You are looking at 1 - 10 of 11 items

  • Author or Editor: Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel

The EU and US legal orders rely on presumptions and other rules of evidence permitting to establish, to the requisite legal standard, the presence of anticompetitive abusive behaviour. This chapter seeks to highlight how and when both legal orders rely on such presumptions and other rules of evidence and what impact such differentiated reliance has on the potential for both legal orders to converge on substantive abuse regulation questions. To that extent, it distinguishes and analyses two different categories of rules of evidence (short-cut rules and evidentiary presumptions) present in both legal orders. General policy and case law evolutions allow to infer that both legal systems seemingly attest to a move away from short-cut rules in favour of evidentiary presumptions. In the US, the latter kind of presumptions are also even more limited in scope and scale. Building on that analysis, the chapter subsequently questions to what extent short-cut rules and evidentiary presumptions serve as analytical benchmarks in the quest for a more globally streamlined abuse regulation framework.

You do not have access to this content

Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel

Although the founding European Union Treaties consistently refer to solidarity as one of the central values underlying European integration, the concept of solidarity remains undefined and under-theorised in EU constitutional law. Different conceptions of solidarity can therefore simultaneously be – and have effectively been – read into the EU Treaty framework. This chapter identifies and structures these conceptions and re-evaluates their relevance and co-existence in the aftermath of the economic and financial crises. The first part of this chapter provides a genealogy of EU solidarity categories. Those categories exemplify the fragmented and potentially conflicting solidarity values presently underlying EU primary law. Four categories will be distinguished: liberalising, redistributive, constitutive and administrative solidarity. Whilst liberalising and redistributive conceptions in principle promote substantive economic and social solidarity among Member States, citizens and the peoples of Europe, constitutive and administrative solidarity categories project an image of transnational solidarity most directly aimed at Member States’ interactions. The second part applies the identified solidarity categories to EU financial and sovereign debt crisis governance. It argues that recent EU initiatives to restore confidence in markets most readily adhere to administrative solidarity, whilst seemingly downplaying more substantive solidarity discussions. In doing so, post-crisis governance has missed significant opportunities to redesign and develop an upgraded and less fragmented substantive solidarity framework reflected throughout EU law.

This content is available to you

Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel

This chapter identifies and distinguishes four different types of scholarship and policymaking on the relationship between competition law and innovation. Scholarship varies to the extent that it considers innovation to be an exogenous or external value to the competition law protection framework and conversely an endogenous or internal value. In addition, different scholars frame innovation either as a positive or a negative value that needs to be addressed by (competition) law. Distinguishing those different kinds of scholarship, the chapter offers a framework in which the different chapters throughout the volume can be understood better.

You do not have access to this content

Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel

In addition to their roles in supporting EU internal policies, agencies are increasingly called upon to assess, in one way or another, the equivalence of third country legal regimes. This chapter will offer an overview of the equivalence procedures in place before reflecting on the accountability challenges specific to those procedures. To that extent, the first part will identify and classify varieties of agency intervention in different third country equivalence procedures. Analysing the legal basis for agency intervention and the specific powers granted to the respective agencies in that respect, this part will develop a topology of different equivalence roles conferred on EU agencies. Building on this analysis, the second part will examine the accountability features in place in order to identify a particular gap in those accountability features, and will propose a way forward to close this gap.

You do not have access to this content

Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel and Wouter Devroe

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

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