Informacja

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

English (EN)·Polski (PL)·Yкраїнський (UK)
Przejdź do strony domowej biblioteki Centralna Biblioteka Wojskowa Link otwiera się w nowym oknie Logo biblioteki Prolib Integro - strona głównaCentralna Biblioteka Wojskowa

Wyszukujesz frazę "antitrust damage" wg kryterium: Temat

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-9 z 9
    Tytuł:
    Passing-on of Overcharges and the Implementation of the Damages Directive in CEE Countries
    Autorzy:
    Moisejevas, Raimundas
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/530033.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2017-06-30
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
    Tematy:
    antitrust damage
    consumers
    passing-on of overcharges
    Lithuania
    private enforcement of competition law
    antitrust damage claims
    Directive on antitrust damages actions
    calculation of damages
    Opis:
    The article focuses on the concept of passing-on of overcharges and the peculiarities of its regulation by the Damages Directive. The Damages Directive obliges Member States to ensure that the defendant in an action for damages may invoke the passing-on defence. Moreover, the Directive establishes the new framework and the main principles that govern the application of the passing-on defence. The national case law on passing-on is very insignificant in Central and Eastern European countries and many questions are expected to be raised in the courts of the CEE Member States. While discussing the concept of passing-on in the Damages Directive, a lot of emphasis should be paid to the issue of causation. Causation will definitely be the subject of most of the questions in cases when an indirect purchaser will bring a claim for damages. Causation may be tricky when an indirect purchaser claims it suffered an ‘overcharge harm’ because of passing-on. In most cases, the issue of causation will be decided mainly by national courts based on national procedural rules. Depending on the situation, passing-on may be used as a basis for the claim (as a ‘sword’) or as a defence (as a ‘shield’). It could be used as a basis for the claim by an indirect purchaser, in case s/he has suffered any harm because of the illegal actions of a cartelist or a dominant company. At the same time, it could be used as a defence by the infringer against a claim for damages. The article also analyses the specifics of the implementation of the Directive into the national laws of CEE Member States.
    Źródło:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2017, 10(15); 133-146
    1689-9024
    2545-0115
    Pojawia się w:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Development of Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Lithuania
    Autorzy:
    Moisejevas, Raimundas
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/529902.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2015-06-30
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
    Tematy:
    antitrust damage
    antitrust damage claims
    Directive on antitrust damages actions
    evidence
    follow-on action
    Lithuania
    nullity
    private enforcement of competition law
    public enforcement of competition law
    Opis:
    The article reviews the jurisprudence of Lithuanian courts on private enforcement of competition law and identifies the main obstacles for the development of this practice. The analysis of the jurisprudence makes it possible to summarise that: most rulings of the Lithuanian courts relate to cases on the abuse of dominance; usually, dominant undertakings were allegedly applying discriminatory conditions towards the injured party and; most of the claims were presented as follow-on actions after a decision of the Competition Council. The courts held that damages caused by a breach of competition law have to be recovered in accordance with Lithuania’s main principles of civil responsibility. At the same time, the courts made it clear that their jurisprudence is based on the rulings of European Courts and the main principles of EU competition law. The main obstacles for the successful development of antitrust damages claims in Lithuania are, inter alia: complexity of competition cases; difficulty in obtaining substantive evidence; proving a consequential relationship and; high legal costs. The article also analyses substantial and procedural provisions of Lithuanian legislation that regulate the submission of antitrust damage claims.
    Źródło:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2015, 8(11); 35-52
    1689-9024
    2545-0115
    Pojawia się w:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    The Damages Directive and Consensual Approach to Antitrust Enforcement
    Autorzy:
    Moisejevas, Raimundas
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/530189.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2015-12-31
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
    Tematy:
    antitrust damage
    consumers
    arbitration
    alternative dispute resolution
    mediation
    consensual dispute resolution
    Lithuania
    private enforcement of competition law
    antitrust damage claims
    Directive on antitrust damages actions
    consensual settlements
    Opis:
    The article focuses on the novelties introduced by the Damages Directive in the field of consensual settlements of disputes concerning private enforcement. The Damages Directive obliges Member States to ensure that the limitation period for bringing an action for damages is suspended for the duration of any consensual dispute resolution process. The Directive also establishes the main principles that govern the effect of consensual settlements on subsequent actions for damages. Since the EU framework for consensual dispute resolution of private enforcement disputes is quite new, many issues must still be solved in Member States’ practice. While analysing consensual dispute resolution in private enforcement cases, particular interest should be paid to mediation and arbitration as a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Mediation is often used in competition law litigation. In a mediation process, parties are subject to fewer legal costs than in litigation and arbitration. It may thus be concluded that consensual dispute resolution is usually a faster way to receive compensation. However, voluntary arrangements and ADR in competition law still raise many problems concerning both procedural and substantial legal acts.
