scholarly journals Information exchanges between competitors from a competition law perspective – the problem of premature exchanges of sensitive information in the context of merger control (Gun Jumping)

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-101
Author(s):  
Nuno Calaim Lourenço
Keyword(s):  
Specific Problem ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Sensitive Information ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Market Transparency ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Competition Rules

The topic of information exchanges between competing undertakings is central to competition law. These are practices that enhance market transparency and, as such, can generate significant efficiencies. However, they can also give rise to serious competition concerns, often because they afford competitors the possibility of reaching focal points of coordination. The analysis of information exchanges has traditionally taken place in the context of the legal framework that prohibits cartels. This article reviews, at first, the approach taken in Europe by competition authorities and courts, firmly grounded in the Commission Guidelines and in the most recent case law of the European Court of Justice. After discussing the relevant legal framework and the main criteria for the assessment of information exchanges in detail, the article elaborates on the specific problem that premature exchanges of information between competitors can create in the context of a merger transaction. As the competitors that they are, at least until closing of the deal, it is essential that contracting parties ensure that their due diligence exercise and the planning of the integration of their businesses are carried out in a manner that is consistent with competition rules, avoiding behaviour that can be interpreted as gun-jumping or as a cartel practice and, as a consequence, financial penalties and judicial claims.

The Interface Between Competition Law and Private Law: Article 81, Illegality and Unjustified Enrichment

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-243
Author(s):  
Barry J Rodger
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
General Question ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Private enforcement through private party litigation is to play a central role in the enforcement of the European Community competition rules. However, there has so far been little case-law in the national courts to explore in detail the range of issues concerning the award of remedies for breach of the competition rules, principally arts 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. This article considers the particular position of a cocontractor seeking to claim damages in unjustified enrichment in respect of a contract which is prohibited by art 81 and illegal. The Scots law position on the general question of recovery of damages with regard to an illegal contract is discussed, together with some recent English cases involving a breach of art 81. The article looks at the development of Community jurisprudence laying down the requirement for national courts to provide legal redress and to ensure the effectiveness of Community law. Finally, it considers the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice in Courage v Crehan on a reference from the Court of Appeal.

The Weiss judgment: The Court’s further clarification of the ECB’s legal framework: Case C-493/17 Weiss and others, EU:C:2018:1000

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-465
Author(s):  
Annelieke AM Mooij
Keyword(s):  
Central Bank ◽  
European Central Bank ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Euro Crisis ◽  
European Central ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Short Summary ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber

In December 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Weiss case. This case is the most recent development in the Euro crisis case law. The financial crisis has shown the difficulty in determining the precise limits to the mandate of the European Central Bank. The Gauweiler case provided a legal framework but also left unanswered questions. This contribution will first provide the background to the Euro crisis and the context of the case then continue by giving a short summary and analyses of the Opinion of the Advocate General and the judgment of the Court. Finally, a reflection will be given on what lessons can be taken from the Weiss case. As the Weiss case appears to be last in Euro crisis case law, this reflection will include an overall analysis of the current interpretation of the mandate of the European Central Bank post-Euro crisis.

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.

What Is Possible and What Is Not? The Development of a Legal Framework for Drug Pricing Mechanisms in the EU

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-140
Author(s):  
Gisela Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Pharmaceutical Pricing ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The Eu

Abstract As a result of the constantly increasing number of innovative but exceedingly high priced medicines, many Member States have implemented price-regulating mechanisms to ensure the financial viability of their healthcare systems. However, the European Court of Justice applies strict criteria to these measures – some of them have already been suspended for the purposes of the free movement of goods. The European Union (EU) allowed the development of an ever-stricter case law on one hand, without changing the legal frame on the other hand. Considering the importance and the binding nature of the Court’s judgements, this leaves great uncertainty for national legislators about which measures to remedy the pricing problem are legally possible and which are not. In order to provide clarity, this article seeks to analyse the development of the case law and to define the legal scope for pharmaceutical pricing mechanisms in the EU.

Competition law enforcement on digital markets—lessons from recent EU case law

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-278
Author(s):  
Adrian Kuenzler
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Theoretical Background ◽  
Digital Economy ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The Way

Abstract This article is set against the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) decisions in Pierre Fabre and Coty Germany GmbH, observing that in the digital economy, price is no longer the sole important parameter of competition and that competition law therefore has to reconstruct the theoretical background required to explain the tensions contained in the design of concentrated marketplaces. As the CJEU’s approach taken in Pierre Fabre and Coty shows, competition authorities and courts also need to consider the market’s distinct psychological properties when they contemplate the legal framework that governs it. The article thus explains the CJEU’s decisions not against the well-known debate about inter- and intrabrand competition but with reference to the notion of creating distinct types of ‘variety’ in the marketplace so as to enable consumers to choose not just between the alternative options that they face but also to enable them to make decisions that will shape the manner in which they think about whether they should consider alternative options at all. The article’s findings aim to advance debates about the overarching policy goals of the way in which digital markets ought to be regulated.

scholarly journals EC Competition and Internal Market Law: On the Existence of a Sporting Exemption and its Withdrawal

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-237
Author(s):  
Alfonso Rincón
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Ec Law

Some authors argue that there is no such a thing as a sporting exemption under EC law. However, an in-depth analysis of the case law reveals that thirty years ago the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”, or “Court”) created an exemption specifically relating to sport. The judgment of the ECJ in Walrave established the basis for this exemption, which was confirmed and extended in Donà. Since then the exemption has been subject to the vicissitudes of legal interpretation. First of all, the Court endeavoured to contain its use, although the consequence of this was the expansion of the exemption from internal market to competition rules. This led to uncertainty and inaccuracy in the assessment of sporting practices. The ECJ reacted to the atmosphere of confusion created by the interpretation of the Walrave case and withdrew the exemption in Meca Medina. The correct test for assessing whether a sporting practice is contrary to EC law is now the proportionality test; however, further clarification is required.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The One

AbstractThe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most important sources of European Union law. However, case law's role in EU law is not uniform. By empirically studying how the Court uses its own case law as a source of law, we explore the correlation between, on the one hand, the characteristics of a CJEU case—type of action, actors involved, and area of law—and, on the other hand, the judgment's “embeddedness” in previous case law and value as a precedent in subsequent cases. Using this approach, we test, confirm, and debunk existing scholarship concerning the role of CJEU case law as a source of EU law. We offer the following conclusions: that CJEU case law cannot be treated as a single entity; that only a limited number of factors reliably affect a judgment's persuasive or precedential power; that the Court's use of its own case law as a source of law is particularly limited in successful infringement proceedings; that case law is particularly important in preliminary references—especially those concerning fundamental freedoms and competition law; and that initiating Member State and the number of observations affects the behavior of the Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document