Private enforcement of EU competition law under Directive 2014/104/EU on antitrust damages actions

This article studies the private enforcement conducted in Visita v Booking from the perspective of the interaction between public and private enforcement of competition law. This case concerned the question whether the narrow MFN clauses maintained by Booking were contrary to Article 101 TFEU and could therefore be prohibited by a Swedish court. The focus of this article is placed on the assessment carried out by the Swedish courts to determine whether the MFN clauses were restrictive of competition by effect and on the standard of proof attached to the claimant in this regard. With regard to the interaction between public and private enforcement, Visita v. Booking is viewed as an illustration of the increased complexity of competition policy, in particular were novel practices are at issue

Download Full-text

Part I Introduction, 1 Introduction

Vertical Agreements in EU Competition Law ◽

10.1093/law-ocl/9780198791027.003.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Wijckmans Frank ◽

Tuytschaever Filip

Keyword(s):

Competition Law ◽

Historical Background ◽

Private Enforcement ◽

Eu Law ◽

Public And Private ◽

The Public ◽

Eu Competition Law ◽

Before And After ◽

Public And Private Enforcement ◽

The Eu

This chapter explains the term ‘vertical agreements’ and what it covers. It addresses a number of general issues that are relevant to the EU competition law treatment of vertical agreements in general. It describes the implementation and the (public and private) enforcement of Article 101 TFEU before and after the entry into force of Regulation 1/2003. The chapter provides the historical background of both Regulation 330/2010 and Regulation 461/2010. In particular, it devotes specific attention to the nature and legal and practical consequences of soft EU competition law (in the form of notices, guidelines, etc) as opposed to hard EU competition law (provisions of primary and secondary EU law).

Download Full-text

Part I EU Competition Law Private Enforcement and the Antitrust Damages Directive, 2 Promotion and Harmonization of Antitrust Damages Claims by Directive 2014/104/EU?

The EU Antitrust Damages Directive ◽

10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0002 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Rodger Barry ◽

Ferro Miguel Sousa ◽

Marcos Francisco

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Dispute Resolution ◽

Competition Law ◽

Private Enforcement ◽

Eu Law ◽

Legal Basis ◽

Member States ◽

Competition Law Enforcement ◽

Eu Competition Law

This chapter explains the contents and goals of the Antitrust Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU), the corollary of the EU’s policy towards the promotion and facilitation of private enforcement of competition law. It first traces the evolution in EU competition law enforcement and policy that led to the adoption of the Directive before considering the goals of the Directive in more detail, namely to provide rules for the effective compensation of victims of antitrust infringements and to harmonize some rules concerning damages claims. It then examines the Directive’s legal basis under EU Law as well as substantive provisions, including those relating to compensatory principles, quantification of harm, and consensual dispute resolution. The chapter goes on to highlight neglected issues, limitations, and inherent biases regarding the scope and nature of the Directive’s rules and concludes with an analysis of issues arising from implementation of the Directive in Member States.

Download Full-text

Multilingualism in the EU and Consistency of Private Enforcement of Competition Law: Two Examples from CEE Countries

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric ◽

10.1515/slgr-2017-0049 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 52 (1) ◽

pp. 165-180

Author(s):

Anna Piszcz

Keyword(s):

Competition Law ◽

Private Enforcement ◽

Public Enforcement ◽

Eu Competition Law ◽

Public Versus Private ◽

Rule Making ◽

The Eu

Abstract This paper attempts to address the question of how multilingualism in the EU might affect the consistency of private enforcement of competition law. In the literature, there have been concerns raised about the consistency of public enforcement of competition law, so in this paper attention has shifted to concerns about consistency of private enforcement. For the purposes of this paper, a distinction is drawn between rule-making and the application of competition law. The latter falls outside the scope of this paper. The article starts by going straight into aspects of public versus private enforcement of EU competition law and consistency of private enforcement of competition law. Next, by looking at examples of national rules implementing the EU Damages Directive, the author is going to discern what challenges for consistency of private enforcement of competition law are associated with the multilingualism in the EU.

Download Full-text