    Źródło:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2015, 8(12); 181-194
    1689-9024
    2545-0115
    Pojawia się w:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Private Enforcement of Competition Law – the Case of Estonia
    Autorzy:
    Sein, Karin
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/530240.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2013-12-01
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
    Tematy:
    antitrust damage claim
    collective redress
    Estonia
    evidence
    private enforcement of competition law
    public enforcement of competition law
    Opis:
    Jurisprudence on private enforcement of competition law has so far been almost non-existent in Estonia. Most cases where competition law issues are raised within the context of damage claims are solved by out-of-court settlements. One of the main reasons for this scarcity is the fact that this is a fairly unfamiliar field for Estonian lawyers, attorneys and judges. The first reason for the low number of private enforcement of competition law cases in Estonia is therefore lacking awareness and legal uncertainty. The other key barrier lies in burden of proof issues associated with damage claims. It has proven very difficult in practice for an injured person to prove that he/she sustained damages as a result of a competition law infringement; even more so to prove the actual extent of such damages. There is no juridical practice yet on how to calculate business losses and judges face considerable difficulties when confronted with this task. Another problem lies in the availability of evidence. As discovery is not possible in Estonia, its civil procedure rules make it difficult for claimants to obtain evidence necessary to prove the facts underlying their claims. Estonian law does not provide for a special procedure for antitrust damage claims – there are no collective claims, no class actions, nor actions by representative bodies or other forms of public interest litigation (no collective redress). It is thus only possible to file damage claims arising from competition law infringements either in normal civil proceedings or as a civil claim within the framework of criminal proceedings on a competition law crime. The need for collective redress has not yet been subject to a legal debate at the national level, and there has not been a single private enforcement case opened by a consumer in Estonia so far. The only Supreme Court case in existence in this field, which was decided in 2011, has cleared the basis and availability of damage claims for competition law infringement. It has shown, at the same time, the many problems connected to calculating damages in this context.
    La jurisprudence relative à l’application privée du droit de la concurrence a été jusqu’à présent presque absente en Estonie. La plupart des cas où les questions de droit de la concurence sont soulevées dans le cadre de demandes d’indemnisation, sont résolus par des règlements à l’amiable. L’une des raisons principales de cette pénurie est le fait que c’est un domaine assez inconnu pour les avocats, les procureurs et les juges estoniens. La première raison pour le faible nombre de cas de l’application privée du droit de la concurrence en Estonie est donc la manque de conscience et l’incertitude juridique. L’autre obstacle majeur réside dans des questions relatives à la charge de preuve liées à des demandes d ‘indemnisation. Il s’est avéré très difficile en pratique pour une personne blessée à prouver qu’il/elle a subi des dommages à la suite d’une infraction au droit de la concurrence ; plus encore à prouver l’étendue exacte de tels dommages. Il n’existe pas encore de pratique juridique sur la façon de calculer les pertes commerciales. Alors les juges font face à des difficultés considérables lorsqu’ils sont confrontés à cette tâche. Un autre problème réside dans la disponibilité de la preuve. A cause du fait que la découverte n’est pas possible en Estonie, ses règles de procédure civile rendent l’obtention des preuves nécessaires pour soutenir les faits qui prouvent des revendications soumis par des demandeurs difficile. La législation estonienne ne prévoit pas de procédure spéciale pour les demandes de dommages antitrust – il n’y a pas de revendications collectives, aucune action de classe, ni des measures prises par les organes représentatifs ou d’autres formes de litiges d’intérêt public (pas de resours collectif). Il n’est donc possible que de déposer des demandes d’indemnsation en cas d’infraction au droit de la concurrence soit dans les procédures civiles normales, soit comme une action civile dans le cadre d’une procédure pénale sur un crime de droit de la concurrence. La nécessité de recours collectif n’a pas encore fait l’objet d’un débat juridique au niveau national, et il n’a pas eu en Estonie un seul cas de l’application privée ouverte par un consommateur jusqu’à présent. Le seul cas qui a été présenté à la Cour suprême en ce domaine (le jugement a été prononcé en 2011), a autorisé la base et la disponibilité des demandes d’indemnisation pour violation du droit de la concurrence. Il a présenté en même temps les problèmes nombreux reliés à la calculation des dommages dans ce contexte-là.
