Francesco Rizzuto

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 7 (2023), Issue 1, Page 64 - 75

Case C-267/20 Volvo and DAF Trucks, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 This case note examines the important implications for private enforcement follow-on damages actions for infringements of EU competition law. In the Volvo and DAF Trucks ruling the CJEU has clarified a number of the key provisions of the Damages Directive that urgently required clarification given the pressures on national courts faced with increasing numbers of follow-on damages claims. It is significant ruling because it provides national courts with clear guidelines on the limitation periods and the essential information elements required by claimants for bringing actions, the temporal application of substantive and procedural provisions, as well as their definition, and confirmed that parties injured by a cartel do not have to prove the harm resulting from the infringement. Harm is presumed once an infringement as confirmed by public enforcers has taken place.

Francesco Rizzuto

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 7 (2023), Issue 3, Page 193 - 199

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 in Case C-385/21 Zenith Media Communications SRL v Consiliul Concurenţei . National rules for calculating fines for infringements of competition rules which require national competition authorities to only consider an undertakings' total annual turnover, without factoring in evidence that that turnover does not reflect an undertakings' true economic situation, is contrary to Union law. In this regard, the Zenith Communications ruling reduces the discretion of the Member States in the setting of fines.

Francesco Rizzuto

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 6 (2022), Issue 2, Page 154 - 166

Case C-117/20 bpost SA and Case C-151/20 Nordzucker AG, Zudzucker AG, Agrana Zucker GmbH, Judgments of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 22 March 2022 The Court of Justice of the European Union in two Grand Chamber rulings has overturned its established case law on the conditions that must be satisfied in order for the protection against double jeopardy provided by Article 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights to be applicable. The controversial and doctrinally weak third condition concerning the identity of the legal interest , in addition to the identity of the facts and persons, has now been abandoned. It has been replaced by the legal exception rule provided for in Article 52 of the Charter. In essence, this means that the double jeopardy rule will not be infringed by enforcers of EU Competition Law in parallel or subsequent enforcement proceedings including complementary proceedings and penalties based on distinct legal grounds as long as the requirements of Article 52, as clarified by the Court are respected. The rulings thus ends EU Competition law enforcement exceptionalism compared two other areas of EU law regarding the conditions that must be met in order for the protection against ‘criminal’ proceedings and penalties to be satisfied.

Francesco Rizzuto, Monika Lynch

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 2, Page 162 - 171

Case C-857/19 Slovak Telekom a.s. v Protimonopoly Urad Slovenskej Republiky, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 February 2021 In this ruling the Court of Justice of the European has established two key rules that taken together with previous rulings of the Court amount to rendering virtually redundant the principle of ne bis in idem as a defense in the parallel enforcement of competition law in the European Union under Regulation 1/2003. First, it has clarified that the same abusive conduct may constitute a series of separate offences where the abuse concerns distinct products and prosecuting and sanctioning them separately would not be incompatible with the principle of ne bis in idem. Secondly, it ruled that where the Commission relieves a national competition authority of a case, only the Commission decision prevails regardless of the stage or status of proceedings conducted by the national competition authority. The implications for the liability of undertakings may be far-reaching.

Francesco Rizzuto

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 1, Page 64 - 75

Case C-378/19 The President of the Slovak Republic, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 The Court of Justice clarifies the meaning of the institutional and functional independence of national regulatory authorities in a way that circumscribes the autonomy of the Member States regarding the organisational design and operation of regulatory and adjudicatory bodies. In does so by implicitly transposing a number of principles from the normative framework of independence it has established to define the requirements of judicial independence. It is submitted that by doing so it has therefore defined a broad EU law normative framework of what constitutes independence that is applicable to both judicial and regulatory bodies. These requirements must be met by these bodies generally but in particular when called to exercise their roles falling within the scope of the duties conferred on them by EU Law and in particular, in order to comply with the obligation to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law set down in Article 19(1) second paragraph TFEU.

Francesco Rizzuto, Monika Ewa Lynch

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 2, Page 150 - 163

Case C-307/18 Generics UK Ltd and Others v Competition and Market Authority, Judgment of 30 January 2020

Francesco Rizzuto, Monika Ewa Lynch

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 4 (2020), Issue 3, Page 236 - 242

Case C-617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2019 The Court of Justice confirms the continued importance of national competition law as a distinct legal interest to protect. The infringing undertakings can face distinct penalties for the same infringement if an NCA can show that the harm caused to national and EU markets is distinct in its temporal and jurisdictional effects.

Francesco Rizzuto

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 3 (2019), Issue 2, Page 80 - 99

Regulation 1/2003 left it to the Member States to determine the investigative and procedural powers of national competition authorities (NCAs). As a consequence, the enforcement of EU competition law in the Member States has not developed uniformly. Directive 2019/1 puts in place obligations on the Member States to harmonise the status and powers of NCAs in order to create a more uniform competition law single market regulatory space. In short, it aims to establish a level competition law enforcement field relating to investigative and fining powers, resources and independence, leniency, and rules governing mutual assistance between NCAs in the context of the operation of the European Competition Network. Many of the provisions are either closely aligned or indeed replicate the investigative and decision-making powers granted to the Commission under Regulation 1/2003 and the institutional resources and autonomy of national regulatory bodies established under EU sectoral legislation. This Directive in combination with the Private Damages Directive constitutes a significant push towards the federalisation of EU competition law enforcement in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Keywords: European Competition Network, ECN Plus Directive, National Competition Authorities