A Channel Apart: Why the United Kingdom has Departed from the European Commission’s Recommendation on Class Actions

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 36-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael MULHERON

AbstractOver the course of 2013–15, there have been significant developments in the reform of class actions in Europe. The European Commission published its Recommendation of common principles concerning collective redress in June 2013, whilst the Consumer Rights Act 2015 – which was introduced into the United Kingdom Parliament in January 2014 and obtained Royal Assent on 26 March 2015 – contains a class action for competition law infringements. Although there is some ‘common ground’ between these legislative instruments, their divergences are far more legally significant, and comprise the focus of analysis in this article. Regarding the two topics of standing to sue, and the opt-in versus opt-out approach to forming the class, the approaches of the European Commission and the UK Parliament differ markedly, reflecting the deep policy, political and judicial divisions which have manifested in this area of reform for over a decade. The legislators have also ultimately chosen different scopes of application, with the European Commission preferring a ‘horizontal’ approach to reform, whilst the UK Parliament has pursued a sector-specific reform agenda. In respect of standing to sue and the opt-in versus opt-out debate, there are numerous sound legal and political reasons that manifestly support the UK law-makers’ decision to depart from the 2013 Recommendation. However, in respect of the horizontal-versus-sectoral debate, the topsy-turvy history of reform at both European and domestic levels has resulted, ironically, in both the Commission and UK policy-makers reversing the views which each had initially adopted within the past decade. Undoubtedly, as these reform measures demonstrate, the collective redress landscape is both evolving and controversial.

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (15) ◽  
pp. 4659
Author(s):  
William Hongsong Wang ◽  
Vicente Moreno-Casas ◽  
Jesús Huerta de Soto

Renewable energy (RE) is one of the most popular public policy orientations worldwide. Compared to some other countries and continents, Europe has gained an early awareness of energy and environmental problems in general. At the theoretical level, free-market environmentalism indicates that based on the principle of private property rights, with fewer state interventionist and regulation policies, entrepreneurs, as the driving force of the market economy, can provide better services to meet the necessity of offering RE to protect the environment more effectively. Previous studies have revealed that Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have made some progress in using the market to develop RE. However, this research did not analyze the three countries’ RE conditions from the perspective of free-market environmentalism. Based on our review of the principles of free-market environmentalism, this paper originally provides an empirical study of how Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have partly conducted free-market-oriented policies to successfully achieve their policy goal of RE since the 1990s on a practical level. In particular, compared with Germany and Denmark, the UK has maintained a relatively low energy tax rate and opted for more pro-market measures since the Hayekian-Thatcherism free-market reform of 1979. The paper also discovers that Fredrich A. Hayek’s theories have strongly impacted its energy liberalization reform agenda since then. Low taxes on the energy industry and electricity have alleviated the burden on the electricity enterprises and consumers in the UK. Moreover, the empirical results above show that the energy enterprises play essential roles in providing better and more affordable RE for household and industrial users in the three sampled countries. Based on the above results, the paper also warns that state intervention policies such as taxation, state subsidies, and industrial access restrictions can impede these three countries’ RE targets. Additionally, our research provides reform agendas and policy suggestions to policymakers on the importance of implementing free-market environmentalism to provide more efficient RE in the post-COVID-19 era.


This book provides a comprehensive guide to all aspects of competition litigation in the UK. It covers both practice and procedure in the UK courts as well as in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. All aspects of case work are covered, from commencement of proceedings, group litigation, jurisdiction, applicable law, evidence, remedies, costs, and arbitration to criminal proceedings, giving competition lawyers a full analysis of the litigation process. There are also new chapters dedicated to the practice and procedure in Scotland and Northern Ireland.Fully updated in its second edition, coverage reflects important amendments to the Competition Act 1998; for example, the introduction of rules for class actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. As a result of the implementation of the Damages Directive, Directive 2014/204, new rules have been introduced for disclosure and joint and several liability. The book also covers the new cartel offence, which no longer has the mens rea of dishonesty.The new edition covers a range of important new cases: to name but a few, Sainsbury’s v MasterCard on the pass-on defence; Dorothy Gibson and Walter Merricks on opt-out class action; Cooper Tire and Toshiba Carrier on anchor defendants; and Deutsche Bahn on applicable law.


Significance However, there has been a notable change in the EU’s tone. In July, the European Commission unexpectedly paused legal action against the United Kingdom for an alleged breach of the NIP, and when London announced on September 6 that it was suspending key elements indefinitely, the EU’s response was muted. Impacts France is so deeply aggrieved over AUKUS that any further UK breaches of the Withdrawal Agreement could prompt a bad-tempered response. The possibility of an early assembly election in Northern Ireland would complicate EU-UK attempts to resolve the NIP issue. The exclusion of high profile, pro-EU politicians in the UK cabinet reshuffle shows how important the Brexit agenda remains for London.


