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 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 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 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

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.

scholarly journals Private antitrust enforcement in digital market

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-160
Author(s):  
Dominik Wolski
Keyword(s):  
Rapid Growth ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Eu

The increasing popularity of private antitrust enforcement in the EU is reflected by number of antitrust damages claims in the member states, following the transposition of the Damages Directive. Meanwhile, rapid growth of digitization in every aspect of social and economic life, particularly in business like commerce and services, has taken place. Recently, the above phenomenon was intensified by COVID-19. This paper aims at discussing private antitrust enforcement and antitrust damages claims in the context of digital transformation of the market. To this extent, there are several main characteristics of the market (e.g. multi-sided platforms, the role of third-party sellers, etc.), that have to be taken into consideration in the above discussion.

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 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 Room to Manoeuvre for Member States: Issues for Decision on the Occasion of the Transposition of the Damages Directive

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Piszcz
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Design ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Short Review ◽  
The Other ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Is Implementation ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
National Legislatures

Soon Member States will bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Damages Directive (2014/104/EU). Usually Member States do not seem willing to introduce a broader scope of the application of principles embodied in EU directives. For Member States, “copy-pasting” a directive's content into a piece of national legislation is one of the simplest ways to implement a directive (another very simple one is implementation by reference; it is just referring the reader to the directive and should not be applied where the rules in a directive are not sufficiently precise, so it is not applied very often). Member States that work on the implementation of the Damages Directive either do it in a minimalist manner, mainly "copy-pasting" its content, or take the legislative opportunity to do something more and "tidy up" domestic provisions on the occasion of the transposition of the Directive. Some Member States have chosen that last option. The article attempts to highlight some of the considerations that may be of particular relevance in this process, with the aim of formulating some recommendations for national legislatures, even though implementation works are drawing to a dose. First, some “spontaneous harmonisation” of a scope broader than that provided for in the Directive is recommended on the background of the material (substantive) scope of the Directive and its transposition. The other important considerations are addressed to the personal scope of the Directive and its transposition. Finally, the short review of some more detailed issues for decision on the occasion of the transposition of the Directive is offered. Considerations regarding the principle of civil liability, the use of collective redress mechanisms, minimum harmonisation clauses, institutional design of private enforcement of competition law, as well as incentives to voluntarily provide compensation to injured parties can be found therein.

scholarly journals Quantification of Harm and the Damages Directive: Implementation in CEE Countries

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 111-131
Author(s):  
Valentinas Mikelėnas ◽  
Rasa Zaščiurinskaitė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Full Compensation

Quantification of harm is regarded as one of the most significant obstacles for the full compensation of harm and development of private enforcement within the European Union, including CEE Member States. Consequently, the Damages Directive establishes general rules and requirements for the quantification of harm, such as a rebuttable presumption of harm in case of cartels, the power of national courts to estimate harm as well as others, which closely interact with the principle of full compensation emphasized by the case-law of the European Union and directly established in the Damages Directive. The main focus of this paper is the effectiveness of the rules on the quantification of harm in general, and how these rules will contribute to the development of private antitrust enforcement in CEE Member States. Therefore, one of the issues to be discussed in the paper is the analysis of how, and to what extent specific rules and requirements for the quantification of harm have been transposed into the national legislation of CEE Member States. As certain CEE national jurisdictions have had certain rules for the quantification of harm already before the implementation of the Damages Directive, the paper analyses how effective these rules have been, and how much they have contributed to the development of private antitrust enforcement of those CEE national jurisdictions. Previous experience of those CEE Member States in applying specific rules for the quantification of harm is important, in order to assess the possible impact of the newly introduced rules on the quantification of harm and on private antitrust enforcement in general in other CEE Member States. The rules for the quantification of harm will not enhance private antitrust enforcement on their own, however, their effective application by national courts together with other rules under the Damages Directive should contribute to a quicker development of private enforcement in CEE Members States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document