We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
This contribution examines some of the consequences of the UK’s exit from the European Union for the enforcement of the competition rules. It reflects on the impact that Brexit is going to have on future transnational antitrust litigation in Britain and Europe. Thereafter it analyses the challenges that Brexit is likely to present for cooperation in public competition enforcement and suggests solutions for future development.
More...
The paper analyses to what extent financial consumer protection forms part of the competition law objective of consumer welfare that EU competition law nowadays adheres to. It argues that while EU consumer law more generally aims at protecting the final consumer, EU financial consumer protection instruments often protect a broader spectrum of customers. This wider notion of the consumer can also be found in EU competition law, where the consumer is usually likened to any customer. A notable difference between EU financial consumer protection and EU competition law, however, is that they place a different emphasis on structural goals and inherently individual components. In EU competition law, the structural protection of competition is thought to eventually protect consumers. By uniting individual and structural aspects of consumer welfare, as well as by combining reactive and proactive consumer protection, EU competition law and EU financial consumer protection law can together achieve a financial protection of consumers that naturally goes beyond what each area of the law could achieve alone. A stringent approach, however, would require the development of a comprehensive EU financial consumer law which includes both dimensions.
More...
The public administration of the European Union (EU) is a sui generismulti-level structure under constant development. After five decades of successful functioning, the European Union still lacks a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules of administrative procedure at all levels. The existing acquis related to European administration and administrative procedures is fragmented, sector specific and although it is based on the constitutional principles of the democratic traditions of its Member States, such coincidence is often insufficient for the present requirements of good administration. The EU basically relies on indirect administration, while a growing number of cooperation forms exists of the competent authorities that aims to ensure efficacy of execution and to overcome diversity of non-harmonised legal areas. The aim of this paper is to place the European Competition Network (ECN) in this structure, explore and examine its legal nature as it is probably the most advanced example for such cooperation.The ECN incorporates and reveals the major procedural law questions of European administration; it is a rather successful form of cooperation, and although its core issues fail to correspond to the fundamental requirements of European administrative procedures, there seem to be positive changes in the evaluation of soft law and the functioning of the system.
More...
The article discusses the framework of liability for anti-competitive conduct of a genuinely independent third party as set forth in relevant judgments. It refers to concepts of third party liability in the light of the principle of personal responsibility developed by doctrine and jurisprudence. The CJEU has set out important rules relating to liability of an undertaking for actions of its independent service provider. However, it still left some important issues unresolved. The paper focuses on the test for the attribution of anti-competitive conduct of a service provider and refers to its interpretation and application. It questions whether the introduced test provides sufficient legal certainty for undertakings. It briefs on the steps that must be taken by undertakings to distance themselves from an infringement and offers some suggestions how to limit or prevent exposure to liability
More...
Directive 2014/104/EU on private antitrust enforcement opted for the exclusion of punitive damages from the category of recoverable damages following a violation of antitrust law. This article will outline the concept of punitive damages and analyse the relevant case-law of the courts of the Member States, of the ECtHR and of the ECJ. Then, it will examine the regime laid down in the Directive and consider the possible reasons why the European legislator opted for this exclusion. Thus, the opportunity to introduce such a provision into the European legal system will be evaluated, taking into consideration the problem of overdeterrence, the problem of the division of functions between public and private enforcement, and making a comparison with the relevant provisions of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Finally, a possible modification of Article 3(3) of the Directive will be suggested, in the framework of the review that the Commission is required to undertake by December 27, 2020.
More...
The notion of fiscal aid is becoming crucial in determining the relationship between supra-national integration and national tax sovereignty; the selectivity criterion is often key in the assessment of compatibility of fiscal measures with Article 107(1) TFEU. Therefore, the notion of selectivity as defined by the recent case-law of the CJEU and decision-making practice of the Commission is fundamental in order to understand the actual allocation of powers in direct taxation matters. Against this backdrop, the aim of the present article is to establish what the current notion of selectivity is in fiscal aids, assessing whether the approach used by the CJEU and the Commission share common patterns, and evaluating the impact of such interpretation on the division of competences within the EU. In particular, this article offers a critical reading of the recent European Commission v. World Duty Free case and of the so-called Tax Rulings Decisions.
More...
The paper examines strengths and weakness of the French system of competition enforcement, with the aim of contributing to the discussion on the institutional design of systems of competition law enforcement. In this regard, special attention will be devoted to choosing to introduce a clear separation between investigative and adjudicative functions within the same institution: while this solution ensures compliance with the impartiality principle, it also implies a lack of coordination between the board and the investigative services, which could have negative consequences for the administrative activity of the institution
More...
The Damages Directive has a rather limited scope, focusing only on damages claims stemming from anticompetitive agreements or abuse of a dominant position, provided such conduct was able to affect trade between EU Member States. However, Member States are not limited by this scope and so they may decide, when implementing the Directive, to enhance not only claims for damages, but the overall private enforcement of competition law. In this article, we shall explore the scope of the implementing legislation of selected Central and Eastern European Countries, namely in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
More...
