Show Less
You do not have access to this content

Evidence, Proof and Judicial Review in EU Competition Law

Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Eric Gippini Fournier

Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Eric Gippini Fournier, two of the most experienced competition litigators at the European Commission, undertake an in-depth analysis of the case law of the EU Courts on the rules of evidence, proof and judicial review, as they are applied in EU competition law. These topics often engage with fundamental rights, and the book takes stock of the most frequent criticisms that are made of the EU enforcement system and review by EU Courts. The result is an extremely thorough and well-structured review of the relevant rules of law and of the precedents. The authors combine valuable insights and critical analysis to construct a definitive yet balanced portrayal of the state of EU competition law.
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content


Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Eric Gippini Fournier


Chapter 6 covers the scope and the standards of judicial review. The chapter clearly distinguishes the review of the findings of the constituent elements of the infringement, on the one hand, and the fine, on the other. The powers of EU Courts are different in these two areas, since EU Courts have ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ for the amount of the fines. The nature of the review, the legal framework and the practice are examined, as well as the interaction between the two types of review. Controversial issues, such as the possibilities of providing new evidence not adduced during the administrative procedure, and the review of ‘complex economic assessments’, deserve particular attention. All these issues are also analysed from a historical and theoretical perspective, and in the light of the right to a fair trial and effective judicial review. A final section deals with two specificities of the outcome of judicial review in competition cases, namely the possibility of partial annulment and the possible extensions of certain findings to other applicants which did not raise a plea or submission.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.