scholarly journals A panacea for competition law damages actions in the EU? A comparative view of the implementation of the EU Antitrust Damages Directive in sixteen Member States

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 480-504
Author(s):  
Barry J Rodger ◽  
Miguel Sousa Ferro ◽  
Francisco Marcos
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Joint Liability ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Original Contribution ◽  
Developing Area ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
The Eu

This article makes an original contribution to the literature on the developing area of private enforcement of EU competition law. It delivers a significant, rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the transposition across a broad selection of Member States (MS) of a major EU Directive introduced with the aim of harmonizing and facilitating competition law damages actions across the EU. It looks at the implementation of the Directive 2014/104/EU in sixteen MS. It analyses the solutions followed by each of those MS in addressing the various issues raised by the Directive (liability and compensation, joint liability, statute of limitations, quantification of harm, passing-on defence and indirect purchasers claims, access to evidence and collective redress).

scholarly journals A Note on 2015 Developments in Polish Competition Law: Is it Really a Drive Towards the European Model?

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Piszcz
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Considerable Part ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Model ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Conscious Intention ◽  
Further Development ◽  
The Eu

Modern Polish competition law has become highly regulated and codified over the twenty five years of its existence and this article will provide readers with information relating to its recent developments of 2015. Separate subsections present a review of provisions on remedies in infringement decisions as well as settlements. A considerable part of this paper is designed to outline the peculiarities that characterize Poland’s new provisions on fines. Further on, the paper introduces readers to newest trends in the area of concentration control between undertakings. In addition, an assessment of recent developments and suggestions for a further development of Polish competition law are reviewed in the EU context. The conscious intention of the author is to analyse whether the EU competition law pattern, often regarded as a model for Member States, has been used to develop Polish competition law. Has the latter been amended to look more, or less like EU competition law? Has Polish competition law shown the capacity to absorb the best elements of EU competition law into itself? How is the outcome aligned with the declared direction of these amendments?

scholarly journals The Implementation of the ECN+ Directive in Hungary and Lessons Beyond

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 55-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katalin J. Cseres
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Institutional Aspects ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
The Eu

In order to facilitate national competition authorities (NCAs) in their application of EU competition rules, the EU legislator adopted Directive 2019/1/EU. The Directive’s aim is to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers of competition law and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. The so-called ECN+ Directive introduces minimum harmonisation rules allowing competition authorities to have common investigative, decision-making (notably fining decisions) and enforcement powers. The Directive, furthermore, sets minimum safeguards for the NCAs’ independence, accountability and resources as well as harmonizes leniency programmes including the coordination of national leniency programmes with each other and with that of the European Commission. This paper critically analyzes the legal and policy developments that paved the way for the adoption of this Directive. Moreover, it examines the changes the implementation of the Directive is likely to generate in current Hungarian law and policy of competition protection. The focus of the paper’s assessment is on the institutional aspects of the Directive and the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, in particular the mechanisms for ensuring independence and accountability of the NCAs. Through the assessment of the Hungarian implementation, the paper aims to shed light on a broader context of the Directive and the enforcement of EU competition law in EU Member States. The paper shows that the implementation of the Directive may fail to translate into (more) effective enforcement without an effective institutional capacity on the side of the NCAs, and in the broader legal and constitutional context of competition law and its multilevel enforcement

6. The obligations of Member States under the EU competition rules

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Take All

This chapter examines the obligations of Member States in relation to EU competition law. Specifically, it considers the obligations that Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 37 and 106 TFEU place upon Member States. Article 4(3) requires all Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties, and to avoid any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the EU’s objectives. Article 106 particularly obligates Member States to refrain from enacting or maintaining measures contrary to the rules provided in Article 18 and Articles 101 to 109 of the TFEU. Article 37 is concerned with the procurement of goods.

