Πρόγραμμα Επιείκειας Και Διαδικασία Διευθέτησης Στο Ελληνικό Δίκαιο Ανταγωνισμου (Leniency Programme and Settlement Procedure in the Greek Competition Law)

Abstract The article focuses on the leniency programme, the key mechanism to strengthen the public enforcement of competition law, and its compatibility with the debarment mechanism and self-cleaning measures, which are both procurement remedies. As the article will show, procurement remedies interfere with cartel enforcement and the debarment mechanism undermines leniency in public procurement. The fact that firms may be banned from bidding, where there are plausible indications for their participation in agreements aiming at distorting competition, discourages infringing companies from coming forward and self-reporting. Even the self-cleaning measures under the current procurement Directive 2014/24/EU, which aim to help debarred firms to avoid exclusion or minimize its risk, undermine leniency in public procurement. This is particularly true after the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice in c-124/17 Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH case. In this case, it was held that a contracting authority must be able to ask a leniency applicant to provide the decision of the competition authority concerning it. This must apply even if there is a pending private action for damages for breach of competition law by the contracting authority against that leniency applicant. In view of the above conflicting policy objectives, a number of proposals are discussed in order to better align leniency programmes with the mechanism of debarment and self-cleaning policy in public procurement. In this way, the article contributes to the optimal design of enforcement policies.

Download Full-text

Europeanisation of the Polish Leniency Programme

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies ◽

10.7172/1689-9024.yars.2018.11.18.3 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 11 (18) ◽

pp. 61-83

Author(s):

Paulina Korycińska-Rządca

Keyword(s):

Competition Law ◽

Competition Authority ◽

Eu Law ◽

Legal Rules ◽

Application Of Law ◽

Polish Law ◽

Leniency Programme ◽

The Impact ◽

The Eu

Leniency programmes in competition law make it possible to grant immunity from fines, or a reduction of any fine that would otherwise have been imposed on an undertaking who was a party to an unlawful agreement restricting competition. This immunity or fine reduction is granted as a reward for the cooperation with the competition authority and the provision of evidence of an unlawful agreement restricting competition. Legal rules regarding the application of leniency programmes have been introduced at the EU level as well as in the national legislations of numerous countries, including Polish law. The author makes an attempt to establish the degree to which the Polish leniency programme is an effect of the impact of EU law or the application of law within the EU (for instance, by its institutions). The analysis has been made on three levels. Examined first was the degree to which the Polish leniency programme is a result of spontaneous harmonisation. Second, the impact of legislative harmonisation in the area of leniency programmes was taken into consideration. Finally, it was verified whether those Polish authorities that apply Polish competition law are inspired by judgements issued by EU courts in cases regarding leniency programmes.

Download Full-text

The Interaction of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Lithuania

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies ◽

10.7172/1689-9024.yars.2015.8.12.11 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 8 (12) ◽

pp. 237-257

Author(s):

Rimantas Antanas Stanikunas ◽

Arunas Burinskas

Keyword(s):

Economic Effect ◽

Competition Law ◽

Causal Link ◽

Antitrust Policy ◽

Private Enforcement ◽

Antitrust Law ◽

Public Enforcement ◽

Public And Private ◽

Public And Private Enforcement ◽

Leniency Programme

This paper provides a study of the interaction between public and private enforcement of Lithuanian antitrust law. The study refers to the Damages Directive. It has been found that private enforcement depends greatly on public enforcement of competition law. Therefore, their compatibility and balance are of great importance to antitrust policy. The Lithuanian NCA prioritises cases where an economic effect on competition does not have to be proven. This creates uncertainty about the outcome of private enforcement cases. Private enforcement in Lithuania is also in need of detailed rules on the identification of harm and causality. The analysis reveals how challenging it can be to estimate and prove harm or a causal link in private enforcement cases. Support from the NCA is therefore exceedingly needed. Moreover, even though the use of the leniency programme helps, it remains insufficient to solve the problem of under-deterrence. However, measures introduced by the Damages Directive do not make the leniency programme safe.

Download Full-text

THE CONCEPT OF LENIENCY IN REPUBLIC OF NORTH MACEDONIA

10.25234/eclic/18814 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Goran Koevski ◽

Borka Tushevska Gavrilovikj ◽

Darko Spasevki

Keyword(s):

Comparative Method ◽

Competition Law ◽

Unfair Competition ◽

Business Sector ◽

Goods And Services ◽

Lack Of Information ◽

Application Procedure ◽

The Republic ◽

Leniency Programme ◽

The Impact

The concept of "leniency" in competition law, or better known as the "leniency programme", has proven to be an extremely important instrument in fighting unfair competition. In the Republic of Northern Macedonia (hereinafter RNM), this concept of suppressing or reducing unfair competition, more or less, exists solely as a law conception. Nowadays, when the EU discusses the impact of the global crisis and the Coronavirus pandemic on the level of utilization of ”leniency programme", this concept is still unknown or not a well-known concept for business sector in RNM. The main focus of this article is “leniency programme” in RNM. The key questions that we aim to answer here, are: whether and to what extent this instrument is predicted in Macedonian competition law? Is it predicted only as a law category, or it has practical implications too? Although this research refers to RNM, we strongly believe that a thorough study of “leniency” requires exploration of European conception of “leniency” too. For that purpose, we use relevant EU legislation, as well as practice. Thus, our main goal is to consider the position of RNM towards “leniency” and bring into relation to the Macedonian competition law. We base our hypothetical framework on the assumption that the applicability of “leniency programme” in RNM is at the lowest level. Furthermore, that the undertakings are not interested in applying “leniency”. This situation is partly due to the lack of information, the complexity of the application procedure, as well as other factors that are related not only to the attitude of the executive of undertakings, but more to the general economic circumstances, economic development, the market size of goods and services, etc. Using the analytical-descriptive method, the comparative method, and the method of analysis and synthesis, we’ll elaborate the situation in RNM regarding this issue, and we will present our views considering the questions: whether certain measures should be taken regarding „leniency program“, and what should be done to boost the use of this program in the Macedonian business sector.

Download Full-text

Enforcing European Competition Law through Leniency Programmes in the Light of Fundamental Rights

10.5771/9783845297170 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Emma Salemme

Keyword(s):

Public Interest ◽

Competition Law ◽

Current Level ◽

Fundamental Rights ◽

The Public ◽

Rights Protection ◽

Leniency Programme ◽

Opening Up ◽

European Competition Law ◽

The Eu

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty has increased the importance of fundamental rights, attributing the same legal value to the CFR as the EU treaties, and opening up the possibility of the EU’s accession to the ECHR. In this context, this book analyses whether the current level of fundamental rights protection in leniency procedures falls within the parameters of accepted ECHR standards. This book demonstrates that the leniency procedure is not fully compatible with fundamental rights and general principles, and proposes a new programme, which can reconcile the public interest in an effective and efficient leniency programme with the protection of the fundamental rights of the parties involved in the procedure.

Download Full-text