Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 1,185 items :

  • Competition and Antitrust Law x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Edited by Paul Nihoul and Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel

This content is available to you

Edited by Paul Nihoul and Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel

You do not have access to this content

Edited by Paul Nihoul and Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel

Rapid technological innovations have challenged the conventional application of antitrust and competition law across the globe. Acknowledging these challenges, this original work analyses the roles of innovation in competition law analysis and reflects on how competition and antitrust law can be refined and tailored to innovation.
This content is available to you

Edited by Paul Nihoul and Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel

You do not have access to this content

Edited by Paul Nihoul and Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel

You do not have access to this content

Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law

The Impact of the Damages Directive

Edited by Pier L. Parcu, Giorgio Monti and Marco Botta

During the past decade, private enforcement of competition law has slowly taken off in Europe. However, major differences still exist among Member States. By harmonizing a number of procedural rules, the Damages Directive aimed to establish a level playing field among EU Member States. This timely book represents the first assessment of the implementation of the Damages Directive. Offering a comparative perspective, key chapters provide an up-to-date account of the emerging trends in private enforcement of competition law in Europe.
This content is available to you

Edited by Pier L. Parcu, Giorgio Monti and Marco Botta

This content is available to you

Pier Luigi Parcu, Giorgio Monti and Marco Botta

A long time has passed since Advocate General (AG) Geelhoed stated in his Opinion in Manfredi that ‘private enforcement of (competition law) in Europe is still in its infancy’. One decade after the landmark ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the number of antitrust claims in national civil courts has steadily increased, though major differences exist among the EU Member States. In particular, the UK, Germany and the Netherlands have become the preferred fora by claimants in cross-border actions, while the majority of the other Member States have not recorded many antitrust damages cases. In term of remedies, however, claimants often request either injunctive relief or contract invalidation, rather than damages. Finally, industrial customers, rather than final consumers, start most of the legal actions, even in the countries where private enforcement of EU competition law is more developed. During the past decade, the EU Commission has actively promoted damages actions for breaches of EU competition rules. During this period of time, the pendulum of the policy discourse followed by the EU executive branch has swung between the goal of increasing the number of damages claims in national courts on the one hand, and the idea of establishing a level playing field among the EU Member States in terms of applicable procedural rules, in order to discourage forum shopping on the other. In the initial 2005 Green Paper, the EU Commission emphasized that damages actions should ‘deter’ competition law violations.

You do not have access to this content

THE UNDERLYING RIGHT TO DAMAGES

Law and Practice, Second Edition

David Ashton

In its ruling in Crehan, the Court of Justice held that national courts must provide a remedy in damages for the enforcement of the rights and obligations created by Article 101 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Court held, in sum, as follows: The full effectiveness of Article [101] of the Treaty and, in particular, the practical effect of the prohibition laid down in Article [101(1)] would be put at risk if it were not open to any individual to claim damages for loss caused to him by a contract or by conduct liable to restrict or distort competition. (emphasis added) The question of principle as to whether or not an undertaking is entitled to claim damages for loss suffered as a result of a breach of Article 101 TFEU was not answered specifically by the Court, but was merged with two other questions. Firstly, whether or not a party to a contract which is in breach of Article 101 TFEU may rely upon that article to seek relief from the other contracting party (the first question), and secondly, whether a rule of national law that ‘parties to an illegal agreement cannot claim damages from the other party for loss caused to him by being a party to the illegal agreement’ is compatible with EU law (the third question).Within this structure, the question of principle is the second question.

You do not have access to this content

QUANTIFICATION OF ANTITRUST DAMAGES

Law and Practice, Second Edition

Frank Maier-Rigaud and Ulrich Schwalbe