From private enforcement to public enforcement. Copyright enforcement in the digital age: a comparative overview

2020 ◽  
pp. 216-253
Author(s):  
Giorgio Giannone Codiglione ◽  
Marco Bassini
Keyword(s):  
Digital Age ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Copyright Enforcement

scholarly journals LA APLICACIÓN PÚBLICA DE LAS NORMAS DE LIBRE COMPETENCIA EN LA COMUNIDAD ANDINA Y SUS PAÍSES INTEGRANTES

Vniversitas ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (132) ◽  
pp. 311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid S. Ortiz Baquero ◽  
Diego A. Solano Osorio
Keyword(s):  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
El Sistema

<p>La introducción de la aplicación privada o private enforcement en los diferentes sistemas jurídicos de derecho de la competencia presentes en el mundo, se ha dado tras un largo y consolidado desarrollo de la aplicación pública o public enforcement, que ve las acciones de daños como su complemento, más allá de considerarlas como su detractor. En este sentido, el presente documento pretende analizar el sistema público de cumplimiento de las normas del derecho de la competencia preponderante tanto en la Comunidad Andina, como en sus países integrantes y, de esta manera, identificar sus elementos característicos y evaluar las ventajas que ha traído a estos países el mantenimiento de este sistema. </p>

scholarly journals La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia: acciones de daños y pronunciamientos judiciales = Private enforcement of competition law: damages actions and judicial pronouncements

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Fernando Díez Estella
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Property Insurance ◽  
The Eu

Resumen: Tras más de medio siglo de aplicación eminentemente pública del Derecho de la Com­petencia, estamos asistiendo a un impulso de la aplicación privada, que permite a los perjudicados por conductas anticompetitivas reclamar daños y perjuicios ante los tribunales civiles. Tanto la Directiva 2014/104/CE como su transposición en España por el RD Ley 9/2017 significan grandes avances en este ámbito. El objeto del presente trabajo es el análisis y valoración crítica de los primeros pronuncia­mientos judiciales que han tenido lugar resolviendo estas reclamaciones, derivadas principalmente de cárteles (azúcar, seguro decenal, sobres de papel). Se prestará especial atención a los informes periciales de valoración del daño, así como la diferente eficacia de las acciones follow-on y las stand-alone.Palabras clave: aplicación privada, acciones de daños, Directiva, estimación del daño, acciones stand-alone.Abstract: After more than half a century of public enforcement of Competition law in the EU, we gaze at the fostering of private enforcement, which allows filling damages actions to those who have suffered the economic harm due to anticompetitive practices. Both Directive 2014/104/CE and its implementation in Spain through RD Ley 9/2017 are significant steps in this direction. The aim of this paper is the critical analysis of the first judicial pronouncements dictated when dealing with such claims, basically provoked by cartels (such as sugar, property insurance or envelopes). We examine closely the relevance in these proceedings of the economic proof, as well as the different effectiveness of follow-on and stand-alone actions.Keywords: private enforcement, damages actions, Directive, harm estimation, stand-alone claims.

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

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.

Measuring Accounting Fraud and Irregularities Using Public and Private Enforcement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dain C. Donelson ◽  
Antonis Kartapanis ◽  
John M. McInnis ◽  
Christopher G. Yust
Keyword(s):  
Future Research ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Type I ◽  
Accounting Fraud ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
Fraud Prediction

Most accounting studies use only public enforcement actions (SEC cases) to measure accounting fraud. However, private cases (securities class actions) also play an important enforcement role. We discuss the legal standards and processes for both public and private enforcement regimes, emphasize the importance of screening cases for credible fraud allegations, and show both yield credible fraud measures. Further, we demonstrate these research design choices affect inferences from prior research and a hypothetical research setting. Finally, we show common measures of accounting irregularities using Audit Analytics to proxy for fraud result in significant false positives and negatives and develop a fraud prediction model for use in future research. We recommend using both public and private enforcement with appropriate screening when examining accounting fraud to reduce Type I and II errors, or reporting the sensitivity of findings across regimes. This is particularly important given the reduction in accounting-related enforcement after 2005.

