违反欧共体竞争法与损害赔偿私人诉讼——逐底竞争还是提高执法效率?

A. Balde
{"title":"违反欧共体竞争法与损害赔偿私人诉讼——逐底竞争还是提高执法效率?","authors":"A. Balde","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2237884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The EU Competition Law and its central and so uniform enforcement by the EU Commission and the ECJ have taken the important part in the expansion of the number of companies, business, economic growth, and in the effective functioning of the other EU policies, including the formation of the European Internal Market. With changes of the EC Competition policy and so giving the greater importance to the economic efficiency in assessing the potential breach of the EC Competition Law and, at the same time, the decision of the EU Commission to focus primarily on the hard-core cartels have lead to the, so called, modernization of the EC Competition Law. By enabling national competition authorities and national courts to judge upon actions preventing, restricting or distorting the EC Competition Law, without at the same time considering that the EC Competition policy is not merely a policy of promoting competitiveness and consumer welfare, without considering that the Member States have different attitudes towards which policies should be preserved in the greater extent, without considering that the law regulating the enforcement procedure in the Member States varies, that there is not established the fully cooperation between national courts and national competition authorities in this matter, and that there is not preserved the uniform level of legal certainty and protection of those being injured by anticompetitive practices, the questions that rise up are the following. Where, i.e. in which country, the party injured could sue for damages? Is there possible to bring the tort action on the basis of the principle of the most convenient forum? Is it possible to avoid the situation in which the injuring undertaking could be the party in the proceedings going on in more than one Member State at the same time? How the party claiming damages could efficiently prove the anticompetitive action if the part of it is taking place within another jurisdiction or the evidence of anticompetitive effect is located within the territory of the other Member State(s)? How to solve the situation in which the outcome of the case could differ depending on the country where the proceeding is taking place? How to enforce the final decision in the case where injuring undertaking is performing anticompetitive actions outside the jurisdiction of adjudicative authority causing anticompetitive effects within it? How to enforce the final decision if undertaking’s assets are located within the other Member States’ jurisdiction or even outside the EU? Without analyzing these issues it is hard to predict if the modernization of the EC Competition Law, in the way proposed by the EU Commission, is such that would contribute to the greater efficiency of its enforcement or would it cause that injuring undertakings would be tempted to move their activities to the jurisdiction with less strict competition policy and its laws not guaranteeing fully efficient private enforcement.","PeriodicalId":130313,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Antitrust (European) (Topic)","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Breaching the EC Competition Law and Private Action for Damages – Race to the Bottom or Improvement of the Efficiency of Enforcement?\",\"authors\":\"A. Balde\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2237884\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The EU Competition Law and its central and so uniform enforcement by the EU Commission and the ECJ have taken the important part in the expansion of the number of companies, business, economic growth, and in the effective functioning of the other EU policies, including the formation of the European Internal Market. With changes of the EC Competition policy and so giving the greater importance to the economic efficiency in assessing the potential breach of the EC Competition Law and, at the same time, the decision of the EU Commission to focus primarily on the hard-core cartels have lead to the, so called, modernization of the EC Competition Law. By enabling national competition authorities and national courts to judge upon actions preventing, restricting or distorting the EC Competition Law, without at the same time considering that the EC Competition policy is not merely a policy of promoting competitiveness and consumer welfare, without considering that the Member States have different attitudes towards which policies should be preserved in the greater extent, without considering that the law regulating the enforcement procedure in the Member States varies, that there is not established the fully cooperation between national courts and national competition authorities in this matter, and that there is not preserved the uniform level of legal certainty and protection of those being injured by anticompetitive practices, the questions that rise up are the following. Where, i.e. in which country, the party injured could sue for damages? Is there possible to bring the tort action on the basis of the principle of the most convenient forum? Is it possible to avoid the situation in which the injuring undertaking could be the party in the proceedings going on in more than one Member State at the same time? How the party claiming damages could efficiently prove the anticompetitive action if the part of it is taking place within another jurisdiction or the evidence of anticompetitive effect is located within the territory of the other Member State(s)? How to solve