欧盟推动私人执行竞争法是否有一个连贯的目的?

Andreas Stephan
{"title":"欧盟推动私人执行竞争法是否有一个连贯的目的?","authors":"Andreas Stephan","doi":"10.38127/UQLJ.V37I1.4145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that the EU’s efforts to promote private enforcement in competition law, lack a coherent purpose. The drive to facilitate actions for damages was originally a response to the underdeveloped and diverging nature of private enforcement rules across its Member States. Enhancing deterrence (especially through stand-alone actions) constituted a primary objective at first, but was later abandoned for an emphasis on compensating injured parties. It is argued that the 2014 Damages Directive fails on both counts and may be harming enforcement overall.","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":"24 1","pages":"153-168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the EU's Drive for Private Enforcement of Competition Law Have a Coherent Purpose?\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Stephan\",\"doi\":\"10.38127/UQLJ.V37I1.4145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper argues that the EU’s efforts to promote private enforcement in competition law, lack a coherent purpose. The drive to facilitate actions for damages was originally a response to the underdeveloped and diverging nature of private enforcement rules across its Member States. Enhancing deterrence (especially through stand-alone actions) constituted a primary objective at first, but was later abandoned for an emphasis on compensating injured parties. It is argued that the 2014 Damages Directive fails on both counts and may be harming enforcement overall.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"153-168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38127/UQLJ.V37I1.4145\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38127/UQLJ.V37I1.4145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文认为,欧盟在促进竞争法私人执法方面的努力缺乏一个连贯的目的。促进损害赔偿诉讼的努力最初是对各会员国私人执法规则不发达和不同性质的反应。加强威慑(特别是通过单独行动)最初是一个主要目标,但后来由于强调赔偿受害方而被放弃。有人认为,2014年的损害赔偿指令在这两个方面都失败了,可能会损害整体的执法。
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
Does the EU's Drive for Private Enforcement of Competition Law Have a Coherent Purpose?
This paper argues that the EU’s efforts to promote private enforcement in competition law, lack a coherent purpose. The drive to facilitate actions for damages was originally a response to the underdeveloped and diverging nature of private enforcement rules across its Member States. Enhancing deterrence (especially through stand-alone actions) constituted a primary objective at first, but was later abandoned for an emphasis on compensating injured parties. It is argued that the 2014 Damages Directive fails on both counts and may be harming enforcement overall.
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
Robodebt and Novel Data Technologies in the Public Sector The Territorial Scope of Australia’s Unfair Contract Terms Provisions Regulating Decisions that Lead to Loss of Life in Workplaces Lending on the Edge Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019
×
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