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 PENEGAKAN HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA DI INDONESIA MELALUI HARMONISASI PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT DAN PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT [Competition Law Enforcement in Indonesia through the Harmonization of Public Enforcement and Private Enforcement]

Law Review ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 342
Author(s):  
Carissa Christybella Wijaya ◽  
Micheline Hendrito ◽  
Monica Patricia Aripratama ◽  
Udin Silalahi
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Compensation Mechanism ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
Civil Courts ◽  
Compensation Payments

<div class="WordSection1"><p><em>KPPU (Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition) as the authority for business competition law in Indonesia still has many shortcomings. This is related to the KPPU’s failure to accommodate compensation payments to victims of business competition law violations. This can happen because Indonesia has only provided room for public enforcement to be implemented. In public enforcement, compensation payments are not paid directly to consumers who have suffered losses but instead come into the state treasury. This article discusses the compensation mechanism that should be received by victims of competition law violations through private enforcement, which is a mechanism for enforcing competition law by using the regulations of the Competition Law in civil courts to demand compensation. This research was conducted with the aim of creating a healthy business competition climate through the enforcement of private enforcement in Indonesia by implementing harmonization between public and private enforcement. In this article, the Authors used normative juridical method and refers to statutory and comparative approaches. The research method used is juridical normative with a statute approach, a case approach, and a comparative legal approach. The results and conclusions of this study are that the KPPU's failure to provide compensation for compensation to victims of business competition violations encourages the need to implement private enforcement in Indonesia which is harmonized with the previous mechanism, namely public enforcement.</em></p><p><strong>Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: </strong>KPPU (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) sebagai lembaga otoritas dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia masih memiliki banyak kekurangan. Salah satunya terkait dengan kegagalan KPPU dalam mengakomodir pembayaran ganti rugi kepada korban pelanggaran hukum persaingan usaha. Hal ini dapat terjadi karena selama ini Indonesia hanya memberikan ruang bagi <em>public enforcement</em> untuk diterapkan. Dalam <em>public enforcement</em>, pembayaran ganti rugi tidak dibayarkan langsung kepada konsumen yang dirugikan melainkan masuk ke dalam kas negara. Oleh sebab itu, terdapat sebuah urgensi untuk mengalihfungsikan fungsi kompensasi dari KPPU kepada pelaku usaha melalui <em>private enforcement</em>, yaitu sebuah mekanisme penegakan hukum persaingan usaha dengan menggunakan regulasi UU Persaingan Usaha di peradilan perdata untuk menuntut ganti rugi. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan tujuan untuk menciptakan iklim persaingan usaha yang sehat melalui ditegakkannya <em>private enforcement</em> di Indonesia dengan menerapkan harmonisasi antara <em>public enforcement</em> dan <em>private enforcement</em>. Metode penelitian yang digunakan, yaitu yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan undang-undang, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan komparatif hukum. Hasil dan kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah kegagalan KPPU dalam memberikan kompensasi ganti rugi kepada korban pelanggaran persaingan usaha mendorong perlu diterapkannya <em>private enforcement</em> di Indonesia yang diharmonisasikan dengan mekanisme sebelumnya, yaitu <em>public enforcement.</em></p></div>

scholarly journals OS ILÍCITOS E DAS AÇÕES PRIVADAS DE REPARAÇÃO DE DANO NO MERCADO DE CAPITAIS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus de Freitas Gouvea
Keyword(s):  
Insider Trading ◽  
Capital Market ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Market Manipulation ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
The Public ◽  
Securities Law ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Individual

Resumo O Brasil inicia uma fase de aplicação da lei que rege o mercado de capitais, pela iniciativa privada, não em rompimento, mas em acréscimo a aplicação do direito por órgãos públicos. Aplicação da lei por iniciativa dos particulares vem a reboque do contexto histórico, relacionado tanto a ações privadas, individuais e coletivas, de outros ramos do direito, como consumidor, concorrência, quanto a notícias de escândalos e de combate a corrupção, envolvendo infrações ao mercado. Este texto procura apresentar as linhas gerais dos ilícitos mais importantes contra o mercado de capitais bem como das ações privadas de aplicação do direito que o regula. Dentre as infrações, o texto discute a manipulação do mercado, o uso indevido de informações privilegiadas e outros delitos informacionais. Quanto as ações, o artigo aponta os requisitos básicos da ação individual, da ação civil pública e da ação de responsabilidade do administrador, como meios de reparação de danos decorrentes de infrações ao mercado de capitais. Abstract Brazil begins to experience a private enforcement era of the law of the capital market, in addition to the public enforcement. The private enforcement of the securities law has been influenced by the development of the individual or class actions based on the law that regulates other areas, v.g. consumers law and antitrust law, and by news about the fight against corruption in Brazil. This paper presents the framework of the most important types of capital market misconducts and of the kinds of actions that can be used to enforce the law. The text discuss the practice of market manipulation, insider trading and other practices related to disclosure of information. Among the types of actions, the text discuss the basic requirements of the individual action, the collective action and the derivative action as ways to enforce the securities law in Brazil.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document