Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "private enforcement of competition law" wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5
Tytuł:
The Interaction of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Lithuania
Autorzy:
Stanikunas, Rimantas Antanas
Burinskas, Arunas
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1395542.pdf
Data publikacji:
2015-12-31
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
Tematy:
antitrust damages actions
private enforcement of antitrust rules
competition law
leniency programme
Opis:
This paper provides a study of the interaction between public and private enforcement of Lithuanian antitrust law. The study refers to the Damages Directive. It has been found that private enforcement depends greatly on public enforcement of competition law. Therefore, their compatibility and balance are of great importance to antitrust policy. The Lithuanian NCA prioritises cases where an economic effect on competition does not have to be proven. This creates uncertainty about the outcome of private enforcement cases. Private enforcement in Lithuania is also in need of detailed rules on the identification of harm and causality. The analysis reveals how challenging it can be to estimate and prove harm or a causal link in private enforcement cases. Support from the NCA is therefore exceedingly needed. Moreover, even though the use of the leniency programme helps, it remains insufficient to solve the problem of under-deterrence. However, measures introduced by the Damages Directive do not make the leniency programme safe.
Źródło:
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2015, 8(12); 237-258
1689-9024
2545-0115
Pojawia się w:
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Polish Leniency Programme and its Intersection with Private Enforcement of Competition Law
Autorzy:
Rumak, Ewelina
Sitarek, Piotr
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/530375.pdf
Data publikacji:
2009-12-01
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
Tematy:
competition law
leniency
whistle-blowing
cartels
private enforcement
discovery
protection of applications
follow-on actions
scope of damages
Opis:
This paper is devoted to the Polish leniency programme, including the conditions of obtaining lenient treatment and the applicable procedure. The type, scope and form of information that must be submitted are commented on as well as the marker system and summary applications. The intersection of the leniency scheme with private enforcement of antitrust rules is discussed in detail. Special attention is devoted to the possible ways in which private antitrust plaintiffs might access information submitted to the UOKiK by leniency applicants. Thoroughly analysed are the rules regulating the possibility of obtaining relevant documents from the UOKiK and from the defendant in the course of civil proceedings as well as the status of the administrative decision in subsequent civil litigation. The paper covers also the scope of the leniency recipient’s civil liability and touches upon the possible ways in which it could be limited to enhance the effectiveness of the leniency scheme. Some suggestions de lege ferenda are also provided concerning the means of increasing this effectiveness without prejudice to the private parties’ right to compensation.
Źródło:
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2009, 2(2); 99-123
1689-9024
2545-0115
Pojawia się w:
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
The Escalators’ Series. Season: Private Enforcement. Episode: About the One that was not an Undertaking on the Relevant Market. Case Comment to Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 December 2019, Case C-435/18
Autorzy:
Dobosz, Kamil
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2159074.pdf
Data publikacji:
2020-12-18
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
Tematy:
damages
private enforcement
Article 101 TFEU
preliminary ruling
competition law
national civil law
principle of effectiveness
more economic
approach
Opis:
This case-note offers comments to the judgement of the Court of Justice in another escalators’ case and its potential implications. Given that the preliminary questions rather entail obvious response, the ruling goes beyond expectations. Its reasoning is not based on the necessity to cope with specific national obstacles that was predominantly utilized in face of private enforcement cases. Instead the Court of Justice held that genuinely Article 101 TFEU implies that, probably, any injured party will be entitled to act as a claimant in damages litigation. No room for national legal specificities was left then. Furthermore, the case comment argues that its side back is more economic approach return to the mainstream debate. Aside these and other insights, some misgivings are presented in a context of a certain noticeable tendency in terms of the fashion in which the Court of Justice in genere handles with the cases.
