Carlo Petrucci

Bio: Carlo Petrucci is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Demotion & Competitor analysis. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 15 citations.

The harmonisation of the law of damages and its procedural rules for breach of European competition law: a critical analysis

Abstract: This dissertation examines the case for harmonising some national rules, relating to the law of damages and civil procedure, which are applied to national proceedings for compensation of losses resulting from breach of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU. Before answering whether such rules should be harmonised, the dissertation examines the broad policy rationale behind private enforcement of competition law, its goals and limits. The findings are that private enforcement plays a positive role both to compensate antitrust victims and deter undertakings from breaching competition law. This provides a sound policy for harmonisation of private enforcement rules. Subsequently, the dissertation examines the main arguments against and for harmonisation. It is argued that the case for harmonisation is more convincing than the case against. Then, the arguments for harmonisation are tested in respect of some national rules that play a pivotal role in national competition law proceedings. Although few antitrust actions are brought, it is suggested that some national rules might not comply with the EU principle of effectiveness. In addition, even if such national rules did comply with this principle, the risk of forum shopping and the problem of excessive disparity of the level playing field are likely to materialise. Thus,harmonisation of private enforcement rules is desirable.

Self-preferencing in the EU: a legal and policy analysis of the Google Shopping case and the Digital Markets Act

Abstract: This article discusses the EU General Court’s Google Shopping judgment (Case T-612/17), which deals with online self-preferencing. Self-preferencing is a novel abuse of dominant position (Article 102 TFEU), which consists of the prominent display and positioning of the dominant undertaking’s own service (comparison shopping service in this case), and demotion of the competitors’ services, on webpages generated by the dominant undertaking’s general search services. The key-principles in the legal reasoning of the General Court’s ruling were the prohibition of discrimination and coterminous concepts such as ‘equal opportunities to compete’ and ‘competition on the merits’. The differential treatment between Google’s own service and those of its competitors derived from Google’s subjection of its adjustment algorithms only to its competitors and not to its own service. While an approach based on non-discrimination is contentious, on the other hand Google’s conduct was neither efficient nor did it benefit consumers. The article also examines the EU Digital Markets Act’s prohibition of self-preferencing and its relationship with the Google Shopping ruling.

Fundamental Principles for Class Action Governance

Abstract: Class actions face a crisis of governance The form of governance provided by Rule 23, governance by representative parties, is both vague in theory and ignored in practice Instead, by a combination of procedural rules, judicial interpretation and common practice, the class is governed by a regime of attorney dictatorship with limited judicial oversight This regime neither reflects the basic insight that the class and attorney do not have a traditional attorney-client relationship nor performs the task of transforming the inchoate collectivity of the class into an organization that protects and is responsive to the will of class members This Article proposes an alternative regime of governance for 23(b)(3) small claims class actions that accomplishes both these things, based on four fundamental principles: mandatory disclosure of material information, an actively adversarial process, expertise of decision-makers and independence of decision-makers from influence and self-interest

What is Bayesianism? A Guide for the Perplexed

Abstract: Bayes' Theorem, Bayesian statistics and Bayesian inference have been the subject of sharp dispute in various writings about legal rules of evidence and proof. This article disentangles the many meanings of "Bayesianism." It sketches several competing interpretations of probability, some leading schools of statistical inference, and the elements of Bayesian decision theory. In the process, it notes the aspects of Bayesian theory that have been applied in studies of forensic proof.