公共政策作为拒绝执行欧盟反垄断损害赔偿裁决的理由

Q2 Social Sciences Oslo Law Review Pub Date : 2018-05-09 DOI:10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2018-01-01
Alla Pozdnakova
{"title":"公共政策作为拒绝执行欧盟反垄断损害赔偿裁决的理由","authors":"Alla Pozdnakova","doi":"10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2018-01-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Brussels I Regulation is crucial for the effectiveness of EU competition law in the field of private enforcement because it provides a legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which includes antitrust damages cases. However, the interaction between the rules governing private enforcement of EU competition law and the Regulation is unclear. This article discusses one of the issues arising from this interaction, namely, whether the public policy objection envisaged in the Regulation may be invoked to refuse recognition and enforcement of an antitrust damages award. The argument advanced in this article is that the public policy exception can be invoked successfully in the case of a serious violation of the procedural rights of the defendant. By contrast, the public policy exception is generally not applicable if enforcement of a foreign award may lead to infringement of substantive national provisions, even those of fundamental importance for the Member State in which enforcement is sought. This would go against the rights and principles of EU competition law, such as the principle of effectiveness and the right to full compensation for antitrust-related damages.","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":"5 1","pages":"4-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public policy as a ground for refusal to enforce EU antitrust damages awards\",\"authors\":\"Alla Pozdnakova\",\"doi\":\"10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2018-01-01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Brussels I Regulation is crucial for the effectiveness of EU competition law in the field of private enforcement because it provides a legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which includes antitrust damages cases. However, the interaction between the rules governing private enforcement of EU competition law and the Regulation is unclear. This article discusses one of the issues arising from this interaction, namely, whether the public policy objection envisaged in the Regulation may be invoked to refuse recognition and enforcement of an antitrust damages award. The argument advanced in this article is that the public policy exception can be invoked successfully in the case of a serious violation of the procedural rights of the defendant. By contrast, the public policy exception is generally not applicable if enforcement of a foreign award may lead to infringement of substantive national provisions, even those of fundamental importance for the Member State in which enforcement is sought. This would go against the rights and principles of EU competition law, such as the principle of effectiveness and the right to full compensation for antitrust-related damages.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36793,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oslo Law Review\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"4-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oslo Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2018-01-01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oslo Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2018-01-01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《布鲁塞尔一号条例》对欧盟竞争法在私人执法领域的有效性至关重要,因为它为承认和执行民事和商事判决(包括反垄断损害案件)提供了法律框架。然而,欧盟竞争法私人执法规则与《条例》之间的相互作用尚不清楚。本文讨论了这种互动产生的一个问题,即是否可以援引《条例》中设想的公共政策异议来拒绝承认和执行反垄断损害赔偿裁决。本文提出的论点是,在严重侵犯被告程序权利的情况下,可以成功援引公共政策例外。相比之下,如果外国裁决的执行可能导致违反实质性国家条款,甚至是对寻求执行的成员国具有根本重要性的条款,则公共政策例外通常不适用。这将违背欧盟竞争法的权利和原则,如有效性原则和对反垄断相关损害获得全额赔偿的权利。
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
Public policy as a ground for refusal to enforce EU antitrust damages awards
The Brussels I Regulation is crucial for the effectiveness of EU competition law in the field of private enforcement because it provides a legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which includes antitrust damages cases. However, the interaction between the rules governing private enforcement of EU competition law and the Regulation is unclear. This article discusses one of the issues arising from this interaction, namely, whether the public policy objection envisaged in the Regulation may be invoked to refuse recognition and enforcement of an antitrust damages award. The argument advanced in this article is that the public policy exception can be invoked successfully in the case of a serious violation of the procedural rights of the defendant. By contrast, the public policy exception is generally not applicable if enforcement of a foreign award may lead to infringement of substantive national provisions, even those of fundamental importance for the Member State in which enforcement is sought. This would go against the rights and principles of EU competition law, such as the principle of effectiveness and the right to full compensation for antitrust-related damages.
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
Oslo Law Review
Oslo Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Norwayʼs New Transparency Act: An Overview in Light of International Trends A Sky Full of Stars, Constellations, Satellites and More!Legal Issues for a ‘Darkʼ Sky Liability for Shareholders and Directors of Limited Liability Companies, for CSR-Related Breaches Liability for Shareholders and Directors of Limited Liability Companies, for CSR-Related Breaches The Norwegian Legislation on Social Sustainability: An Overview of the Transparency Act
×
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