Anastasios A. Antoniou

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 4 (2020), Ausgabe 1, Seite 23 - 26

Martin Gassler

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 4 (2020), Ausgabe 1, Seite 45 - 48

Case C-435/18 Otis GmbH and others v Land Oberösterreich and others, Judgement of the Court of Justice of 12 December 2019 On 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice (CJ) delivered another preliminary reference ruling that further strengthens private antitrust enforcement in the EU. The CJ followed Advocate General Kokott and ruled that even persons not acting as suppliers or purchasers on the market affected by the cartel can claim damages directly from cartel members. The judgement was delivered upon request by the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberste Gerichtshof) that struggled again – after its request for a preliminary ruling in connection with the same elevator cartel in 2014 that led to the Kone judgement – to apply national tort law that restricted liability of cartel members to only those suppliers and purchasers that are active on the relevant product and geographic market affect by the cartel.

Baskaran Balasingham

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 3 (2019), Ausgabe 4, Seite 363 - 370

Effectiveness and due process require careful balancing in order to safeguard a workable enforcement environment. On the one hand, the legal qualification of collusive conduct has been facilitated to some degree by a broad interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU and the use of presumptions. On the other hand, the burden and standard of proof, as well as the judicial review in relation to EU cartel proceedings satisfy the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article argues that the EU Courts have succeeded in establishing a proper balance between effective cartel enforcement and the protection of fundamental rights. Keywords: Article 101 TFEU, Cartel Enforcement, Effectiveness, Fundamental Rights, Judicial Review

Jan Blockx

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 3 (2019), Ausgabe 4, Seite 354 - 362

The arguments that have been made against using intent evidence in EU antitrust enforcement are not conclusive. On the contrary, because of the difficulties of conducting economic analyses of the effects of commercial conduct, it makes sense to look at the intentions of the persons engaging in that conduct to interpret their behaviour. Also for the punishment of anticompetitive behaviour, the presence or absence of anticompetitive intentions should be relevant. Keywords: Antitrust, Intent, Enforcement

Ignacio García-Perrote Martínez

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 3 (2019), Ausgabe 4, Seite 371 - 379

Private enforcers of competition law, especially the infringers’ direct and indirect purchasers claiming compensation for the damages suffered, must bring evidence of the existence of an infringement of competition law, the loss suffered, the causal relation between the infringement and the damage, and the specific quantum. The most challenging element to prove is the infringement itself. Given competition authorities’ investigation powers, their decisions become a crucial element to ease the claimants’ burden of proof and to make compensation possible. Keywords: Pre-emptive Administrative Ruling, Competition Authorities Decisions, Damages Actions, Competition Law Enforcement

András Tóth

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 2 (2018), Ausgabe 4, Seite 258 - 270

This article provides a practical overview of the most recent and interesting developments arising from the national enforcement of EU competition law. It is not only the preliminary rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union that highlight interesting competition cases taking place at national level. For example, as will be discussed in this article, other important developments such as the recognition of compliance programmes and the first pricing algorithm case also occurred at national level. It appears that national competition authorities (NCAs) are more opened to ensure consistency between competition and other policies, such as the protection of personal data (eg the Facebook case in Germany) and the promotion of small and medium sized enterprises. NCAs can more rapidly adapt to the changing competition policy context, as can be seen, for example, in their treatment of mergers involving targets not possessing high enough turnover but having significant market potential. The ECN+ Directive provides NCAs with a minimum common tool-kit and effective enforcement powers for the implementation of EU antitrust rules in many important areas. However, there are still significant areas (eg regarding the admissibility of criminal evidence and multiple filings) where further improvements would be desirable in the future. Keywords: Data Driven Economy, Multiple Merger Filing, Admissability of Criminal Evidences, European Competition Network (ECN), Cross-Border Enforcement of Competition Fines

Jeroen Dewispelaere, Joren Vuylsteke

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 2 (2018), Ausgabe 4, Seite 290 - 292