Individual Exemption Applications and Their Assessment: Lessons from the Competition Law Change in the Netherlands during the 1990s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most distinctive features of the European competition law was the availability of individual exemptions to agreements or concerted practices which restricted competition, but nevertheless served the generals interests of the European Community. However, established by Regulation 17/62, the individual exemption regime was dismantled by Regulation 1/2003 in an attempt to modernize the European Union (EU) competition law. Prior to the annulment, one country in Europe -the Netherlands, which was famous for its “cartels”- used individual exemptions to provide legal certainty during a period when national competition policy was radically changed. Following the introduction of the Competition Act of 1998, undertakings were allowed to apply for exemption for agreements that were already in existence and that had begun under the superseded Economic Competition Act of 1956. Accordingly, the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa) received and assessed hundreds of exemption requests, and gave verdicts on the pro-competitiveness of the agreements contained in these applications. This study uses information from 346 decisions of the NMa on exemption applications. It first reports insightful summary statistics concerning the nature of the agreements in the applications, number of parties involved, and duration and scale of the agreements. Then an ordered choice model is estimated to examine how the pro-competitiveness perception of the NMa changes with the nature of agreements and over time conditional on exemption application. The econometric findings are linked to legislative background and administrative implementation, thereby providing an historical overview that summarizes the NMa’s work in exemption applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".