the situation in which the outcome of the case could differ depending on the country where the proceeding is taking place? How to enforce the final decision in the case where injuring undertaking is performing anticompetitive actions outside the jurisdiction of adjudicative authority causing anticompetitive effects within it? How to enforce the final decision if undertaking’s assets are located within the other Member States’ jurisdiction or even outside the EU? Without analyzing these issues it is hard to predict if the modernization of the EC Competition Law, in the way proposed by the EU Commission, is such that would contribute to the greater efficiency of its enforcement or would it cause that injuring undertakings would be tempted to move their activities to the jurisdiction with less strict competition policy and its laws not guaranteeing fully efficient private enforcement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":130313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Antitrust (European) (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"100 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Antitrust (European) (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2237884\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Antitrust (European) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2237884","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧盟竞争法及其由欧盟委员会和欧洲法院统一执行,在扩大企业数量、促进经济增长和其他欧盟政策的有效运作,包括形成欧洲内部市场方面发挥了重要作用。随着欧共体竞争政策的变化,在评估潜在的违反欧共体竞争法的行为时更加重视经济效率,同时,欧盟委员会主要关注核心卡特尔的决定导致了所谓的欧共体竞争法的现代化。通过使国家竞争当局和国家法院对阻止、限制或歪曲欧共体竞争法的行为作出判断,而没有同时考虑到欧共体竞争政策不仅仅是促进竞争力和消费者福利的政策,没有考虑到成员国对哪些政策应该在更大程度上得到保留有不同的态度,如果不考虑各成员国规范执法程序的法律各不相同,国家法院和国家竞争管理机构之间在这一问题上没有建立充分的合作,并且没有保留统一水平的法律确定性和对反竞争行为受害方的保护,那么出现的问题如下。在哪里,即在哪个国家,受害方可以提起损害赔偿诉讼?是否有可能根据最方便法院的原则提起侵权诉讼?是否有可能避免造成损害的行为可能成为同时在一个以上会员国进行的诉讼的一方的情况?如果反竞争行动的一部分发生在另一个司法管辖区,或者反竞争影响的证据位于其他成员国的领土内,要求损害赔偿的一方如何有效地证明反竞争行动?如何解决案件的结果可能因诉讼发生地的不同而不同的情况?损害经营者在裁判机关管辖范围外实施反竞争行为,在裁判机关管辖范围内造成反竞争影响的,如何执行终审决定?如果企业的资产位于其他成员国的管辖范围内,甚至在欧盟以外,如何执行最终决定?在不分析这些问题的情况下,很难预测欧盟竞争法的现代化是否会以欧盟委员会提出的方式有助于提高其执行效率,或者是否会导致损害企业将其活动转移到竞争政策不那么严格的司法管辖区,其法律不能保证充分有效的私人执行。
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
Breaching the EC Competition Law and Private Action for Damages – Race to the Bottom or Improvement of the Efficiency of Enforcement?
The EU Competition Law and its central and so uniform enforcement by the EU Commission and the ECJ have taken the important part in the expansion of the number of companies, business, economic growth, and in the effective functioning of the other EU policies, including the formation of the European Internal Market. With changes of the EC Competition policy and so giving the greater importance to the economic efficiency in assessing the potential breach of the EC Competition Law and, at the same time, the decision of the EU Commission to focus primarily on the hard-core cartels have lead to the, so called, modernization of the EC Competition Law. By enabling national competition authorities and national courts to judge upon actions preventing, restricting or distorting the EC Competition Law, without at the same time considering that the EC Competition policy is not merely a policy of promoting competitiveness and consumer welfare, without considering that the Member States have different attitudes towards which policies should be preserved in the greater extent, without considering that the law regulating the enforcement procedure in the Member States varies, that there is not established the fully cooperation between national courts and national competition authorities in this matter, and that there is not preserved the uniform level of legal certainty and protection of those being injured by anticompetitive practices, the questions that rise up are the following. Where, i.e. in which country, the party injured could sue for damages? Is there possible to bring the tort action on the basis of the principle of the most convenient forum? Is it possible to avoid the situation in which the injuring undertaking could be the party in the proceedings going on in more than one Member State at the same time? How the party claiming damages could efficiently prove the anticompetitive action if the part of it is taking place within another jurisdiction or the evidence of anticompetitive effect is located within the territory of the other Member State(s)? How to solve the situation in which the outcome of the case could differ depending on the country where the proceeding is taking place? How to enforce the final decision in the case where injuring undertaking is performing anticompetitive actions outside the jurisdiction of adjudicative authority causing anticompetitive effects within it? How to enforce the final decision if undertaking’s assets are located within the other Member States’ jurisdiction or even outside the EU? Without analyzing these issues it is hard to predict if the modernization of the EC Competition Law, in the way proposed by the EU Commission, is such that would contribute to the greater efficiency of its enforcement or would it cause that injuring undertakings would be tempted to move their activities to the jurisdiction with less strict competition policy and its laws not guaranteeing fully efficient private enforcement.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Calculating Cartel Damages Data Collaboratives, Competition Law and the Governance of EU Data Spaces The Effectiveness of European Antitrust Fines Unfair Pricing and Standard Essential Patents A Reform Too Few or a Reform Too Many: Judicial Review, Appeals or a Prosecutorial System under the UK Competition Act 1998?
×
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