The Baby and the Bathwater - The Relationship in Competition Law between Private Enforcement, Criminal Penalties, and Leniency Policy

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angus MacCulloch ◽  
Bruce Wardhaugh
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Penalties ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Leniency Policy

Competition Law of the EU and UK

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Marco Colino
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
International Issues ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Control Regime ◽  
The Eu

Competition Law of the EU in the UK provides an introduction to the field of competition law and relates it to the situation of the UK within the EU. It starts by looking at competition law in the EU and UK. It considers international issues and the globalization of competition law. In addition, it looks at procedure in terms of investigation, penalties, leniency, and private enforcement. It considers article 101 TFEU. It also explains the economics of merger control, looking at both the EU and UK merger control regime and the treatment of joint ventures. Finally, it considers state aid, the relationship between competition law and intellectual property and the common law and competition.

Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher H. Bovis ◽  
Charles M. Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Eu Competition Law

scholarly journals Harmonising Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Central and Eastern Europe: The Effectiveness of Legal Transplants Through Consumer Collective Actions

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 33-59
Author(s):  
Katalin J. Cseres
Keyword(s):  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Harmonization Process ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Law Making

The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the manner of harmonizing private enforcement in the EU. The paper examines the legal rules and, more importantly, the actual enforcement practice of collective consumer actions in EU Member States situated in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Collective actions are the key method of getting compensation for consumers who have suffered harm as a result of an anti-competitive practice. Consumer compensation has always been the core justification for the European Commission’s policy of encouraging private enforcement of competition law. In those cases where collective redress is not available to consumers, or consumers cannot apply existing rules or are unwilling to do so, then both their right to an effective remedy and the public policy goal of private enforcement remain futile. Analyzing collective compensatory actions in CEE countries (CEECs) places the harmonization process in a broader governance framework, created during their EU accession, characterized by top-down law-making and strong EU conditionality. Analyzing collective consumer actions through this ‘Europeanization’ process, and the phenomenon of vertical legal transplants, raises major questions about the effectiveness of legal transplants vis-à-vis homegrown domestic law-making processes. It also poses the question how such legal rules may depend and interact with market, constitutional and institutional reforms.

scholarly journals The Interaction Between Public and Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: a Case Study of the Swedish Booking Cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (21) ◽  
pp. 55-70
Author(s):  
Katharina Voss ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement

This article studies the private enforcement conducted in Visita v Booking from the perspective of the interaction between public and private enforcement of competition law. This case concerned the question whether the narrow MFN clauses maintained by Booking were contrary to Article 101 TFEU and could therefore be prohibited by a Swedish court. The focus of this article is placed on the assessment carried out by the Swedish courts to determine whether the MFN clauses were restrictive of competition by effect and on the standard of proof attached to the claimant in this regard. With regard to the interaction between public and private enforcement, Visita v. Booking is viewed as an illustration of the increased complexity of competition policy, in particular were novel practices are at issue

III. Competition

1996 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-230
Author(s):  
Karl Newman ◽  
Christopher Harding
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Transport Services ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Sharing Responsibility ◽  
Group Exemption ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
The Relationship

In the period covered by this note (early 1994 to the middle of 1995) some signifi cant and interesting judgments have been handed down by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance on both substantive and procedural issues of competition law, in particular that of the Court of Justice in the Magill case, which deals with the relationship between Article 86 and intellectual property rights. In the legislative field there is now a group exemption on the operation of liner transport services. As regards general problems of enforcement, the Commission's 1993 Notice on Co-operation between National Courts and the Commission1 has provoked a good deal of discussion and a number of commentators and also the Commission itself are now advocating sharing responsibility for enforcement with national competition authorities rather than relying on the direct effect of Articles 85(1) and 86 being invoked before national courts.2

The Indian Competition Act: A Historical and Developmental Perspective

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiju Varghese Mazhuvanchery
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Developmental Perspective ◽  
Law And Development ◽  
Contentious Issue ◽  
Indian Act ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

The relationship between competition law and development continues to be a subject that excites many. The appropriate design of a competition law with developmental dimensions is a contentious issue. With the enactment of the Competition Act 2002, India joined the hundred odd developing countries that have adopted new competition laws over the last two decades. After a hiatus of seven years, substantive provisions of the Act have been notified recently. The Indian Act presents a perfect case study for the developmental dimensions of competition law. This paper explores the events that led to the enactment of the new law in India and analyses its provisions from a developmental perspective. The paper concludes that many of the provisions in the law may come in the way of the realization of developmental goals.

Oligopoly Theory and the Agreement Requirement

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis Kaplow
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Ab Initio ◽  
Repeated Games ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Oligopoly Theory ◽  
Modern Economic ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter assesses the relationship between modern oligopoly theory and the meaning of the agreement requirement. Because competition law seeks to regulate oligopoly behavior and, moreover, to ground such regulation in modern economic understandings, it would seem to follow that, if the law's notion of agreement reflects economic substance, the agreement requirement would correspond to a core distinction drawn in oligopoly theory. As it turns out, that theory, which is an application of game theory (particularly, that of repeated games), does have an explicit notion of agreement. But this notion refers to binding agreements and thus is irrelevant for present purposes because competition law renders horizontal price-fixing agreements void ab initio.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document