INTRODUCTION: THE INSTITUTIONAL
DIMENSIONS OF ANTITRUST

ADJUDICATION: EXPLORING THE BASES
OF JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING IN THE

UNITED STATES AND EUROPE

William H. Rooney*

On September 19, 2012, the Antitrust Law Section of the
New York State Bar Association sponsored a program
designed to foster collaboration between the scholarly and
practicing dimensions of the antitrust bar in the United
States and Europe. To that end, we invited a prominent
scholar and an esteemed practitioner to examine a subject of
common interest-namely, the criteria for judgment that
guide courts in resolving antitrust cases. We are pleased
and appreciative that the Columbia Business Law Review
has agreed to join our collaboration by publishing an article
and a comment that resulted from the program.

The program was entitled The Institutional Dimensions of
Antitrust Adjudication: Exploring the Bases of Judicial
Decision Making in the United States and Europe, and
featured Professor Daniel Crane of the University of
Michigan Law School and Mr. Jean-Frangois Bellis,
managing partner of the Brussels firm, Van Bael & Bellis.
We asked Professor Crane to extend to antitrust adjudication
the exploration of the institutional dimensions of antitrust
enforcement that he undertook in his recent book, The
Institutional Structure of Antitrust Enforcement (2011). He
rewarded us richly with an engaging discussion of the
interplay among judicial virtues, including substantive
purism (deciding cases on the merits) and institutional
realism, incrementalism and generalism, harmony and
candor, and stare decisis and rule development, all within

* Chair, Antitrust Law Section, New York State Bar Association.



the common-law approach that informs antitrust
adjudication.

Professor Crane's article is followed by a comment from
Mr. Bellis, who addresses the subject of "good judging" from
a European perspective. Mr. Bellis examines the specific
attributes of the European Commission and European
courts, and the manner in which those institutions have
shaped antitrust decision making and policy in Europe. In
particular, Mr. Bellis discusses the special features of
antitrust enforcement in Europe, as well as the evolution of
the jurisdiction and organization of the European courts.
Mr. Bellis then reviews an important decisional development
by the European Court of Justice and considers how those
decisions might influence future antitrust adjudication.

The Antitrust Law Section would like to thank Professor
Crane and Mr. Bellis for their contributions to the antitrust
literature. We are also grateful to the Columbia Business
Law Review for its participation in our project and for
opening the pages of its premier journal to the provocative
writings of Professor Crane and Mr. Bellis. With the
assistance of the Columbia Business Law Review, the
remarks of Professor Crane and Mr. Bellis will provide a
resource for the bench, the bar, and the enforcement
agencies on both sides of the Atlantic in formulating
antitrust law and policy in the years to come.

Finally, the Section is grateful to the New York State Bar
Association and to the many practitioners and academics
whose presence and participation made the program a great
success. We look forward to sponsoring future collaborations
between the academy and the practicing bar on subjects of
contemporary antitrust interest.

On behalf of the Antitrust Law Section of the New York
State Bar Association, I invite you to embark upon your own
exploration, with Professor Crane and Mr. Bellis as your
guides, of The Institutional Dimensions of Antitrust
Adjudication.

ii COL UMBIA B USINESS LA W RE VIE W [Vol. 2013