Private Enforcement of European Competition Law: Quo Vadis?

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger van den Bergh ◽  
Sonja Keske
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
European Competition Law

scholarly journals Winner of the SLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2013: Bogeymen, lunatics and fanatics: collective actions and the private enforcement of European competition law

Legal Studies ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Wardhaugh
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Authority Figures ◽  
European Competition Law

The European desire to ensure that bearers of EU rights are adequately compensated for any infringement of these rights, particularly in cases where the harm is widely diffused, and perhaps not even noticed by those affected by it, collides with another desire: to avoid the perceived excesses of an American-style system of class actions. The excesses of these American class actions are in European discourse presented as a sort of bogeyman, which is a source of irrational fear, often presented by parental or other authority figures. But when looked at critically, the bogeyman disappears. In this paper, I examine the European (and UK) proposals for collective action. I compare them to the American regime. The flaws and purported excesses of the American regime, I argue, are exaggerated. A close, objective examination of the American regime shows this. I conclude that it is not the mythical bogeyman of a US class action that is the barrier to effective collective redress; rather, the barriers to effective, wide-ranging group actions lie within European legal culture and traditions, particularly those mandating individual control over litigation.

scholarly journals Aplicabilidad de un acuerdo de elección de foro a una reclamación de indemnización de daños por vulneración del Artículo 102 TFUE: el caso Apple Sales International (C-595/17) = Applicability of a jurisdiction agreement to a claim of damages by infringement of Article 102 TFEU: the Apple Sales International case (C-595/17)

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 439
Author(s):  
Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca ◽  
Julia Suderow
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Damage Claims ◽  
The Will ◽  
European Competition Law ◽  
Abuse Of Dominance ◽  
Article 102 Tfeu

Resumen: La aplicación privada del derecho de la Competencia no se limita tan sólo a acciones de daños por infracciones del art. 101 TFUE, sino que también abarca las acciones follow on y stand alone contra los abusos de posición de dominio sancionados por el art. 102 TFUE. Se trata de acciones que tienen su origen en conductas unilaterales en las que las cláusulas de atribución de competencia juegan un papel esencial. El TJUE resuelve con la sentencia Ap-ple Sales ciertas dudas sobre el alcance de estas cláusulas si bien su respuesta genera nuevas cuestiones que podrán plantearse en futuros litigios. La voluntad de las partes y la proporcio-nalidad tendrán que seguir siendo los elementos sobre los que pivote la exclusividad del foro de sumisión expresa.Palabras clave: acciones para la indemnización de daños anticompetitivos, acciones autónomas, acciones de seguimiento, acuerdos de elección de foro, arbitraje, competencia judicial internacional, Daños, Derecho antitrust, Derecho europeo de la competencia, Unión Europea.Abstract: Private enforcement of Competition Law is not limited to cartel damage claims based on infringements of art. 101 TFUE. Follow on and Stand alone actions against the abuse of dominance sanctioned by art. 102 TFUE are also included. They are actions derived from unilateral conducts where jurisdiction agreements play an important role. In the ruling Apple Sales, the ECJ solves certain doubts about the scope of this type of clauses but its answer generates new questions that will be dealt in future disputes. The will of the parties as well as the proportionality will still be the basis of the exclusivity of the forum.Keywords: antitrust damages actions, stand-alone actions, follow-on actions, jurisdiction agreements, arbitration, jurisdiction, damages (Torts), Antitrust Law, European Competition Law, European Union.

scholarly journals Extending the Principle of Economic Continuity to Private Enforcement of Competition Law. What Lies Ahead for Corporate Restructuring and Civil Damages Proceedings after Skanska? Case Comment to the Judgement of the Court of Justice of 14 March 2019 Skanska Industrial Solutions and others (Case C-724/17)

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 259-268
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Fasoula
Keyword(s):  
Civil Law ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Corporate Restructuring ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Competition Authority ◽  
European Law ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
European Competition Law

In the tradition of civil law Member States, civil liability issues are linked to the legal entity that caused a damage, with the exception of lifting the corporate veil. The Finnish competition authority imposed fines to Finnish companies that participated in an asphalt cartel. Following that decision, an action for damages was lodged for infringement of Article 101 TFEU that ultimately led to the Skanska ruling. The European judge completes and specifies some ambiguities of the Damages Directive. From a holistic point of view of the objective pursued by both public and private enforcement of European competition law rules, the economic entity of an ‘undertaking’, as it is defined by European law rather than the legal entity as it is defined by national law, must be a substantive criterion, and not a procedural one, in civil liability procedures before national courts awarding damages for European law infringements. Introducing the principle of economic continuity to national civil liability procedures is a creeping harmonisation of national civil law in order to serve the effectiveness of European competition law. The scope of Skanska could also extent to Article 102 TFEU infringements. Corporate restructuring must follow from now on a lengthy and complex due diligence as the acquirers could be liable for their predecessors’ infringements in any Member State.

“Collective Redress” in European Competition Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 388-414
Author(s):  
Alexandra P. Mikroulea
Keyword(s):  
Hybrid System ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Mixed System ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Private Autonomy ◽  
European Competition Law

AbstractOpt-in or opt-out? That is the basic question to be answered. The decision to promote actions of “opt-in” type as opposed to those of the “opt-out” type, for the sake of private autonomy, does not ensure the effective application of european competition law. On the contrary, it may decrease the application’s intensity and effectiveness. Recent reforms among European state members such as in the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are powerful indications that the opt-out principle may result in the effective implementation of competition law. There is no doubt that a mixed system (hybrid system), providing the court with the power to decide in favour of either the opt-in or the opt-out system, will result in better implementation of competition law. At the present time there are two pending cases in England (Dorothy Gibson and Mastercard) for which the decision on opt-out or opt-in are highly anticipated. Should the court decide, in one or both of the cases, on an opt-out approach, this will bring a momentous reevaluation of the entire collective redress concept.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document