2. Overview of EU and UK competition law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Economic Area ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This chapter provides a brief overview of EU and UK competition law and the institutions involved in formulating, interpreting and applying competition law. It also explains the relationship between EU competition law and the domestic competition laws of the Member States, in particular in the light of Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003. The rules of the European Economic Area are briefly referred to, and the trend on the part of Member States to adopt domestic competition rules modelled on those in the EU is also noted. Three diagrams at the end of the chapter explain the institutional structure of EU and UK competition law.

scholarly journals Piecemeal Harmonisation Through the Damages Directive? Remarks on What Received Too Little Attention in Relation to Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 79-98
Author(s):  
Anna Piszcz
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Approach ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Eu

On 11 June 2013, the European Commission adopted a package of measures to tackle the lack of an efficient and coherent private enforcement system of EU competition law in its Member States. In particular, a draft Damages Directive was proposed in order to meet the need for a sound European approach to private enforcement of EU competition law in damages actions. The Damages Directive was ultimately adopted on 26 November 2014. This paper explores some aspects of private antitrust enforcement which have not received sufficient attention from the EU decision-makers during the long preparatory and legislative works preceding the Directive. The paper discusses also some of the remedies that have not been harmonised, and shows how these ‘gaps’ in harmonisation may limit the Directive’s expected influence on both the thinking and practice of private antitrust enforcement in Europe. It is argued in conclusion that further harmonisation may be needed in order to actually transform private enforcement of EU competition law before national courts

6. The obligations of Member States under the EU competition rules

2021 ◽  
pp. 224-257
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Take All

This chapter examines the obligations of Member States in relation to EU competition law. Specifically, it considers the obligations that Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 37 and 106 TFEU place upon Member States. Article 4(3) requires all Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties, and to avoid any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the EUs objectives. Article 106 particularly obligates Member States to refrain from enacting or maintaining measures, contrary to the rules provided in Article 18 and Articles 101 to 109 of the TFEU. Article 37 is concerned with state monopolies of a commercial character.

Patents and Competition Law—United Kingdom and European Union

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip W. Grubb ◽  
Peter R. Thomsen ◽  
Tom Hoxie ◽  
Gordon Wright
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
National Governments ◽  
Paris Convention ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on competition law in the UK and EU. Most countries, as well as the EU, have developed a body of competition law to provide countermeasures against what are regarded as abuses of monopoly by patentees. Abuse of monopoly is the use of a patent simply to exclude others, while not working the invention oneself. Provisions of the Paris Convention enable compulsory licences to be granted if the patent is not worked within a certain time. In the UK, they may also be granted if the patentee is preventing the working of a dependent patent by refusing to grant a licence. In the EU, competition law for the internal common market is within the exclusive competence of EU institutions; the national governments of member states only assist these institutions when it comes to implementation of the legislation. The remainder of the chapter explains EU patent licence agreements.

Part III Comparative Analysis of the Transposition Processes and Outcomes, 21 Concluding Remarks

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodger Barry ◽  
Ferro Miguel Sousa ◽  
Marcos Francisco
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Legal Provision ◽  
Joint And Several Liability ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Eu

This chapter reflects on how the book has examined the implementation of the EU's Antitrust Damages Directive across a selected number of key Member States and how its transposition has impacted on one particular aspect of the EU competition law enforcement framework: private enforcement through competition damages claims. It has discussed the national transposition processes, debates, and final measures introduced and implemented, and how best to incorporate the Directive within the pre-existing national legal provision, as well as considering some of the key problems in implementing the Directive. A number of unresolved and complicated issues have been identified, such as those relating to the practical application of the rules on the presumption of harm, passing-on and quantification of damages, how to determine liability within groups of companies, how to apportion joint and several liability between co-infringers, and consumer/collective redress in the competition law context.

The EU Antitrust Damages Directive

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
National Court ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
State Process ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Legal Procedures ◽  
The Eu

This book provides a comprehensive review of the implementation of the Antitrust Damages Directive across a selected number of EU States. It looks at generic EU law issues, such as Member State process and methodology for implementing this EU Directive. It also assesses, more specifically, the national debates and their consequences at the level of substantive choices adopted—in terms of implementation of the various Directive provisions, which may necessitate some change in national legal procedures and/or remedies in relation to claims involving an EU competition law infringement. The book achieves this through discussion of the general EU law issue regarding the national methods used for transposition of an EU Directive, examining the processes and general approaches to the implementation of EU law in the form of a Directive within the legal systems of the various Member States analysed. Processes may vary from involving considerable consultation with public stakeholders to an approach confined to executive or parliamentary decision-making. Additionally, the research assesses the way in which the Antitrust Damages Directive was actually transposed and why the particular approach was adopted within the Member State, considering, for instance, whether the Directive was simply adopted as it stands (literal incorporation of its text through ‘cut and paste’) and what this will mean in terms of national court interpretation and application of the Directive/national law measures implementing it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document