Pub Date : 2018-12-20DOI: 10.1093/LAW-OCL/9780198812760.003.0012
Cauffman Caroline
This chapter discusses the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Luxembourg. It first provides a general overview of the transposition procedure, focusing on the Transposition Act that was adopted by first vote in the plenary session of the Chambre des députés of 15 November 2016 and entered into force on 11 December 2016. It then considers the substantive and temporal scope of Luxembourg’s Transposition Act before concluding with an analysis of specific issues that arose during the transposition, including those relating to certain articles of the Directive that have not been specifically transposed, the protection of confidential information, principles of joint and several liability, the probative value of decisions of National Competition Authorities of other Member States, the presumption and quantification of harm by cartels, time-barring deadlines, sanctions, actions for damages by claimants from different levels in the supply chain, consensual dispute resolution, and parent company liability.
{"title":"Part II The Member State Reports on Transposition of the Directive, 12 Luxembourg","authors":"Cauffman Caroline","doi":"10.1093/LAW-OCL/9780198812760.003.0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/LAW-OCL/9780198812760.003.0012","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Luxembourg. It first provides a general overview of the transposition procedure, focusing on the Transposition Act that was adopted by first vote in the plenary session of the Chambre des députés of 15 November 2016 and entered into force on 11 December 2016. It then considers the substantive and temporal scope of Luxembourg’s Transposition Act before concluding with an analysis of specific issues that arose during the transposition, including those relating to certain articles of the Directive that have not been specifically transposed, the protection of confidential information, principles of joint and several liability, the probative value of decisions of National Competition Authorities of other Member States, the presumption and quantification of harm by cartels, time-barring deadlines, sanctions, actions for damages by claimants from different levels in the supply chain, consensual dispute resolution, and parent company liability.","PeriodicalId":396884,"journal":{"name":"The EU Antitrust Damages Directive","volume":"130 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116112740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-20DOI: 10.1093/LAW-OCL/9780198812760.003.0020
R. Barry, Ferro Miguel Sousa, M. Francisco
This chapter examines how the Member States have addressed most of the key issues and controversies arising from the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive within their respective legal systems. It first considers the substantive grounds and conditions for liability, highlighting several legal debates that are likely to arise in the context of liability, such as those relating to fault, the characterization of the type of liability in question and the consequences thereof, and the liability of the parent company. It then discusses joint liability, particularly the liability of immunity recipients and of small to medium-size enterprises, and issues concerning access to evidence, specialized courts that would hear antitrust damages actions, limitation periods, the binding force of public enforcement decisions, the right to full compensation, quantification of harm, passing-on, consensual dispute resolution (settlements and alternative dispute resolution), and collective redress.
{"title":"Part III Comparative Analysis of the Transposition Processes and Outcomes, 20 Transposition: Key Issues and Controversies","authors":"R. Barry, Ferro Miguel Sousa, M. Francisco","doi":"10.1093/LAW-OCL/9780198812760.003.0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/LAW-OCL/9780198812760.003.0020","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines how the Member States have addressed most of the key issues and controversies arising from the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive within their respective legal systems. It first considers the substantive grounds and conditions for liability, highlighting several legal debates that are likely to arise in the context of liability, such as those relating to fault, the characterization of the type of liability in question and the consequences thereof, and the liability of the parent company. It then discusses joint liability, particularly the liability of immunity recipients and of small to medium-size enterprises, and issues concerning access to evidence, specialized courts that would hear antitrust damages actions, limitation periods, the binding force of public enforcement decisions, the right to full compensation, quantification of harm, passing-on, consensual dispute resolution (settlements and alternative dispute resolution), and collective redress.","PeriodicalId":396884,"journal":{"name":"The EU Antitrust Damages Directive","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128801186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-20DOI: 10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0015
Ferro Miguel Sousa
This chapter analyzes the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Portugal. It first provides a general overview of the transposition procedure, focusing on the unified Bill that was adopted by the Plenary of the Parliament on 20 April 2018 and configured as the Transposition Act. It then describes the scope of private enforcement of competition law in Portugal before considering specific issues that arose from the transposition of the Directive, such as those relating to rights to pre-trial discovery, partial centralization of private enforcement at the specialized Court, access to evidence, time-barring deadlines, protecting failed settlement talks, the binding force of public enforcement decisions, concepts of undertaking and parent company liability, the presumed proportion of responsibility for joint liability, the quantification of damages, the Portuguese opt-out regime (actio popularis), and the effect on trade between Member States.
{"title":"Part II The Member State Reports on Transposition of the Directive, 15 Portugal","authors":"Ferro Miguel Sousa","doi":"10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0015","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Portugal. It first provides a general overview of the transposition procedure, focusing on the unified Bill that was adopted by the Plenary of the Parliament on 20 April 2018 and configured as the Transposition Act. It then describes the scope of private enforcement of competition law in Portugal before considering specific issues that arose from the transposition of the Directive, such as those relating to rights to pre-trial discovery, partial centralization of private enforcement at the specialized Court, access to evidence, time-barring deadlines, protecting failed settlement talks, the binding force of public enforcement decisions, concepts of undertaking and parent company liability, the presumed proportion of responsibility for joint liability, the quantification of damages, the Portuguese opt-out regime (actio popularis), and the effect on trade between Member States.","PeriodicalId":396884,"journal":{"name":"The EU Antitrust Damages Directive","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115293506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-20DOI: 10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0002
Rodger Barry, Ferro Miguel Sousa, M. Francisco
This chapter explains the contents and goals of the Antitrust Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU), the corollary of the EU’s policy towards the promotion and facilitation of private enforcement of competition law. It first traces the evolution in EU competition law enforcement and policy that led to the adoption of the Directive before considering the goals of the Directive in more detail, namely to provide rules for the effective compensation of victims of antitrust infringements and to harmonize some rules concerning damages claims. It then examines the Directive’s legal basis under EU Law as well as substantive provisions, including those relating to compensatory principles, quantification of harm, and consensual dispute resolution. The chapter goes on to highlight neglected issues, limitations, and inherent biases regarding the scope and nature of the Directive’s rules and concludes with an analysis of issues arising from implementation of the Directive in Member States.
