This chapter analyses the implementing legislation and the variations in the national legal systems, in section 2. The section includes analysis of preparatory works as a legal source that has proven to be of particular importance due to the substantial variations in the legal systems of the Member States. Goldplating and questionable legislation are considered in section 3 and selected issues of implementation (exclusion, competitive procedure with negotiation, contract changes) in section 4. The latter section also covers the Member States’ approach to the implementation of the recitals to the Directive. Section 5 relates to a range of provisions of the Directive that allow the Member States to implement various options and aims. Final conclusions are found in section 6
Steen Treumer and Mario Comber
The Approach of EU Member States
Edited by Steen Treumer and Mario Comba
Law and Practice, Second Edition
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  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.