Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement
Show Less

Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement

Economic and Legal Implications for the EU Member States

Edited by Katalin J. Cseres, Maarten Pieter Schinkel and Floris O.W. Vogelaar

This timely book brings together contributions from prominent scholars and practitioners to the ongoing debate on the criminalization of competition law enforcement. Recognizing that existing remedies and sanctions may be insufficient to deter breaches of competition law, several EU Member States have followed the US example and introduced pecuniary penalties for executives, professional disqualification orders, and even jail sentences. Addressing issues such as unsolved legal puzzles, standard of proof, leniency programs and internal cartel stability, this book is a marker for future policy debate.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 20: Closing Remarks

Floris O.W. Vogelaar


Floris O.W. Vogelaar Looking back at a wonderful one and a half days, at the same time I have to look back in time. I remember that Claus Ehlermann and I met for the first time in the spring of 1969. He was then working at the Legal Service of the Commission, and I was a small and humble internee there, sharing an office with Graham Child and Cornelis Canenbley just opposite his. It is remarkable to note that 35 years later, we are still in the trade. However, the point to be made today is that in July 1969 the Commission took the Quinine cartel decision.1 That decision was the first in which the Commission ever imposed a fine, 50,000 Ecu at the time, and as I remember it everybody came out of their offices in the Loi Building of the Commission’s Legal Service onto the corridors to discuss this special event in sheer admiration. Apart from the fact that that fine was only paid much later in 1984, without any accrual of interest, it shows from where we came and where we are nowadays. I also remember that a short time thereafter an official from the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division came on secondment to the Legal Service, and later I believe also to DG IV, Joel Davidow. When, after a stay of six or eight months, he was back in America, he wrote an article reporting on what he had seen in...

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.