Private Party Liability in EU Law: In Search of the General Regime

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 257-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorota Leczykiewicz
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Private Party ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
State Liability ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Normative Justification

AbstractThe emergence of private party liability in damages is EU law has been much discussed by academics, but it is clear from the case law of the Court of Justice that we do not yet have a principle of private party liability analogous to the principle of Member State liability. This chapter examines under what conditions it would be justified to claim that there was indeed a general principle of private party liability in EU law. Furthermore, the chapter explains that the introduction of the general principle of private party liability would require a thorough clarification of some of the most fundamental, yet still unclear, concepts of EU law, such as direct effect, the horizontal applicability of EU norms and the principle of effective judicial protection. It is argued that the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to introduce a general regime of private party liability in damages is not without controversy and that the judicial creation of the principle will be legitimate only if adequate normative justification is provided for its presence in EU law. In this respect, it has to be recognised that EU competition law is not an adequate legal setting for the general regime to be born, because it does not bring to light tensions arising in other contexts.

Private Party Liability in EU Law: In Search of the General Regime

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 257-282
Author(s):  
Dorota Leczykiewicz
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Private Party ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
State Liability ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Normative Justification

AbstractThe emergence of private party liability in damages is EU law has been much discussed by academics, but it is clear from the case law of the Court of Justice that we do not yet have a principle of private party liability analogous to the principle of Member State liability. This chapter examines under what conditions it would be justified to claim that there was indeed a general principle of private party liability in EU law. Furthermore, the chapter explains that the introduction of the general principle of private party liability would require a thorough clarification of some of the most fundamental, yet still unclear, concepts of EU law, such as direct effect, the horizontal applicability of EU norms and the principle of effective judicial protection. It is argued that the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to introduce a general regime of private party liability in damages is not without controversy and that the judicial creation of the principle will be legitimate only if adequate normative justification is provided for its presence in EU law. In this respect, it has to be recognised that EU competition law is not an adequate legal setting for the general regime to be born, because it does not bring to light tensions arising in other contexts.

EU Law Concentrate

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Eu

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. EU Law Concentrate provides essential information on all aspects of EU law, starting with the origins, institutions, and sources of law in the EU. It then moves on to consider supremacy, direct and indirect effect, and state liability. Chapter 4 looks at direct actions in the Court of Justice of the European Union. Articles 258–260, 263, 265, 277, and 340 are examined in detail. The next couple of chapters describe the free movement of goods and persons. The book ends with a consideration of EU Competition law, in particular Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Anticompetitive Effects in EU Competition Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Ibáñez Colomo
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Time Variable ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competitive Disadvantage ◽  
Probability Threshold ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Freedom Of Action

Abstract This article examines the meaning and scope of the notion of anticompetitive effects in EU competition law. It does so by bringing together several strands of the case law (and this across all provisions, namely Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and merger control). The analysis is structured around a framework that considers the main variables that shape the notion in practice: the time variable (actual or potential effects); the dimensions of competition and the counterfactual; the meaning of effects and the probability threshold (plausibility, likelihood, certainty). The exercise shows that it is possible to discern a concrete meaning to the notion of anticompetitive effects. Some central questions, including the role and operation of the counterfactual and the threshold of effects, have already been answered by the Court of Justice. In particular, it has long been clear that anticompetitive effects amount to more than a mere competitive disadvantage and/or a limitation of a firm’s freedom of action. The impact on equally efficient firms’ ability and/or incentive to compete would need to be established. At the same time, some open questions and some potential areas of friction (relating, inter alia, to stakeholders’ tendency to conflate appreciability and effects) remain. These are also discussed.

National Procedural Autonomy and General EU Law Limits

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-34
Author(s):  
Rob Widdershoven
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Approach ◽  
Procedural Autonomy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

This article examines the recent approach of the European Court of Justice of the EU towards the applicability of procedural national law in cases falling within the scope of Union law. It argues that the Court increasingly assesses such rules within the framework of the principle of effective judicial protection, as bindingly codified in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Right of the EU since December 2009. This test is gradually replacing the rather deferential test on the Rewe principles of equivalence and effectiveness and implies a further limitation of procedural autonomy of the Member States. The reason for the shift seems to be the necessity to coordinate the Court's case law on Article 47 CFR with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 6 ECHR, because this coordination requires the application of a similar standard by both European Courts. As a result, the importance of, in particular, the Rewe principle of effectiveness, has already decreased to a considerable extent and might decrease further in future. Nevertheless, it is not to be expected that this standard will be abolished completely. First, because it may provide an adequate standard for assessing procedural issues that are not related to effective judicial protection or Article 47 CFR. Secondly, because incidentally it may be used by the Court for modifying national procedural law with a view to the effective application of substantive EU rules.

