Private Enforcement and Market Regulation

Sara Landini
{"title":"Private Enforcement and Market Regulation","authors":"Sara Landini","doi":"10.7559/mclawreview.2018.324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the technique of private enforcement as a juridical instrument to protect the market in combination with the punitive sanction mechanisms of public law. After a first definition of private enforcement, we investigate the position taken by the European Commission on the use of private enforcement, verifying its function with respect to the objectives of market protection. The main instruments of private enforcement are therefore considered: civil liability, termination of the contract, nullity of the contract, injunction. We will focus on the main constraints to the application of the abovementioned instruments of private enforcement proposing solutions in the light of an overcoming of the boundaries between public law and private law. As highlighted in Directive 2014/104/EU, “the practical effect of the prohibitions laid down requires that anyone – be they an individual, including consumers and undertakings, or a public authority – can claim compensation before national courts for the harm caused to them by an infringement of those provisions.” For this reason it is important to consider all the different private enforcement tools and try to remove the obstacles to their effective functioning. Private law is activated on the action of individuals who exercise the rights recognised by the law. Individuals being closer to the emergence of the problem are able to represent the violation of the interests at stake according to the logic proper to the principle of subsidiarity. The Principle of subsidiarity states that a wider and greater body, such as a government, should not exercise functions that can be carried out efficiently by a smaller one, such as an individual or a private group, acting independently.","PeriodicalId":309646,"journal":{"name":"Market and Competition Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Market and Competition Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2018.324","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The article examines the technique of private enforcement as a juridical instrument to protect the market in combination with the punitive sanction mechanisms of public law. After a first definition of private enforcement, we investigate the position taken by the European Commission on the use of private enforcement, verifying its function with respect to the objectives of market protection. The main instruments of private enforcement are therefore considered: civil liability, termination of the contract, nullity of the contract, injunction. We will focus on the main constraints to the application of the abovementioned instruments of private enforcement proposing solutions in the light of an overcoming of the boundaries between public law and private law. As highlighted in Directive 2014/104/EU, “the practical effect of the prohibitions laid down requires that anyone – be they an individual, including consumers and undertakings, or a public authority – can claim compensation before national courts for the harm caused to them by an infringement of those provisions.” For this reason it is important to consider all the different private enforcement tools and try to remove the obstacles to their effective functioning. Private law is activated on the action of individuals who exercise the rights recognised by the law. Individuals being closer to the emergence of the problem are able to represent the violation of the interests at stake according to the logic proper to the principle of subsidiarity. The Principle of subsidiarity states that a wider and greater body, such as a government, should not exercise functions that can be carried out efficiently by a smaller one, such as an individual or a private group, acting independently.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
私人执法和市场监管
本文结合公法的惩罚性制裁机制,考察了私人执法作为保护市场的司法工具的技术。在对私人强制执行的第一个定义之后,我们调查了欧盟委员会对使用私人强制执行所采取的立场,验证了其在市场保护目标方面的功能。因此考虑了私人强制执行的主要手段:民事责任、合同终止、合同无效、禁令。我们将集中讨论上述私人执法工具适用的主要制约因素,并根据克服公法和私法之间的界限,提出解决办法。正如2014/104/EU号指令所强调的那样,“规定的禁令的实际效果要求任何人——无论是个人,包括消费者和企业,还是公共当局——都可以在国家法院要求赔偿因违反这些规定而对他们造成的损害。”因此,必须考虑所有不同的私人执法工具,并设法消除阻碍其有效运作的障碍。私法因行使法律所承认的权利的个人的行为而生效。离问题发生地点更近的个体,能够按照与辅助性原则相适应的逻辑,代表利害攸关利益的侵害。辅助性原则指出,一个更大和更大的机构,如政府,不应该行使可以由一个较小的机构,如个人或私人团体,独立行动有效地执行的职能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Big Data Competition and Market Power The Very Essence of the Internal Market Freedoms State Aids and Tax rulings: an assessment of the Commission’s recent decisional practice The Role of Innovation in the Analysis of Abuse of Dominance in Digital Markets: The Analysis of Chosen Practices of Google Search Room to Manoeuvre for Member States: Issues for Decision on the Occasion of the Transposition of the Damages Directive
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1