Ce commentaire analyse l’arrêt de la Cour de justice dans la « Escalators’ Series » et ses implications potentielles. Comme les questions préjudicielles comportment plutôt des réponses claires, l’arrêt va au-delà des attentes. Son raisonnement n’est pas basé sur la nécessité de faire face à des obstacles nationaux spécifiques qui ont été principalement utilisés dans des affaires privée. Au contraire, la Cour de justice a estimé que l’article 101 du TFUE implique véritablement que toute partie endommagée sera en droit d’agir en tant que demandeur dans un litige de dommages et intérêts. Il n’y avait pas de place pour les spécificités juridiques nationales. En outre, le commentaire de l’affaire fait valoir que cette decision implique un retour à une approche plus économique dans le débat général. Ertaines réserves sont présentées dans le contexte d’une certaine tendance perceptible en ce qui concerne la manière dont la Cour de justice traite généralement les affaires. En outre, le commentaire de l’affaire fait valoir qu’il implique un retour au débat général avec une approche plus économique. Par ailleurs, certaines réserves sont présentées dans le cadre d’une certaine tendance perceptible en ce qui concerne la manière dont la Cour de justice traite en général les affaires.
Źródło:
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2020, 13, 22; 255-270
1689-9024
2545-0115
Pojawia się w:
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
What Do Limitation Periods for Sanctions in Antitrust Matters Really Limit?
Autorzy:
Blažo, Ondrej
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/530322.pdf
Data publikacji:
2011-11-30
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
Tematy:
competition law
antitrust procedure
sanctions
administrative responsibility
Slovakia
EU law
limitation period
criminal law
private enforcement
legal certainty
safeguards
powers of competition authority
European Commission
Opis:
Limitation periods represent a legal safeguard for a person who has once broken the law in order not to be put at risk of sanctions and other legal liabilities for an indefinite amount of time. By contrast, public interest can sometimes require that a person who has committed a serious breach of law cannot benefit from limitation periods and that it is necessary to declare that the law had indeed been infringed and that legal liability shall be expected irrespective of the passage of time. This article aims to answer the question whether limitation periods for sanctions attached to competition restricting practices by Slovak competition law also limit the powers of its competition authority to declare the illegality of illicit behaviour or to prohibit it. Although this question can arise, and has done so already, as a defence in antitrust proceedings, as well as the fact that an answer to this question can potentially, as well as actually, affect rights of undertakings which have broken competition rules, Slovak jurisprudence cannot be seen as explicit in answering this question.
Les délais de prescription représentent une garantie juridique pour éviter que celui qui a violé la loi soit pour toujours exposé à la contrainte d’une sanction ou d’un autre type de responsabilté juridique. Toutefois, dans certains cas, il est dans l’intérêt public que la personne qui a gravement enfreint la loi ne puisse pas bénéficier du délai de prescription et qu’il soit possible de constater la violation du droit et d’engager la responsabilité juridique. Le présent article essaie de répondre à la question fondamentale, celle de savoir si les délais de prescription prévus, dans le droit slovaque actuel, pour infliger des sanctions pour accords limitant la concurrence ou pour abus de position dominante sont, également, en situation de limiter la compétence de l’autorité slovaque de la concurrence de constater l’illégalité d’une démarche d’une entreprise ou sa compétence d’interdire une telle démarche. Même si cette question peut être posée, ou a déjà été posée, en défense contre les démarches anti-cartel et la réponse à la question peut, potentiellement mais aussi réellement, avoir une influence sur les droits de l’entreprise qui a violé les règles de concurrence, la jurisprudence slovaque donne une réponse claire à cette question.
Źródło:
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2012, 5(7); 79-103
1689-9024
2545-0115
Pojawia się w:
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Provisions of the Damages Directive on Limitation Periods and their Implementation in CEE Countries
Autorzy:
Vlahek, Ana
Podobnik, Klemen
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/530172.pdf
Data publikacji:
2017-06-30
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
Tematy:
limitation of antitrust damages claims
limitation
limitation periods
suspension of limitation
interruption of limitation
competition law
antitrust
liability for damages
Directive 2014/104/EU
CEE countries
private enforcement of antitrust
Opis:
The article analyses the provisions on limitation of antitrust damages actions set out in Directive 2014/104/EU on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union. It presents (draft) implementing legislation of CEE countries from the perspective of their general rules on limitation, and the problems the Member States have faced in the process of transposing the Directive into their national legal systems. Within that, focus is placed upon the analysis of the types of limitation periods, their length and their suspension or interruption. In addition, the authors present the effects of the new limitation regime on the balance between the interests of the claimants and of the defendants, as well as on the relation between public and private antitrust enforcement.
Źródło:
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2017, 10(15); 147-176
1689-9024
2545-0115
Pojawia się w:
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies