Technical Approximation of Legislation and Functional Harmonization of Law on the Example of Some Institutes of Competition Law

Harmonization and approximation are often used as interchangeable concepts in practice, although they need to be distinguished. Legislative “approximation” is largely a technical process, while harmonization of law can be presented as a complex phenomenon, which, in itself, combines legal, social, and, in some cases, economic components. Considering this, the analysis of the concepts of approximation and harmonization acquires special importance in the context of the integration of Georgian legislation with the legal space of the European Union, which is a long and multifaceted process. Such an analysis of concepts helps us both to measure the existing degree of integration and to achieve functional harmonization of law. Distinguishing between the concepts of harmonization and approximation can be done especially clearly on the example of competition policy. Taking into account that this is a relatively new, dynamically developing field for the Georgian legal space and, at the same time, represents one of the essential legal aspects of the economic association between the European Union and Georgia, it becomes possible to assess the degrees of approximation through the analysis of the amendments made in the Georgian legislation in recent decades. Discussion on this issue, finally, shows that the functional harmonization of the law, theoretically, may not be achieved, despite the technical legislative approximation.

1. Gabrichidze, G., Law of the European Union, Publishing House of the European and Comparative Law Institute, Tbilisi, 2012;
2. Papava, V., Unconventional Economics: Theory and Practice, Tbilisi, 2020;
3. Khaduri, N., Fetelava, S., Implementation of economic competition policy in Georgia, Competition policy: modern trends and challenges, collection of papers, 2017;
4. Andone, C., Coman-Kund, F., Persuasive Rather than “Binding” EU Soft Law? An Argumentative Perspective on the European Commission’s Soft Law Instruments in Times of Crisis, The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 10:1, 2022;
5. Boodman, M., The Myth of Harmonization of Laws, The American
Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 39, No. 4, Autumn, 1991;
6. Cheng, T. K., How Culture May Change Assumptions in Antitrust Policy, The Global Limits of Competition Law, 2012;
7. Colomo, P. I., Kalintiri, A., The Evolution of EU Antitrust Policy: 1966–2017. The Modern Law Review, 83(2), 2020;
8. Cooter, R. D., Ginsburg, T., Leximetrics: Why the Same Laws are Longer in Some Countries than Others, American Law and Economics Association Annual Meetings, Paper 64, 2004. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=456520;
9. Deepening EU-Georgian Relations, Emerson, M., Koviziridze, T., eds., Brussels, 2018;
10. Kaufman, J. P., Banović, R. S., The Role of (In)Formal Governance and Culture in a National Competition System: A case of a Post-Socialist Economy, 2020.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374448917_The_Role_of_inFormal_Governance_and_Culture_in_a_National_Competition_System_A_Case_of_a_Post_Socialist_Economy;
11. Kurkchiyan, M., What to Expect from Institutional Transplants? An Experience of Setting up Media Self-regulation in Russia and Bosnia, International Journal of Law in Context, 8, 2012;
12. The Oxford English Dictionary, Murray, J. A. H., Bradley, H., Craigie, W.A., et al., eds., Vol. 5, 1961;
13. Weatherill, S., The Internal Market as a Legal Concept, The Internal Market as a Legal Concept, Oxford, 2017;
14. Commission Notice on the Definition of Relevant Market for the Purposes of Community Competition Law, Official Journal of the European Communities, 97/C 372 /03;
15. Commission of the European Communities, Completing the Internal Market, White Paper from the Commission, C0M (85) 310.
16. Communication from the Commission — Guidance on the Commission's Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings, 2009/C 45/02;
17. Judicial Enforcement of Competition Law, Proceedings of Policy Roundtable, OECD, 1996;
18. Case C‑457/10 P, AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc v. European Commission;
19. Joined cases C-468/06 to C-478/06, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 September 2008;
20. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 27 March 2012, Post Danmark A/S v. Konkurrencerådet;
21. Act for Protection of Competition, Bulgaria, State Gazette No. 102/28.11.2008, https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/11489;
22. The Competition Act of India, 2002, 12 OF 2003, https://www.cci.gov.in/images/legalframeworkact/en/the-competition-act-20021652103427.pdf;
23. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/acquis.html;
24. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A1200 2E%2FTXT;
25. https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PD;
26. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1212956?publication=0;
27. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2294894?publication=0;
28. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2496959?publication=0;
29. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/29644?publication=0;
30. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/29644?publication=6;
31. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/4786582?publication=0;
32. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/4990278?publication=3;
33. https://www.asocireba.ge/files/file_6018772.pdf;
34. https://www.matsne.gov.ge/document/view/31462?publication=0.