2020 ◽  
pp. 119-136
Author(s):  
Nina Amelung ◽  
Rafaela Granja ◽  
Helena Machado

Abstract The UK is the possessor of the world’s oldest and largest DNA database by proportion of population: the National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database, established in 1995. As a nation-state that holds one of the world’s largest DNA databases, the UK has been dealing systematically with the societal effects triggered by various ethical controversies. In terms of bordering practices, the UK serves as an example of an ambivalent mode of re- and debordering. This ambivalence derives from the UK’s changing position regarding the Prüm system. In 2014, the UK government, driven by the parliament, decided to opt out of the Prüm Decisions. In 2015, after a Prüm-style pilot project run with other EU Member States, the UK decided to opt in. This decision, nonetheless, included the imposition of limits on other EU countries’ access to the UK’s data. Consequently, the UK’s debordering practices co-exist with rebordering attempts aimed at restricting access to their own data.


2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Rowbottom

Shortly after the 2010 general election in the United Kingdom, the new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government promised to reform the way British political parties are financed and ‘to remove big money from politics’. Such promises are not new, and in the last decade there has been no shortage of legislative action on party funding. The problem has been that the laws failed to address some of the biggest concerns about money in politics, and that the political actors found strategies to avoid the controls. Looking at the UK approach, this article aims to give an overview of the controls in place, while highlighting some of the main difficulties experienced. While the UK laws have some differences compared with those proposed in New Zealand (particularly in relation to third-party activity), there is much common ground and the British experience may offer some lessons and show some of the pitfalls in regulating political finance. 


Significance The meeting took place against a background of persisting tensions between European authorities and the mainly US-owned digital giants over questions of data protection and privacy. Impacts Concerns that the procedures have not been properly tested to establish whether EU citizens’ data is properly protected will persist. The prospects for Privacy Shield may set a precedent for post-Brexit data relations between the United Kingdom and the EU. This could jeopardise the UK data protection regime's changes of being deemed “adequate” by the European Commission.


Significance With the new rules, the United Kingdom is making it easier for consumers to bring collective legal actions for alleged violations of competition law, although it has largely rejected adopting US procedures that incentivise lawyers to bring class actions. Further reforms under the 2014 EU Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions will apply throughout the EU from December 2016. In the United States, the class action regime has been tightened in recent years, and a recent decision by an influential federal appellate judge is increasing court scrutiny of class action settlements. Impacts Safeguards will prevent the UK system from evolving along the lines of the more litigation-friendly US class action model. The UK system is unlikely to be broadened to make it easier for plaintiffs to bring collective actions in areas other than competition law. Legal decisions and statute changes that have discouraged US class actions are unlikely to be reversed. This applies especially in securities actions.


Significance Cameron is gauging his counterparts' positions before presenting his reform agenda at the June 25-26 EU summit. He seeks the other EU states' support for a package of reforms that will enable him to claim that he has secured a better deal for the United Kingdom in the EU, and thus campaign for an 'in' vote in the EU membership referendum he has promised by end-2017. Cameron is seeking to build backing for some reforms that would apply across the EU, rather than only seek special treatment for the United Kingdom. However, some of the reforms he has mooted are unacceptable to many other EU states. Impacts The greatest impact of the reforms that Cameron secures could be on the scale of the split in the Conservative Party over EU membership. Some of Cameron's reforms could bring important changes across the bloc, as well as set precedents for other member states. The UK renegotiation will generate bargaining between member states that will affect their negotiation of other issues.


Until 2019, TBE was considered only to be an imported disease to the United Kingdom. In that year, evidence became available that the TBEV is likely circulating in the country1,2 and a first “probable case” of TBE originating in the UK was reported.3 In addition to TBEV, louping ill virus (LIV), a member of the TBEV-serocomplex, is also endemic in parts of the UK. Reports of clinical disease caused by LIV in livestock are mainly from Scotland, parts of North and South West England and Wales.4


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 388-414
Author(s):  
Alexandra P. Mikroulea

AbstractOpt-in or opt-out? That is the basic question to be answered. The decision to promote actions of “opt-in” type as opposed to those of the “opt-out” type, for the sake of private autonomy, does not ensure the effective application of european competition law. On the contrary, it may decrease the application’s intensity and effectiveness. Recent reforms among European state members such as in the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are powerful indications that the opt-out principle may result in the effective implementation of competition law. There is no doubt that a mixed system (hybrid system), providing the court with the power to decide in favour of either the opt-in or the opt-out system, will result in better implementation of competition law. At the present time there are two pending cases in England (Dorothy Gibson and Mastercard) for which the decision on opt-out or opt-in are highly anticipated. Should the court decide, in one or both of the cases, on an opt-out approach, this will bring a momentous reevaluation of the entire collective redress concept.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document