scholarly journals Institutional Challenges for Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Central and Eastern European Member States of the EU

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 31-47
Author(s):  
Ondrej Blažo
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Uniform Model ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Institutional Challenges ◽  
The Given ◽  
The Eu

The paper will focus on requirements and thresholds set for the judiciary by the Damages Directive. Answered will also be questions on the specialization of courts and its application in Central and Eastern European (CEE) Member States of the EU, as well as on the involvement of national competition authorities (NCAs) in court proceedings. The paper provides also general thoughts regarding the specialization of courts and confronts them with the judiciary structure in CEE Member States in the context of private enforcement of competition law. While there is no uniform model of a judicial system, the paper provides a critical analysis of the centralization, specialization and decentralization of private enforcement models, taking into account also the importance of the training of judges. The relationship between NCAs and courts will be discussed whereby the role of NCAs in private enforcement defines the responsibility of the given public authority in private enforcement as a country’s policymaker.

scholarly journals The Implementation of the ECN+ Directive in Hungary and Lessons Beyond

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 55-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katalin J. Cseres
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Institutional Aspects ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
The Eu

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

scholarly journals The Scope of the Implementation of the Damages Directive in CEE States

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 13-29
Author(s):  
Michal Petr
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eastern European Countries ◽  
Limited Scope

The Damages Directive has a rather limited scope, focusing only on damages claims stemming from anticompetitive agreements or abuse of a dominant position, provided such conduct was able to affect trade between EU Member States. However, Member States are not limited by this scope and so they may decide, when implementing the Directive, to enhance not only claims for damages, but the overall private enforcement of competition law. In this article, we shall explore the scope of the implementing legislation of selected Central and Eastern European Countries, namely in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

scholarly journals The Damages Directive and Consensual Approach to Antitrust Enforcement

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 181-194
Author(s):  
Raimundas Moisejevas
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Mediation Process ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Costs ◽  
To Receive ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Consensual Approach

The article focuses on the novelties introduced by the Damages Directive in the field of consensual settlements of disputes concerning private enforcement. The Damages Directive obliges Member States to ensure that the limitation period for bringing an action for damages is suspended for the duration of any consensual dispute resolution process. The Directive also establishes the main principles that govern the effect of consensual settlements on subsequent actions for damages. Since the EU framework for consensual dispute resolution of private enforcement disputes is quite new, many issues must still be solved in Member States’ practice. While analysing consensual dispute resolution in private enforcement cases, particular interest should be paid to mediation and arbitration as a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Mediation is often used in competition law litigation. In a mediation process, parties are subject to fewer legal costs than in litigation and arbitration. It may thus be concluded that consensual dispute resolution is usually a faster way to receive compensation. However, voluntary arrangements and ADR in competition law still raise many problems concerning both procedural and substantial legal acts

scholarly journals Piecemeal Harmonisation Through the Damages Directive? Remarks on What Received Too Little Attention in Relation to Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 79-98
Author(s):  
Anna Piszcz
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Approach ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Eu

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

scholarly journals The Type of Liability in Private Enforcement in Selected CEE Countries Relating to the Implementation of the Damages Directive

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 69-84
Author(s):  
Dominik Wolski
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Process ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Conference

The article is devoted to the type of liability in selected CEE countries, namely those covered by the national reports drafted for the 2nd International Conference on Harmonization of Private Antitrust Enforcement: Central and Eastern European Perspective. The paper starts with preliminary remarks concerning the role of the type of liability in private enforcement of competition law and the Damages Directive. In the following sections of the article, the author discusses the manner of adopting the aforementioned element as a result of the implementation process in CEE Member States. The article is mainly based on the content of the relevant national reports, with a few references to issues beyond their scope. In the summary, the author formulates brief conclusions with respect to the implementation manner of the type of liability as well as provides general remarks concerning the role of the type of liability in competition-based private enforcement cases.

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

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Piszcz
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Considerable Part ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Model ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Conscious Intention ◽  
Further Development ◽  
The Eu

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?

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).

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?

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.

21. Mergers (2): EU law

2021 ◽  
pp. 871-958
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Merger Control ◽  
Merger Regulation ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Control Section ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines EU merger control. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of EU merger control. Section 3 discusses the jurisdictional rules which determine whether a particular merger should be investigated by the European Commission in Brussels or by the national competition authorities (‘the NCAs’) of the Member States. Section 4 deals with the procedural considerations such as the mandatory pre-notification to the Commission of mergers that have a Union dimension and the timetable within which the Commission must operate. Section 5 discusses the substantive analysis of mergers under the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR), and section 6 explains the procedure whereby the Commission may authorise a merger on the basis of commitments, often referred to as remedies, offered by the parties to address its competition concerns. The subsequent sections describe the Commission’s powers of investigation and enforcement, judicial review of Commission decisions by the EU Courts and cooperation between the Commission and other competition authorities, both within and outside the EU. The chapter concludes with an examination of how the EUMR merger control provisions work in practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document