The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law
Show Less

The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law

  • Elgar original reference

Edited by Albert A. Foer and Jonathan W. Cuneo

With the international community on the brink of an explosion of private remedies for violation of national competition laws, this timely Handbook provides state-of-the-art analysis of the private enforcement of competition laws across the globe. Private enforcement of antitrust is becoming a significant component of competition policy laws worldwide; today, more than a hundred jurisdictions have adopted market regimes operating within a framework of competition law, providing a varied base for developing ways by which persons injured by anticompetitive conduct will (or will not) be able to obtain remedies.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details

Chapter 27: Peru

Alfredo Bullard and Alejandro Falla

Extract

27 Peru Alfredo Bullard1 and Alejandro Falla2 Introduction Competition law and policy was formally introduced to Peru in 1991 with the enactment of Legislative Decree 701. It was replaced in 2008 with the Law for the Repression of Anticompetitive Conduct, Legislative Decree 1034 (the Competition Law).3 Competition law in Peru follows the European model in several significant ways. An administrative and autonomous governmental agency, the National Institute for the Defense of the Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), is the primary enforcer of competition law. Its primary enforcement tools are administrative sanctions. INDECOPI has no authority to award damages. Unlike other jurisdictions, the jurisdiction of INDECOPI is exclusive, not allowing individuals to resort before or simultaneously to any other administrative authority or court before the exhaustion of administrative proceedings in the agency. The model does not promote private actions. Even though antitrust damages actions are contemplated in the Competition Law, they do not have an important role in this model. INDECOPI has no jurisdiction to award damages. There are no direct private actions before courts as actions before courts are conditioned upon the exhaustion of administrative proceedings at INDECOPI. In addition, the Competition Law does not encourage damages actions with measures such as punitive or treble damages. Private actions are restricted even within proceedings brought before INDECOPI. These proceedings are always initiated ex officio, whether or not a private party has filed a complaint. The Peruvian model is based on a public enforcement action by INDECOPI. The enforcement...

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.