By Paul Gilbert
This article considers why European Commission antitrust decisions seem less vulnerable to appeal on substance than equivalent decisions by the UK authority (“CMA”). It considers whether differences in the investigation procedures have resulted in more robust decisions. It also considers whether differences in the standard of judicial review or other features of the appeal process are responsible for different levels of intervention. It concludes that greater judicial intervention in the UK has been responsible for driving enhancements to the authority’s investigation procedures and argues that similar intervention by the General Court could reduce the risk of confirmation bias in EU decisions.