The paper will focus on requirements and thresholds set for the judiciary by the Damages Directive. Answered will also be questions on the specialization of courts and its application in Central and Eastern European (CEE) Member States of the EU, as well as on the involvement of national competition authorities (NCAs) in court proceedings. The paper provides also general thoughts regarding the specialization of courts and confronts them with the judiciary structure in CEE Member States in the context of private enforcement of competition law. While there is no uniform model of a judicial system, the paper provides a critical analysis of the centralization, specialization and decentralization of private enforcement models, taking into account also the importance of the training of judges. The relationship between NCAs and courts will be discussed whereby the role of NCAs in private enforcement defines the responsibility of the given public authority in private enforcement as a country’s policymaker
More...
This paper discusses the use of consensual dispute resolution for the purpose of antitrust damage claims as introduced by the Directive. It presents these type of claims in a broader context of arbitration (or ADR), in comparison with traditional claim settling before a state court. Particular focus is on selected CEE countries and their implementation of the Directive, serving as an example of the transposition of the Directive’s rules (Article 18 and 19) into national systems in the area of consensual dispute resolution. Specific institutions intended to encourage consensual resolution included in the Directive (and transposed into national systems) are being commented on as well. Lastly, the paper briefs on the advantages of ADR in general, and concludes that even post-Directive, ADR remains attractive as a complimentary instrument to public enforcement and state judiciary enforcement
More...
The article is devoted to the type of liability in selected CEE countries, namely those covered by the national reports drafted for the 2nd International Conference on Harmonization of Private Antitrust Enforcement: Central and Eastern European Perspective. The paper starts with preliminary remarks concerning the role of the type of liability in private enforcement of competition law and the Damages Directive. In the following sections of the article, the author discusses the manner of adopting the aforementioned element as a result of the implementation process in CEE Member States. The article is mainly based on the content of the relevant national reports, with a few references to issues beyond their scope. In the summary, the author formulates brief conclusions with respect to the implementation manner of the type of liability as well as provides general remarks concerning the role of the type of liability in competition-based private enforcement cases.
More...
The study reviews the provisions of the Directive by, first, presenting its general rule – joint and several liability – and then its two exceptions, pointing out that albeit they contain similar solutions, these have different reasons in the case of leniency applicants obtained immunity from fines and small and medium-sized enterprises. The study examines whether the 11 CEE Member States prescribe joint and several liability, in principle, to cases where multiple persons cause harm jointly by an infringement of competition law. The study also analyses the position of an immunity recipient in national laws. During the examination, the study separates the position of the immunity recipient and the injured parties, as well as the position of the immunity recipient and other co-infringers, as is the case in the Directive. The study summarizes also national experiences with the implementation of the Damages Directive. It is a fact that the norms of the Directive have been implemented, and there is no deviation to jeopardize either the enforcement of claims for damages or the integrity of the internal market. Nevertheless, having established two separate exceptions, it would have been duly justified for the Commission to explain them in detail, considering their rules differ from each other. Noticeably, some CEE countries considered the difference unjustified and uniformly provided an opportunity for the co-infringer who compensated the harm of an injured party to submit a reimbursement claim against the immunity recipient and SMEs. Other CEE countries considered that they did not have the authority to do so.It would be worth reviewing the implementation of the exceptions to joint and several liabilities after a year, in conjunction with the issue of alternative dispute resolution. The study makes aproposal for an amendment of the Directive. Doctrinal views related to the SMEs exemption from joint and several liability draw attention to the fact that it is unfortunate if solutions designed in arelatively late stage of the legislative procedure do, in fact, later become a part of that directive. It would seem practical, for example, to declare that this exception shall be applied also to micro enterprises in relation to the compensation of harms caused by infringements of competition law. The Damages Directive requires, however, the implementation of this exception only with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises.
More...
Quantification of harm is regarded as one of the most significant obstacles for the full compensation of harm and development of private enforcement within the European Union, including CEE Member States. Consequently, the Damages Directive establishes general rules and requirements for the quantification of harm, such as a rebuttable presumption of harm in case of cartels, the power of national courts to estimate harm as well as others, which closely interact with the principle of full compensation emphasized by the case-law of the European Union and directly established in the Damages Directive. The main focus of this paper is the effectiveness of the rules on the quantification of harm in general, and how these rules will contribute to the development of private antitrust enforcement in CEE Member States. Therefore, one of the issues to be discussed in the paper is the analysis of how, and to what extent specific rules and requirements for the quantification of harm have been transposed into the national legislation of CEE Member States. As certain CEE national jurisdictions have had certain rules for the quantification of harm already before the implementation of the Damages Directive, the paper analyses how effective these rules have been, and how much they have contributed to the development of private antitrust enforcement of those CEE national jurisdictions. Previous experience of those CEE Member States in applying specific rules for the quantification of harm is important, in order to assess the possible impact of the newly introduced rules on the quantification of harm and on private antitrust enforcement in general in other CEE Member States. The rules for the quantification of harm will not enhance private antitrust enforcement on their own, however, their effective application by national courts together with other rules under the Damages Directive should contribute to a quicker development of private enforcement in CEE Members States
More...
