the Facilitating Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2.3.5 45 Information Exchanges . . . . . . .2.2.2.2.3.5.1 49 Price Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.2.3.5.2 56 IX Basing Point Pricing. . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.2.3.5.3 57 Most-Favoured Customer (MFC) Clauses in Buyer Seller Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2.3.5.4 57 Governmental Action Encouraging the Facilitating Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2.3.5.5 58 Appreciable Restrictions of Competition and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.3 59 Inter-States Clause. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2.3.1 73 Cartel Prohibition pursuant to the German Act against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen-GWB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 74 Objective, Systematic and Juridical Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.1 74 Cartel Prohibition Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2 78 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.1 78 Statutory Elements of the Cartel Prohibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.2 84 Undertakings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.2.1 84 Agreements, Decision of Association of Undertakings, and Concerted Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2.2.2 86 Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.2.2.1 86 General Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.2.2.2 86 Model contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.2.2.3 87 General Terms and Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.2.2.4 87 Circular Letter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.2.2.5 87 Hub and Spoke Cartels (“Sternvertrag”) . . . . . .2.3.2.2.2.6 88 Decision of Association of Undertakings . . . . .2.3.2.2.2.7 97 Concerted Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.2.2.8 98 Restriction of Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.2 99 Appreciability (Substantial Effect) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.2.3 100 Restriction to the Cartel Prohibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.3 101 Immanence Theory (Immanenztheorie). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.3.1 101 Exempted Sectors of the Application of Sec. 1 GWB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.3.2 102 Legal Exemptions Provisions pursuant to the provision of Sec. 1 GWB. . . . . . . . .2.3.4 104 Cartels Prohibition pursuant to the Indonesia Competition Law Number 5/1999 . . . . .2.4 107 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.1 107 Inhaltsverzeichnis X Key Provisions of the Law Number 5/1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.2 110 Objective of the Law Number 5/1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.3 110 Main Concepts in the Law Number 5/1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.4 111 Per-se Illegal and Rule of Reason Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.4.1 111 Product and Geographical Relevant Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.4.2 112 Oligopoly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.4.3 114 Legislative Exemptions in the Law Number 5/1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.5 115 Cartel Prohibition Provisions in the Law Number 5/1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.6 118 The existence of an agreement between undertakings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.6.1 119 Having intention to influence prices on the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4.6.2 122 Arranging production and/or marketing of goods and/or services . . .2.4.6.3 123 Could resulting in the occurrence of monopolistic practice and/or unfair business competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.6.4 123 Procedural Law Pursuant to the EU Competition Law, the German Cartel Law and the Law Number 5/1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Three 127 Procedural Law pursuant to the European (EU) Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1 127 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.1 127 Fundamental Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.2 135 Principle of Legality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.2.1 136 Officiality Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.2.2 137 Protection of the Fundamental Rights Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.2.3 138 In dubio pro reoPrinciple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.2.4 144 The Administrative Proceeding’s Phase and Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.3 149 Judiciary Review by the Court of Justice of the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.4 152 Principle and Rule concerning Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.5 156 Burden and Standard of Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.5.1 156 Evidentiary Evaluation and Category of Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.5.2 161 The Application of Evidentiary Rules and Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1.5.3 162 Procedural Law pursuant to the German Cartel Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2 166 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.1 166 The Administrative Proceeding (Verwaltungsverfahren) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.2 167 General Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.2.1 167 Evidentiary and Inquisitorial Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.2.2 171 Inhaltsverzeichnis XI The Imposition of Fines Proceeding (Bußgeldverfahren) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.3 176 General Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.3.1 176 Evidentiary and Investigatory Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.3.2 179 Principle of the Unfettered Consideration of the Evidence (Grundsatz der freien Beweiwürdigung). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.2.1 179 Principle of Presumption of Innocence (In Dubio Pro Reo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.2.2 180 The Appeal (Objection) Proceedings before the Oberlandesgericht (Kartell-OLG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.2 183 The Civil Litigation Proceeding (Bürgerliche Streitigkeiten) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.4 186 General Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.4.1 186 Principle of Free Party-Dispositions (Dispositionsgrundsatz) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4.1.1 189 Principle of Party Representation (Verhandlungsgrundsatz) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4.1.2 189 Principle of the Party’s Right to Due Process (ordnungsgemäßes Verfahren) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4.1.3 190 Evidentiary for Finding Material Truth Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2.4.2 190 Procedural Law pursuant to the Law Number 5/1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3 194 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.1 194 Administrative Proceedings before KPPU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.2 198 Judiciary Review (Judicial Supervision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3.3 202 Judiciary Review (Judicial Supervision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.3 204 Evidentiary Rule and Principle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.4 205 General Evidentiary Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.4.1 