scholarly journals Suppliers to a sellers’ cartel and the boundaries of the right to damages in U.S. versus EU competition law

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eckart Bueren ◽  
Florian Smuda
2019 ◽  
pp. 208-248
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster

This chapter considers the actions commenced before the Court of Justice. These include actions by the European Commission and other member states against a member state (Articles 258–60 TFEU); judicial review of acts of the institutions (Article 263 TFEU); the action against the institutions for a failure to act (Article 265 TFEU); actions for damages (Articles 268 and 340 TFEU); and the right to plead the illegality of an EU regulation (Article 277 TFEU). The chapter also considers interim measures under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and enforcement actions arising from the Commission enforcement of EU competition law against individuals.


2014 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 143-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Dunne

AbstractPrivate enforcement is an increasingly prominent element of EU competition law. The forthcoming Directive on damages actions aims to strengthen and, to a degree, harmonise procedures for private competition litigation, while recent case law of the Court of Justice reaffirms the centrality of the right to claim compensation for losses stemming from breach of the competition rules. Moreover, this right has been presented as an essentially unitary one, whereby any victim of any type of competition infringement has, in principle, the right to claim damages. This chapter reviews the evolving framework, and considers, specifically, the role for private enforcement within the overall system of EU competition law. Taking into account the Commission’s efforts to facilitate and increase private enforcement, the emerging EU public enforcement framework, as well as the substantive EU competition rules more generally, this chapter argues that, contrary to the rhetoric, private enforcement is a mechanism best adapted, and arguably most appropriate, for use only in the context of hard-core cartels. It is further suggested that the gap between rhetoric and reality is not problematic as such, yet difficulties may arise insofar as these divergences conflict with the principle of effectiveness.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 720-728
Author(s):  
Csongor István Nagy

The private enforcement of EU competition law has been in the center of scholarly discourse for almost two decades. Recently, the CJEU, with its ruling adopted in Vantaa v. Skanska and others, opened a new chapter in the history of EU competition law’s private enforcement. The Court held that the conditions of the existence of this right are questions of EU law and should be given an autonomous meaning. The judgment is revolutionary in terms of conceptualization and, as such, it is expected to have a considerable impact on substantive issues in the future. This signals the advent of a uniform regime of European ‘private competition law,’ which limits the role of national rules to the exercise of the right to compensation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 208-248
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster

This chapter considers the actions commenced before the Court of Justice. These include actions by the European Commission and other member states against a member state (Arts 258–60 TFEU); judicial review of acts of the institutions (Art 263 TFEU); the action against the institutions for a failure to act (Art 265 TFEU); actions for damages (Arts 268 and 340 TFEU); and also the right to plead the illegality of an EU regulation (Art 277 TFEU). The chapter also considers interim measures under Arts 278 and 279 TFEU and enforcement actions arising from the Commission enforcement of EU competition law against individuals.


Author(s):  
Abbe Brown ◽  
Smita Kheria ◽  
Jane Cornwell ◽  
Marta Iljadica

This chapter provides an overview of the tension between the application of competition law and the exercise of IPRs. Key issues are the circumstances in which competition law may be applied to moderate the exercise of IPRs in the relevant market; clauses in intellectual property (IP) licensing agreements between undertakings that might be permissible in terms of EU competition law and those which are not; the conditions under which a refusal to supply products protected by an IP right might constitute an abuse of a dominant position by the right holder; and when competition law can provide a defence to an infringement action.


2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 510-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Dunne

UMBRELLA effects arise where anti-competitive conduct by one or more market actors results in general price rises across the sector concerned. The Court of Justice of the European Union has, with its preliminary ruling in Case C-557/12, Kone and others v OBB-Infrastruktur AG, Judgment of 5 June 2014, EU:C:2014:1317, now addressed the potential legal implications of such umbrella effects. In confirming that the right to compensation stemming from breach of EU competition law extends to umbrella claims as a matter of principle, the Court of Justice has offered its most expansive, and arguably most emphatic, interpretation of the scope and importance of private antitrust enforcement to date.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-239
Author(s):  
Monika Schlachter

Defining the personal scope of application of the right to be represented by a trade union for collective bargaining purposes starts by defining the notion of employee/worker on whose behalf the conclusion of collective agreements is not disputed. In the German legal system, a sub-category of self-employed persons, known as ‘employee-like’ persons, is also included in the scope of the statute on collective agreements. For all other self-employed persons, however, no such statutory inclusion exists. They are, rather, prevented from collective price setting by (national und EU) competition law. Upon a closer look at the social purpose of exempting collective agreements from the restrictions of competition law, it is necessary to differentiate according to the existence of a structural power imbalance to the detriment of one contracting party much rather than according to the type of contract concluded. Some self-employed persons, specifically those categorised as workers under a new form of employment, do need collective bargaining as much as employees do, as they find themselves in a comparably weak individual bargaining position.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document