You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items

  • Author or Editor: Pier Luigi Parcu x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Elda Brogi and Pier Luigi Parcu

Media pluralism and media freedom are topics that are at the centre stage of the European Union (EU) agenda. The chapter presents the results of the 2016 implementation of the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM), a holistic tool that was designed to assess the risks for media pluralism, in the 28 EU member states and in two candidate countries, namely Turkey and Montenegro. It also gives an overview of the main challenges in regulating the news on the Internet and in particular of the EU debate on countering so-called ‘fake news’.

You do not have access to this content

Pier Luigi Parcu and Maria Luisa Stasi

This chapter analyses the role that intent plays or should play in the assessment of abusive conduct. In a phase where the European Commission and the European Courts appear to focus more and more on an effects-based approach, we consider whether due consideration should be also taken of the subjective element of the infringers’ behaviour. After analysis of the most recent European case law, with the objective to identify common trends and/or divergences, we discuss a number of procedural aspects that enforcers have to cope with while dealing with the subjective element. Finally, we briefly debate about the impact that the massive diffusion of algorithms and other automated machines can have on the role played by intent. Keywords: intent; objective abuse; CJEU; artificial intelligence

You do not have access to this content

Pier Luigi Parcu and Maria Alessandra Rossi

This chapter provides an overview of the most salient economic issues involved in the estimation of private antitrust damages in light of the approach currently adopted in Europe. Since the publication of the ‘Practical Guide’ on damage quantification by the EU Commission in 2013, many uncertainties as to the appropriate general economic framework for damages estimation have been resolved. The chapter illustrates, in a language easily understandable to non-economists, the key theoretical and methodological tenets underlying economic practice in the quantification of antitrust damages. It provides an accessible explanation of the logic underlying the main empirical methods used by economic experts and highlights some of the challenges that arise in their application.

This content is available to you

Pier Luigi 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.