{"title":"Part I EU Competition Law Private Enforcement and the Antitrust Damages Directive, 2 Promotion and Harmonization of Antitrust Damages Claims by Directive 2014/104/EU?","authors":"Rodger Barry, Ferro Miguel Sousa, M. Francisco","doi":"10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explains the contents and goals of the Antitrust Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU), the corollary of the EU’s policy towards the promotion and facilitation of private enforcement of competition law. It first traces the evolution in EU competition law enforcement and policy that led to the adoption of the Directive before considering the goals of the Directive in more detail, namely to provide rules for the effective compensation of victims of antitrust infringements and to harmonize some rules concerning damages claims. It then examines the Directive’s legal basis under EU Law as well as substantive provisions, including those relating to compensatory principles, quantification of harm, and consensual dispute resolution. The chapter goes on to highlight neglected issues, limitations, and inherent biases regarding the scope and nature of the Directive’s rules and concludes with an analysis of issues arising from implementation of the Directive in Member States.","PeriodicalId":396884,"journal":{"name":"The EU Antitrust Damages Directive","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122970102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-20DOI: 10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0010
Lopopolo Susanna
This chapter focuses on the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Italy. It first considers the transposition procedure, with emphasis on the Italian competition law system and more specifically public enforcement of antitrust law under the Autorità Garante per la concorrenza ed il mercato (AGCM), before discussing the issue of the ‘topographic’ location of the implementing regulation within the current legal system. It then examines the substantive and temporal scope of Italy’s transposition measure, known as Legge Delega, as well as specific issues that arose during the transposition, including those relating to disclosure of evidence, penalties, the binding force of National Competition Authority (NCA) decisions and judicial review, time limitation rules, joint and several liability, parent company liability, the passing-on of overcharges, the use of AGCM expertise in quantifying damages, consensual resolution of disputes, collective redress, and the concentration of jurisdiction.
{"title":"Part II The Member State Reports on Transposition of the Directive, 10 Italy","authors":"Lopopolo Susanna","doi":"10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Italy. It first considers the transposition procedure, with emphasis on the Italian competition law system and more specifically public enforcement of antitrust law under the Autorità Garante per la concorrenza ed il mercato (AGCM), before discussing the issue of the ‘topographic’ location of the implementing regulation within the current legal system. It then examines the substantive and temporal scope of Italy’s transposition measure, known as Legge Delega, as well as specific issues that arose during the transposition, including those relating to disclosure of evidence, penalties, the binding force of National Competition Authority (NCA) decisions and judicial review, time limitation rules, joint and several liability, parent company liability, the passing-on of overcharges, the use of AGCM expertise in quantifying damages, consensual resolution of disputes, collective redress, and the concentration of jurisdiction.","PeriodicalId":396884,"journal":{"name":"The EU Antitrust Damages Directive","volume":"92 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133557129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-20DOI: 10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0014
Bernatt Maciej, Gac Maciej
This chapter analyses the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Poland. It first provides an overview of the transposition procedure, focusing on the main stages of the implementation process that culminated in the adoption of the Act on actions for damages for infringements of the competition law provisions (ACD) that came into force on 27 June 2017. The chapter goes on to describe the scope of ACD before considering the novel aspects of Polish implementation with respect to disclosure of evidence, time-barring deadlines, the standing of business and consumer organizations to bring actions, and the possibility of bringing group actions. It also examines problematic issues relating to the effect of National Competition Authorities’ final infringement decisions, passing-on of overcharges, presumption of harm, the competency of courts handling actions for antitrust damages, leniency programmes, and settlement submissions. Finally, it reflects on future prospects for private enforcement of competition law in Poland.
{"title":"Part II The Member State Reports on Transposition of the Directive, 14 Poland","authors":"Bernatt Maciej, Gac Maciej","doi":"10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/law-ocl/9780198812760.003.0014","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyses the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Poland. It first provides an overview of the transposition procedure, focusing on the main stages of the implementation process that culminated in the adoption of the Act on actions for damages for infringements of the competition law provisions (ACD) that came into force on 27 June 2017. The chapter goes on to describe the scope of ACD before considering the novel aspects of Polish implementation with respect to disclosure of evidence, time-barring deadlines, the standing of business and consumer organizations to bring actions, and the possibility of bringing group actions. It also examines problematic issues relating to the effect of National Competition Authorities’ final infringement decisions, passing-on of overcharges, presumption of harm, the competency of courts handling actions for antitrust damages, leniency programmes, and settlement submissions. Finally, it reflects on future prospects for private enforcement of competition law in Poland.","PeriodicalId":396884,"journal":{"name":"The EU Antitrust Damages Directive","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126224297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：