scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

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

01 Jan 2015-Vol. 8, Iss: 12, pp 79-98
TL;DR: The Damages Directive was ultimately adopted on 26 November 2014 by the European Commission in order to tackle the lack of an efficient and coherent private enforcement system of EU competition law in its Member States as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: 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

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 2017
TL;DR: 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 as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: 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 * Senior researcher at Palacky University in Olomouc, Faculty of Law, Czech Republic; e-mail: michal.petr@upol.cz; this article was drafted with support of a project the grant provided by the Palacky University in Olomouc ‘Prosazování soutěžního práva v České republice’ [Enforcement of Competition Law in the Czech Republic], grant No. IGA_PF_2017_009. Article received: 12.07.2017; accepted: 14.08.2017. YEARBOOK of ANTITRUST and REGULATORY STUDIES www.yars.wz.uw.edu.pl Centre for Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management www.cars.wz.uw.edu.pl Peer-reviewed scientific periodical, focusing on legal and economic issues of antitrust and regulation. Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Poland License.

5 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors address the question of how multilingualism in the EU might affect the consistency of private enforcement of competition law, by looking at examples of national rules implementing the EU Damages Directive.
Abstract: Abstract This paper attempts to address the question of how multilingualism in the EU might affect the consistency of private enforcement of competition law. In the literature, there have been concerns raised about the consistency of public enforcement of competition law, so in this paper attention has shifted to concerns about consistency of private enforcement. For the purposes of this paper, a distinction is drawn between rule-making and the application of competition law. The latter falls outside the scope of this paper. The article starts by going straight into aspects of public versus private enforcement of EU competition law and consistency of private enforcement of competition law. Next, by looking at examples of national rules implementing the EU Damages Directive, the author is going to discern what challenges for consistency of private enforcement of competition law are associated with the multilingualism in the EU.
References
More filters
DOI
01 Jan 2014

35 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present the developments in private antitrust enforcement in Poland after 2 April 2008, including the 2009 Act on the Pursuit of Claims in Group Proceedings and the 2011 Act Amending the Civil Procedure Code and Some Other Acts which abolishes all specific elements of commercial proceedings.
Abstract: The European Commission published a White Paper on 2 April 2008 on damages actions for breach of EU antitrust rules. The content of the White Paper is since then being prepared to be converted into EU legislation on private antitrust enforcement. This paper presents the developments in private antitrust enforcement in Poland after 2 April 2008. It commences with an outline of EU actions in this field which act as an introduction to the more detailed analysis of recent jurisprudential and legislative developments in Poland. The latter part of the paper covers, in particular, the 2009 Act on the Pursuit of Claims in Group Proceedings and the 2011 Act Amending the Civil Procedure Code and Some Other Acts which abolishes all specific elements of commercial proceedings, including the statutory ‘non-admission of evidence’ principle. These two legal acts are assessed in order to establish whether their introduction is likely to help facilitate private antitrust enforcement in Poland and to consider to what an extent are these developments responding to the challenges outlined by the European Commission.

24 citations

Book
09 Mar 2006
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide an in-depth perspective on collective management of copyright and related rights and the legal framework within which this management operates, including the effect of WIPO Copyright Treaties and the TRIPS Agreement.
Abstract: Authors, individual and corporate, are routinely compensated for the use by others of copyrighted material. Yet relatively little attention is paid to the vast and complex system of collective management that underlies these payments - capital flows that amount to ten billion euros each year. This book - the first detailed analysis of the subject available in English - provides an in-depth perspective on collective management of copyright and related rights and the legal framework within which this management operates. Among the salient aspects of the presentation are the following: description of the organizations that provide collective management services; suggestions how collective management can be made more efficient in the Internet age; the effect of WIPO Copyright Treaties and the TRIPS Agreement; the emerging intersection of copyright management and human rights; recent developments at the European Union level; and particular analysis of the situation in various countries, including France, Germany, the UK and Ireland, the Nordic countries, Australia, Canada, and Japan, as well as general discussions relating to Asia and Latin America. With its detailed emphasis on how collective management operates in different cultural, legal and economic environments and its many insights about the future of collective management, this book is indispensable for copyright lawyers, scholars, researchers, policy makers and decision makers working with or within collective management organizations, including authors, performers, rights holders, and users of copyright material.

19 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors address the position of private enforcement in the overall context of competition enforcement in Europe and its relationship with public enforcement, and review the role of public agencies in quantifying anticompetitive harm and take a position as to the degree such a duty should be imposed on them.
Abstract: The paper addresses the position of private enforcement in the overall context of competition enforcement in Europe and its relationship with public enforcement. It revisits the various objectives-functions served by competition enforcement (injunctive, compensatory, deterrent-punitive) and considers how and to what extent there is a role of each limb of antitrust enforcement with regard to such objectives-functions. It then sets out the principle that private enforcement is independent of public enforcement and places emphasis on the questions of the effect of public decisions on private litigation and on the interaction between the latter and leniency. Finally, the paper reviews the role of public agencies in quantifying anti-competitive harm and takes a position as to the degree such a duty should be imposed on them.

11 citations