LOYALTY REBATES AND ABUSE OF DOMINANCE

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-28
Author(s):  
Mark Friend
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Abuse Of Dominance ◽  
Article 102 Tfeu ◽  
Missed Opportunity

THE recent judgment of the Court of Justice in Intel v Commission (Case C-413/14 P, EU:C:2017:632) deserves a cautious welcome for signalling a move to a more economics-based approach to the assessment of loyalty rebates under Article 102 TFEU, and for modulating the rigid legal presumptions that have characterised nearly four decades of case law. Yet it also represents a missed opportunity to provide a comprehensive analytical framework for one of the more unsatisfactory areas of EU competition law.

Effective Judicial Protection: some recent developments – moving to the essence

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sacha Prechal
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Concrete Case ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This article looks briefly into the evolution of the principle of effective judicial protection in EU law and into the relationship between the different manifestations of that principle, which is by now given expression in Article 47 CFR, Article 19 TEU and various provisions of secondary law. Next, it focusses on recent developments in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, which concern two central aspects of the principle of effective judicial protection: the compliance with court judgments and the independence of the judiciary. As far as the first topic is concerned, two rather extreme cases addressed the issue what should be done, as a matter of EU law, in situations where a public authority refuses to comply with a final judicial decision. Then the article continues by discussing the independence of the judiciary as a key rationale for the principle of effective protection. In particular, it summarizes the increasingly detailed requirements to be satisfied in order to protect the independence of judges and indicates how an alleged lack of independence should be assessed in a concrete case.

8. Public enforcement of Union law (Articles 258–260 TFEU); review of legality and damages (Articles 263, 265, 268, 277 and 340(2) TFEU)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margot Horspool ◽  
Matthew Humphreys ◽  
Michael Wells-Greco
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Financial Consequences ◽  
State Liability

This chapter focuses on direct actions before the Court of Justice. It is divided into two sections. Section I deals with direct actions relating to public enforcement of EU law between the Commission and Member States (Article 258 of the TFEU) and between Member States (Article 259 TFEU). The financial consequences of failure to remedy infringements are also covered (Article 260 TFEU). Section II deals with actions challenging the legality of binding institutional acts (action for annulment, Article 263 TFEU); action for failure to act (Article 265 TFEU); and the plea of illegality (Article 277 TFEU). It briefly examines the action for damages against EU institutions (Articles 268 and 340(2) TFEU), a Treaty-based action from which parallels can be drawn to the evolution of state liability, through the Court’s case law.

The Role of Private Enforcement within EU Competition Law

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 143-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Dunne
Keyword(s):  
Hard Core ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
The Right

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.

scholarly journals Compatibility of the State Aid Recovery Order with the General Principles of EU Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Marek Rzotkiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Case Law ◽  
State Aid ◽  
The State ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

According to the Article 16.1 of Regulation 2015/1589 the Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of EU law. The potential existence of such a contradiction can be then of un utmost significance to a Member State and aid beneficiaries. However, notwithstanding its significance, the notion of a general principle of EU law has not been defined in the EU legislation, has been derived from the case law of the Court of Justice. The current paper strives to analyze different sorts of general principles of the EU law and their impact on the recovery obligation, especially as such an obligation differs between particular principles. Some of those principles have no significance at all on the existence of the recovery order, while others can, and sometimes even should, bar the Commission from ordering a Member State to recover an aid.

8. Public enforcement of EU law (Articles 258–260 TFEU); review of legality and damages (Articles 263, 265, 268, 277 and 340(2) TFEU)

2021 ◽  
pp. 249-299
Author(s):  
Margot Horspool ◽  
Matthew Humphreys ◽  
Michael Wells-Greco
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Financial Consequences ◽  
State Liability

This chapter focuses on direct actions before the Court of Justice. It is divided into two sections. Section I deals with direct actions relating to public enforcement of EU law between the Commission and Member States (Article 258 TFEU) and between Member States (Article 259 TFEU). The financial consequences of failure to remedy infringements are also covered (Article 260 TFEU). Section II deals with actions challenging the legality of binding institutional acts (action for annulment, Article 263 TFEU); action for failure to act (Article 265 TFEU); and the plea of illegality (Article 277 TFEU). It briefly examines the action for damages against EU institutions (Articles 268 and 340(2) TFEU), a Treaty-based action from which parallels can be drawn to the evolution of state liability, through the Court’s case law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document