scholarly journals A Note on 2015 Developments in Polish Competition Law: Is it Really a Drive Towards the European Model?

Author(s):  
Anna Piszcz

Modern Polish competition law has become highly regulated and codified over the twenty five years of its existence and this article will provide readers with information relating to its recent developments of 2015. Separate subsections present a review of provisions on remedies in infringement decisions as well as settlements. A considerable part of this paper is designed to outline the peculiarities that characterize Poland’s new provisions on fines. Further on, the paper introduces readers to newest trends in the area of concentration control between undertakings. In addition, an assessment of recent developments and suggestions for a further development of Polish competition law are reviewed in the EU context. The conscious intention of the author is to analyse whether the EU competition law pattern, often regarded as a model for Member States, has been used to develop Polish competition law. Has the latter been amended to look more, or less like EU competition law? Has Polish competition law shown the capacity to absorb the best elements of EU competition law into itself? How is the outcome aligned with the declared direction of these amendments?

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 55-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katalin J. Cseres

In order to facilitate national competition authorities (NCAs) in their application of EU competition rules, the EU legislator adopted Directive 2019/1/EU. The Directive’s aim is to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers of competition law and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. The so-called ECN+ Directive introduces minimum harmonisation rules allowing competition authorities to have common investigative, decision-making (notably fining decisions) and enforcement powers. The Directive, furthermore, sets minimum safeguards for the NCAs’ independence, accountability and resources as well as harmonizes leniency programmes including the coordination of national leniency programmes with each other and with that of the European Commission. This paper critically analyzes the legal and policy developments that paved the way for the adoption of this Directive. Moreover, it examines the changes the implementation of the Directive is likely to generate in current Hungarian law and policy of competition protection. The focus of the paper’s assessment is on the institutional aspects of the Directive and the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, in particular the mechanisms for ensuring independence and accountability of the NCAs. Through the assessment of the Hungarian implementation, the paper aims to shed light on a broader context of the Directive and the enforcement of EU competition law in EU Member States. The paper shows that the implementation of the Directive may fail to translate into (more) effective enforcement without an effective institutional capacity on the side of the NCAs, and in the broader legal and constitutional context of competition law and its multilevel enforcement


Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey

This chapter examines the obligations of Member States in relation to EU competition law. Specifically, it considers the obligations that Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 37 and 106 TFEU place upon Member States. Article 4(3) requires all Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties, and to avoid any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the EU’s objectives. Article 106 particularly obligates Member States to refrain from enacting or maintaining measures contrary to the rules provided in Article 18 and Articles 101 to 109 of the TFEU. Article 37 is concerned with the procurement of goods.


Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey

This chapter provides a brief overview of EU and UK competition law and the institutions involved in formulating, interpreting and applying competition law. It also explains the relationship between EU competition law and the domestic competition laws of the Member States, in particular in the light of Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003. The rules of the European Economic Area are briefly referred to, and the trend on the part of Member States to adopt domestic competition rules modelled on those in the EU is also noted. Three diagrams at the end of the chapter explain the institutional structure of EU and UK competition law.


Author(s):  
Alison Jones ◽  
Brenda Sufrin ◽  
Niamh Dunne

EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials provides a complete guide to European competition law in a single authoritative volume. Carefully selected extracts from key cases, academic articles, and statutory materials are accompanied by in-depth author commentary from three experienced academics in the field. Thorough footnoting and referencing give a tour of the available literature, making this an ideal text and stand-alone resource for undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as for competition law scholars engaged in specialized study. This seventh edition has been fully updated with detailed coverage and commentary on recent developments. These include the EU Courts’ judgments on Articles 101, 102 and 106 including Intel; cases on the Commission’s enforcement powers and judicial review; new legislation and guidelines on technology transfer; the revised de minimis notice; Commission actions in the digital economy, including the Google case; the directive on damages; and thorough discussion of ongoing developments in competition law such as the Commission's enforcement policy against cartels, the appraisal of mergers, the use of commitments decisions and the compatibility of EU competition procedures with human rights provisions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 79-98
Author(s):  
Anna Piszcz

On 11 June 2013, the European Commission adopted a package of measures to tackle the lack of an efficient and coherent private enforcement system of EU competition law in its Member States. In particular, a draft Damages Directive was proposed in order to meet the need for a sound European approach to private enforcement of EU competition law in damages actions. The Damages Directive was ultimately adopted on 26 November 2014. This paper explores some aspects of private antitrust enforcement which have not received sufficient attention from the EU decision-makers during the long preparatory and legislative works preceding the Directive. The paper discusses also some of the remedies that have not been harmonised, and shows how these ‘gaps’ in harmonisation may limit the Directive’s expected influence on both the thinking and practice of private antitrust enforcement in Europe. It is argued in conclusion that further harmonisation may be needed in order to actually transform private enforcement of EU competition law before national courts


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 480-504
Author(s):  
Barry J Rodger ◽  
Miguel Sousa Ferro ◽  
Francisco Marcos

This article makes an original contribution to the literature on the developing area of private enforcement of EU competition law. It delivers a significant, rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the transposition across a broad selection of Member States (MS) of a major EU Directive introduced with the aim of harmonizing and facilitating competition law damages actions across the EU. It looks at the implementation of the Directive 2014/104/EU in sixteen MS. It analyses the solutions followed by each of those MS in addressing the various issues raised by the Directive (liability and compensation, joint liability, statute of limitations, quantification of harm, passing-on defence and indirect purchasers claims, access to evidence and collective redress).


2021 ◽  
pp. 224-257
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey

This chapter examines the obligations of Member States in relation to EU competition law. Specifically, it considers the obligations that Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 37 and 106 TFEU place upon Member States. Article 4(3) requires all Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties, and to avoid any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the EUs objectives. Article 106 particularly obligates Member States to refrain from enacting or maintaining measures, contrary to the rules provided in Article 18 and Articles 101 to 109 of the TFEU. Article 37 is concerned with state monopolies of a commercial character.


Author(s):  
Philip W. Grubb ◽  
Peter R. Thomsen ◽  
Tom Hoxie ◽  
Gordon Wright

This chapter focuses on competition law in the UK and EU. Most countries, as well as the EU, have developed a body of competition law to provide countermeasures against what are regarded as abuses of monopoly by patentees. Abuse of monopoly is the use of a patent simply to exclude others, while not working the invention oneself. Provisions of the Paris Convention enable compulsory licences to be granted if the patent is not worked within a certain time. In the UK, they may also be granted if the patentee is preventing the working of a dependent patent by refusing to grant a licence. In the EU, competition law for the internal common market is within the exclusive competence of EU institutions; the national governments of member states only assist these institutions when it comes to implementation of the legislation. The remainder of the chapter explains EU patent licence agreements.


2021 ◽  
pp. 49-82
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey

This chapter provides a brief overview of EU and UK competition law and the institutions involved in formulating, interpreting and applying competition law in those jurisdictions. It also explains the relationship between EU competition law and the domestic competition laws of the Member States, in particular in the light of Article 3 of Regulation 1/2003. The rules of the European Economic Area are briefly referred to, and the trend on the part of Member States to adopt domestic competition rules modelled on those in the EU is also noted. Three diagrams at the end of the chapter explain the institutional structure of EU and UK competition law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document