The Efficiency of Private Enforcement of Public Law Claims in Estonia

AbstractShould rights be publicly or privately enforced in the case of digital piracy? The emergence of large-scale anti-piracy laws and the existence of illegal non-monitored channels raise important issues for the design of anti-piracy policies. We study the impact of these demand-side policies in two enforcement settings (namely, public and private enforcement settings) with an outside adoption option for users of an illegal non-monitored channel. Our results show that public enforcement generates higher monitoring and lower price levels, and also higher legal welfare than private enforcement. However, we identify potential conflicts of interest between the legal seller and the social planner when the efficiency of the illegal non-monitored channel is low. Introducing supply-side policies, i.e. policies targeted to suppliers of illegal content, we find that they may have unexpected impacts and can damage legal welfare. We also identify situations in which the two policies are substitutes or complements.

Download Full-text

The Structural Role of Private Enforcement Mechanisms in Public Law

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.1791897 ◽

2011 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Maria Glover

Keyword(s):

Public Law ◽

Private Enforcement ◽

Structural Role ◽

Enforcement Mechanisms

Download Full-text

Part A Annotated Guide, 6 Private Enforcement of the Market Abuse Regulation in European Law

10.1093/law/9780198811756.003.0006 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Busch Danny

Keyword(s):

Administrative Law ◽

Public Law ◽

Private Enforcement ◽

Private Law ◽

European Law ◽

Legal Systems ◽

Market Abuse ◽

Annotated Guide ◽

Market Abuse Directive

This chapter discusses the role of the Market Abuse Regulation in private law. An infringement of the MAR has an important effect on the private law relations between the infringer and the investing public. As regulatory provisions of this nature are classified as public law, any failure to comply with the MAR will also affect the infringer’s relationship with the competent financial supervisor. In other words, the relevant financial supervisor can enforce these provisions under administrative law in the event of an infringement. This is essentially no different from the situation under of the Market Abuse Regulation’s predecessor—the (former) Market Abuse Directive (2003/6/EC), as implemented in the various national legal systems.

Download Full-text

Enforcement

Comparative Company Law ◽

10.1093/oso/9780199572205.003.0008 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 669-720

Author(s):

Carsten Gerner-Beuerle ◽

Michael Schillig

Keyword(s):

Final Section ◽

Practical Importance ◽

Civil Law ◽

Public Law ◽

Private Enforcement ◽

Minority Shareholders ◽

Public Enforcement ◽

Great Practical Importance ◽

Enforcement Mechanisms ◽

A Company

This chapter explores whether the lower level of investor protection that some commentators associate with the civil law can be explained with deficiencies in the enforcement mechanisms that investors, and in particular minority shareholders, have at their disposal. It starts with a discussion of the so-called ‘contracwetualisation of responsibility’. It then analyses how the claims that a company has against its own directors can be enforced, in particular, by minority shareholders. The last part of the chapter gives an overview of substitute enforcement mechanisms for the minority shareholder lawsuit that are of great practical importance in some jurisdictions. In contrast to litigation by the company (acting through its authorized organ or minority shareholders), these substitute mechanisms are predominantly of a public law nature. Thus, this final section will illustrate how some legal systems have a preference for public enforcement, while others rely extensively on private enforcement.

Download Full-text

Private Enforcement and Market Regulation

Market and Competition Law Review ◽

10.7559/mclawreview.2018.324 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 47-70

Author(s):

Sara Landini

Keyword(s):

European Commission ◽

Public Law ◽

Public Authority ◽

Private Enforcement ◽

Private Law ◽

Market Regulation ◽

National Courts ◽

Market Protection ◽

Practical Effect ◽

Definition Of

The article examines the technique of private enforcement as a juridical instrument to protect the market in combination with the punitive sanction mechanisms of public law. After a first definition of private enforcement, we investigate the position taken by the European Commission on the use of private enforcement, verifying its function with respect to the objectives of market protection. The main instruments of private enforcement are therefore considered: civil liability, termination of the contract, nullity of the contract, injunction. We will focus on the main constraints to the application of the abovementioned instruments of private enforcement proposing solutions in the light of an overcoming of the boundaries between public law and private law. As highlighted in Directive 2014/104/EU, “the practical effect of the prohibitions laid down requires that anyone – be they an individual, including consumers and undertakings, or a public authority – can claim compensation before national courts for the harm caused to them by an infringement of those provisions.” For this reason it is important to consider all the different private enforcement tools and try to remove the obstacles to their effective functioning. Private law is activated on the action of individuals who exercise the rights recognised by the law. Individuals being closer to the emergence of the problem are able to represent the violation of the interests at stake according to the logic proper to the principle of subsidiarity. The Principle of subsidiarity states that a wider and greater body, such as a government, should not exercise functions that can be carried out efficiently by a smaller one, such as an individual or a private group, acting independently.

Download Full-text