Catarina Vieira Peres de Fraipont, Inês Neves

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 6 (2022), Issue 1, Page 98 - 103

Case C‑882/19 Sumal, S.L. v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L., Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 By judgment of 6 October 2021, in the Sumal case, the Court of Justice ruled that the victim of an anticompetitive infringement may bring an action for damages, either against a parent company who has been addressed by an infringement decision of the European Commission, or against a subsidiary which is not referred to in that decision. In order to do so, those two entities have to be part of the same economic unit and there has to be a specific link between the economic activity of that subsidiary and the subject matter of the infringement for which the parent company was held to be responsible.

Egzone Osmanaj, Adnan Jashari

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 6 (2022), Issue 3, Page 222 - 236

The purpose of this article is to do a comparative analysis of the competition law in the EU, Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Albania, regarding the regulation of anti-competitive agreements. The article focuses on the treatment and analysis of three basic notions: agreement, concerted practice, and decisions by associations of undertakings. The methodology is mainly based on analysis of the relevant legal framework of the countries included in this study, ie the article uses the method of analysis of legislation and the comparative method. The article also uses the method of case law analysis, which makes it possible to analyse the EU case law approach in relation to the concept of prohibited agreements. Specifically, we assess the approach of the European Commission and the EU Courts, from which the main criteria that must be taken into consideration when defining the notion of prohibited agreements result. The findings of the legislative and comparative analysis show that there is a high approximation between the legal framework of Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Albania, with that of the EU, in the field of prohibited agreements. Keywords: agreements between undertakings; concerted practices; decisions by associations of undertakings; Kosovo; North Macedonia; Albania

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.