scholarly journals Obstacles in European Competition Law Enforcement: A Potential Solution from Collective Redress

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zygimantas Juska
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Potential Solution ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
European Competition Law

European Union competition law in the digital era

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimiliano Kadar
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement ◽  
Specific Regulation ◽  
European Competition Law ◽  
Union Competition

AbstractWhat is the role of European competition policy in the digital economy? Even if it cannot deal with all perceived issues in digital markets, competition law enforcement is the appropriate tool to remedy distortions to competition caused by market power, without the introduction of pervasive ex-ante sector-specific regulation being required. Whilst some of the proposals for reform of the European competition law legal framework recently brought may have some merit in principle, the current regime appears to be suitable and sufficiently flexible to allow the Commission to intervene effectively and remedy competitive distortions in digital markets.

Part II The Member State Reports on Transposition of the Directive, 7 Greece

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannidou Maria
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Member State ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Plenary Session ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Joint And Several Liability ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement ◽  
Collective Redress

This chapter focuses on the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Greece. It begins with a discussion of the transposition procedure, focusing on the Greek private competition law enforcement landscape. In particular, it considers the country’s Damages Act transposing the Damages Directive in the Greek legal order, adopted by Parliament (plenary session) on 14 March 2018, and the level of private competition litigation in Greece. The factors that partly explain the delay in the transposition of the Damages Directive by the Greek legislature are also examined. The chapter goes on to describe the substantive and temporal scope of the Damages Act as well as specific issues that arose during the transposition, including those relating to limitation periods, the binding force of decisions of other Member States, joint and several liability, parent company liability, presumption and quantification of damages by cartels, access to evidence, collective redress, and consensual dispute resolution.

“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.

A Solution to the Problems? Regulation 1/2003 and the modernization of competition procedure

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Montag ◽  
Andreas Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Radical Reform ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement ◽  
Ec Competition Law

Abstract On 16th December 2002 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 on the implementation of rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. This Regulation will not only replace the 40-year-old Regulation 17/ 62 but constitutes a radical reform of EC competition law enforcement. The purpose of this article is to analyse the basic principles of the new Regulation and the implications for current and future competition proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document