小心缝隙!ECN+指令关于消除第1/2003号法规缺陷的建议:波兰观点

Agata Jurkowska-Gomułka
{"title":"小心缝隙!ECN+指令关于消除第1/2003号法规缺陷的建议:波兰观点","authors":"Agata Jurkowska-Gomułka","doi":"10.7559/mclawreview.2018.327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims at answering the question whether the Commission’s proposal intended to empower Member States’ competition authorities to be more effective enforcers (ECN+ Directive) actually brings effective solutions to all weaknesses of Regulation 1/2003, which influenced an inefficient application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in some Member States (among them Poland, which will be taken as a point of reference). The first part of the article constitutes a review upon the application of Regulation 1/2003 in Poland. Interestingly, the beginning of its enforcement coincides with the total period of application of EU law in Poland, since the country joined the EU on the same day the Regulation entered into force. The problem with Regulation 1/2003 is that it does not seem to enhance the enforcement of the Community’s competition rules by national enforcers, including NCAs and courts. The reason for this failure lies inter alia in the deficiencies of the principles adopted in the Regulation itself, including a lack of procedural unification (or at least some harmonisation) in cases where European substantive law is to be applied. In the second part of the article, the content of the Commission’s proposal on ECN+ Directive is analysed in order to find whether new regulations are able to solve problems identified in the Polish application of the Treaty’s provisions. The article concludes with an overall assessment of the proposed Directive and a list of conditions for effective implementation of the Directive.","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":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mind the Gap! ECN+ Directive Proposal on its Way to Eliminate Deficiencies of Regulation 1/2003: Polish Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Agata Jurkowska-Gomułka\",\"doi\":\"10.7559/mclawreview.2018.327\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article aims at answering the question whether the Commission’s proposal intended to empower Member States’ competition authorities to be more effective enforcers (ECN+ Directive) actually brings effective solutions to all weaknesses of Regulation 1/2003, which influenced an inefficient application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in some Member States (among them Poland, which will be taken as a point of reference). The first part of the article constitutes a review upon the application of Regulation 1/2003 in Poland. Interestingly, the beginning of its enforcement coincides with the total period of application of EU law in Poland, since the country joined the EU on the same day the Regulation entered into force. The problem with Regulation 1/2003 is that it does not seem to enhance the enforcement of the Community’s competition rules by national enforcers, including NCAs and courts. The reason for this failure lies inter alia in the deficiencies of the principles adopted in the Regulation itself, including a lack of procedural unification (or at least some harmonisation) in cases where European substantive law is to be applied. In the second part of the article, the content of the Commission’s proposal on ECN+ Directive is analysed in order to find whether new regulations are able to solve problems identified in the Polish application of the Treaty’s provisions. The article concludes with an overall assessment of the proposed Directive and a list of conditions for effective implementation of the Directive.\",\"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\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Market and Competition Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2018.327\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Market and Competition Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2018.327","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文旨在回答这样一个问题:欧盟委员会旨在授权成员国竞争管理机构成为更有效的执行者的提议(ECN+指令)是否实际上为第1/2003号条例的所有弱点带来了有效的解决方案,这些弱点影响了第101条和第102条TFEU在一些成员国(其中包括波兰,将作为一个参考点)的低效应用。文章的第一部分是对第1/2003号法规在波兰的适用情况的审查。有趣的是,它的执行开始与欧盟法律在波兰的适用时间一致,因为该国在该条例生效的同一天加入了欧盟。第1/2003号条例的问题在于,它似乎并没有加强国家执法者(包括NCAs和法院)对共同体竞争规则的执行。这种失败的原因主要在于法规本身所采用的原则的缺陷,包括在适用欧洲实体法的情况下缺乏程序统一(或至少一些协调)。在文章的第二部分,分析了欧盟委员会关于ECN+指令提案的内容,以发现新的法规是否能够解决波兰适用该条约规定时发现的问题。文章最后对拟议的指令进行了全面评估,并列出了有效实施该指令的条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Mind the Gap! ECN+ Directive Proposal on its Way to Eliminate Deficiencies of Regulation 1/2003: Polish Perspective
This article aims at answering the question whether the Commission’s proposal intended to empower Member States’ competition authorities to be more effective enforcers (ECN+ Directive) actually brings effective solutions to all weaknesses of Regulation 1/2003, which influenced an inefficient application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in some Member States (among them Poland, which will be taken as a point of reference). The first part of the article constitutes a review upon the application of Regulation 1/2003 in Poland. Interestingly, the beginning of its enforcement coincides with the total period of application of EU law in Poland, since the country joined the EU on the same day the Regulation entered into force. The problem with Regulation 1/2003 is that it does not seem to enhance the enforcement of the Community’s competition rules by national enforcers, including NCAs and courts. The reason for this failure lies inter alia in the deficiencies of the principles adopted in the Regulation itself, including a lack of procedural unification (or at least some harmonisation) in cases where European substantive law is to be applied. In the second part of the article, the content of the Commission’s proposal on ECN+ Directive is analysed in order to find whether new regulations are able to solve problems identified in the Polish application of the Treaty’s provisions. The article concludes with an overall assessment of the proposed Directive and a list of conditions for effective implementation of the Directive.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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