205 Evidentiary Principle According to the Judge's Conviction (Conviction Intime) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4.2 205 Evidentiary Principle According to the Positive Law (Positife Wettelijke Bewijstheorie) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4.3 206 Evidentiary Principle According to the Restricted Judges Conviction (La conviction raisonee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4.4 206 Evidentiary Principle According to the Laws Negatively (Negatief Wettelijke) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4.5 206 Principle of Evidentiary Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.4.2 207 Free evidentiary theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.4.2.1 207 Negative evidentiary theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.4.2.2 208 Positive-limited evidentiary theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.4.2.3 208 Inhaltsverzeichnis XII Specific Evidentiary Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.4.3 208 Application of the Indirect (Evidences) and the ‘Plus Factors’ (Parallelism Plus) within the Cartel Enforcement Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 209 Application of the Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidences in the Cartel Enforcement Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 209 Application of the “Plus Factors” (Parallelism Plus) for Consolidating the Evidences of Cartels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 215 Elaborations of the Circumstantial (Indirect) Evidences in the EU Competition Law, German Cartel Law and Indonesian Competition Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 218 In the European Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.3.1 221 In the German Cartel Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.3.2 226 In the Indonesian Competition Law Number 5/1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.3.3 229 ”Plus-factor” for Consolidating the Circumstantial (Indirect) Evidences . . . . . . .3.4.4 231 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.1 231 The Catalogue of Plus-Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2 234 Motive to Conspire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2.1 234 Behaviour against Self-Interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2.2 234 Factual Plus-Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2.3 235 Economic Plus-Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2.4 235 Facilitating Practices as the “Plus-factors” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2.5 236 Facilitating Practices in an Oligopolistic Market as the Plus-Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4.2.5.1 237 Price leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2.5.2 238 Exchanges of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2.5.3 239 Product standardisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2.5.4 241 Regional Price Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2.5.5 241 Contingency Contract Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4.4.2.5.6 242 Chapter Interim Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.5 242 Conceptual and Judicial Praxis of the Indirect (Circumstancial) Evidence in the EU Competition Law, the German Cartel Law and the Law Number 5/1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Four 245 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.1 245 Judicial Praxis concerning the Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2 248 Inhaltsverzeichnis XIII In the European Competition and the German Cartel Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2.1 248 Bayer AG v Commission of the European Communities-Bayer Adalat Case (ECJ Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.1 248 Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission (Woodpulp Case) (Joined Cases C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85 and C-125/85 to C-129/85, 31 March 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.2 250 Toshiba Corp. v European Union Commission (Gas Insulated Switchgear-GIS Cartel (ECJ Case C-180/16 P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.3 253 Gemeinschaftsunternehmen für Mineralölprodukte (Texaco-Zerssen) [Bundesgerichtshof Kartellsenat, KVR 3/82, 04.10.1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.4 255 Total/OMV Tankstelle The German Supreme Court Decision (Bundesgerichtshof Beschluss vom 6. Dezember 2011 – KVR 95/10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.5 257 In the Indonesia Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2.2 263 Cartels on Automotive Tire [The Indonesian Supreme Court-MARI Decision Number 221 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2016] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.1 264 Amlodipine Anti-Hypertension Pharmaceutical Cartel [Case NO. 17/ KPPU-I/2010] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.2 267 Cement Loco Cartel [Decision Number 01/KPPU-I/2010] . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2.2.3 271 Flight Airline Fuel Surcharges [Decision Number 25/KPPU-I/2009] . .4.2.2.4 278 Short Message Service (SMS) Telecommunication [Decision Number 26/KPPU-I/2007]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.5 286 Chapter Interim Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.3 289 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chapter Five 293 The Judicial Praxis in the European Competition and the German Cartel Laws . . . . . . . .5.1 293 The Judicial Practices in the Indonesian Competition Law Number 5/1999 . . . . . . . . . . .5.2 299 The Implementation of Circumstantial (Indirect) Evidence versus the Real Economic and Business Circumstances in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 299 The Additional KPPU Regulation Related to Circumstantial or Indirect evidences to Complement Article 42 of the Law Number 5/1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 300 The Contentious Implementation of Indirect or Circumstantial Evidences in the Indonesian Legislation and Court Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 301 Inhaltsverzeichnis XIV The Premature and Anomaly Decisions of the Circumstantial or Indirect Evidences in KPPU and the Court Praxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 302 The Leniency Programme’s Implementation in the Indonesia Competition Law and the Institutional Strengthening of KPPU for Eradicating Cartels . . . . . 5.2.5 303 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Inhaltsverzeichnis XV

Chapter Preview

References

Abstract

Notwithstanding the two decades that have passed since the implementation of Law Number 5 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition in 1999, the Indonesian Competition Authority or Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (“KPPU”) continues to face profound difficulties in uncovering cartel activities and thus in imposing penalties. Therefore, the KPPU strives to use circumstantial (indirect) evidence in its judicial practice to prove cartel transgressions. In German Cartel Law, EU Competition Law and in the US Antitrust practice, the courts also employ indirect (circumstantial) evidence, namely ‘facilitating practices’ and ‘plus-factors’, to substantiate cartel infringements. This book compares the different approaches to implimenting indirect (circumstantial) evidence in the Indonesian Competition Law to the German and European Competition Law, both from a procedural as well as a substantial law perspective.