Public and private enforcement in the investor protection field in the US and the EU: what kind of interplay for Europe?

2020 ◽  
pp. 242-262
Author(s):  
Antonio Marcacci
Keyword(s):  
Investor Protection ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Us ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
The Eu

Part I Introduction, 1 Introduction

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).

14. Private Enforcement

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Jones ◽  
Brenda Sufrin
Keyword(s):  
Individual Member ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Private Litigation ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter focuses on the private civil enforcement of EU antitrust rules through claims made by private litigants in the national courts and tribunals of the individual Member States. The discussions cover the principle of direct effect and national procedural autonomy; why there has been relatively little antitrust litigation in the EU; the relationship between public and private enforcement; the Commission's policy towards private enforcement, the initiatives it has taken to encourage private litigation, and mechanisms for cooperation between the Commission and national courts; and the obligations of national courts when dealing with cases that raise the issue of whether a contract in violation of Article 101 or Article 102 is enforceable and whether, and if so when, damages and injunctions should be available to remedy such violations.

Exclusionary Abuses

2021 ◽  
pp. 79-112
Author(s):  
Renato Nazzini
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Pharmaceutical Sector ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Third ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Abuse Of Dominance ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 4 deals with exclusionary abuses under the Competition Act 1998, covering both public and private enforcement cases. The analysis concerns the approach to dominance as well as tests for abuse, focusing on retroactive rebates and bundled discounts, exclusion in multi-market settings, exclusivity, most favoured nation and equivalent clauses, discrimination, and exclusionary abuses in the pharmaceutical sector. This chapter argues that, in its second decade, modern UK competition law continued a trend that was already clear in the first decade: the prohibition of abuse of dominance is applied in a more economically robust and commercially reasonable way than it is by the EU institutions - the Commission and the EU courts - and in certain other Member States. The chapter notes that the third decade of the Competition Act 1998 will see the UK develop its competition policy free from the constraints of EU law and may allow for some divergence in the approach to exclusionary abuses in the future.

scholarly journals The Interaction of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law Before and After the EU Directive – a Hungarian Perspective

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
pp. 43-67
Author(s):  
Tihamér Tóth
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
The Eu

The paper explores the changes the EU Directive on harmonizing certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions will bring about in Hungary, with a special focus placed on damages liability rules, the interaction of public and private enforcement of these rules, and the importance of class actions. Amendments of the Competition Act introduced in 2005 and 2009 had created new rules to promote the idea of private enforcement even before the Directive was adopted. Some of these rules remain unique even now, notably the legal presumption of a 10% price increase for cartel cases. However, subsequent cases decided by Hungarian courts did not reflect the sophistication of existing substantive and procedural rules. There has only ever been one judgment awarding damages, while most stand-alone cases involved minor competition law issues relating to contractual disputes. The paper looks at the most important substantial rules of tort law (damage, causality, joint and several liability), the co-operation of competition authorities and civil courts, as well as at (the lack of) class action procedures from the perspective of the interaction of public and private enforcement of competition law.

Public and Private Enforcement of Consumer Law – Insights for Luxembourg

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Consumer Law ◽  
Policy Frameworks ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
The Eu

The key challenge in the field of consumer protection lies in ensuring that the rights derived from EU consumer law can be effectively enforced in national legal systems, facilitating access to justice and promoting adequate redress. Through a comparative analysis of the legal and policy frameworks of enforcement in six European legal systems, this book examines the most recent developments in EU consumer law, the challenges to which these developments give rise and the scope for reform that they entail; in so doing, the authors critically evaluate the parameters of the public and private institutional framework for the enforcement of consumer law, both at the EU and national levels. With contributions by Inga Järvekülg, Dr. Stephanie Law, Dr. Janek Nowak, Dr. Vincent Richard and Thomas Thamm.

Antitrust Damages in EU Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-151
Author(s):  
Albertina Albors-Llorens
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
New Era ◽  
Legal Instrument ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
The Eu

The adoption of Directive 2014/104/EU on actions for damages for infringements of the competition rules has marked the beginning of a new era in the field of the private enforcement of the EU competition rules. The arduous legislative journey leading to the adoption of the Directive, the specific aspects pertaining to the exercise of damages actions covered by it and its attempt to establish an effective coordination between the systems of public and private enforcement have already received intense attention by antitrust scholars. However, this contribution will focus on the study of the Directive’s significance as a novel legal instrument in both the fields of EU competition law and EU law in general.

scholarly journals Access to Documents in Antitrust Litigation – EU and Croatian Perspective

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 127-160
Author(s):  
Vlatka Butorac Malnar
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
Access To Documents ◽  
The Eu

The paper analyses access to documents in cartel-based damages cases from the EU and Croatian perspective. It considers all relevant EU and Croatian legislation and case-law primarily focusing on the expected impact of the newly enacted Damages Directive. It is argued that the new rules on access to documents provided by the Directive will not necessarily have a significant impact on damages proceedings following cartel decisions issued by the Commission. This is due to the introduction of an absolute ban on the disclosure of leniency statements and settlement submissions via a ‘maximum harmonization’ rule. This conclusion is drawn from statistic figures showing that EU cartel enforcement rests solely on the leniency and settlement procedures. With that in mind, it is concluded that the Directive’s general, permissive rules on access to documents (other than leniency and settlement procedures) will not be applicable in most damages cases following the cartel infringement decision issued by the Commission. However, it is also observed that the Damages Directive’s new rules on access to documents may have the opposite impact on private enforcement in cases following infringement decisions issued by National Competition Authorities (NCAs) which do not rely as much on leniency in their fight against cartels as the Commission. The Directive’s general rule on access to documents will apply in jurisdictions such as Croatia, where all of its cartel decisions so far have been reached within the regular procedure. It is argued that the general access rule, coupled with other rules strengthening the position of claimants in antitrust damages proceedings, might actually be beneficial for both public and private enforcement in such jurisdictions

scholarly journals The Interaction Between Public and Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: a Case Study of the Swedish Booking Cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (21) ◽  
pp. 55-70
Author(s):  
Katharina Voss ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document