    Źródło:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2013, 6(8); 129-139
    1689-9024
    2545-0115
    Pojawia się w:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Slovenia: A New Field to Be Developed by Slovenian Courts
    Autorzy:
    Brkan, Maja
    Bratina, Tanja
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/529970.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2013-12-01
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
    Tematy:
    antitrust damage
    collective redress
    evidence
    nullity
    private enforcement of competition law
    public enforcement of competition law
    Slovenia
    Opis:
    This contribution aims to demonstrate the legal framework that can shape and influence private enforcement in Slovenia. This includes, in particular, conditions for damage claims, collective redress mechanisms, legal costs and fees as well as discovery and burden of proof. It is shown which legislative changes may be needed in order to improve the effectiveness of private enforcement and the practical obstacles that will have to be overcome in the future. Furthermore, the article analyses the jurisprudence of Slovenian courts concerning private enforcement. Although there was practically no jurisprudence in this area only a few years ago, Slovenian courts have now ruled on a few such cases already. The number of private enforcement proceedings will most likely increase in the future. Therefore, it can be stated that private enforcement of competition law is an area that is slowly, but steadily, gaining importance in the Slovenian legal system.
    La présente contribution vise à démontrer le cadre juridique susceptible de former et d’influencer la mise en œuvre des règles de concurrence de l'UE à l'initiative de la sphère privée (« private enforcement ») en Slovénie. Les conditions pour des recours en dommages et intérêts, des mécanismes des recours collectifs, des règles sur des dépens ainsi que la divulgation des preuves et la charge de la preuve y sont analysés. La contribution démontre quelles modifications législatives seraient nécessaires et quelles obstacles pratiques devront être surmontés à l’avenir afin d’améliorer l’effectivité de ce type de mise en œuvre du droit de la concurrence. La jurisprudence des juridictions Slovènes dans ce domaine y est également analysée. Même si cette jurisprudence a été pratiquement inexistante il y a quelques années, les juridictions Slovènes ont, jusqu’à présent, rendu déjà quelques arrêts dans ce domaine et il est à attendre que le nombre de ce type d’affaires accroîtra dans le futur. Ainsi, il est possible de constater que l’importance de ce type de mise en œuvre du droit de la concurrence augmentera lentement mais sûrement dans l’ordre juridique slovène.
    Źródło:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2013, 6(8); 75-106
    1689-9024
    2545-0115
    Pojawia się w:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Polish Courts: The Story of an (Almost) Lost Hope for Development
    Autorzy:
    Jurkowska-Gomułka, Agata
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/530095.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2013-12-01
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
    Tematy:
    antitrust damage
    collective redress
    evidence
    nullity
    private enforcement of competition law
    Polska
    public enforcement of competition law
    Opis:
    The article reviews judgments of Polish courts on private enforcement of competition law between 1993 and 2012. A quantitative analysis of this jurisprudence shows that very few cases of that type exist at all. Their qualitative characteristics illustrate that: none of them referred to consumers; none of the claims was a 'pure' damage claim; all of these cases focused on partial or general nullity of contracts concluded as a result of an anticompetitive practice; almost all of them concerned an abuse of a dominant position; only one referred to competition-restricting agreements. The relevant jurisprudence largely focused on the binding force of a prior decision of the Polish competition body upon civil courts. Even if the fact that some cases of this type were at all record might suggest that there is a potential for developing private enforcement of antitrust in Poland, nothing like this actually happened. Unfortunately, the Act on Collective Redress (in force since July 2010) has not contributed to a growth in the number of consumers (or any other entities) engaging in court disputes with undertakings restricting competition.
    L’article passe en revue les jugements des tribunaux polonais sur l’application privée du droit de la concurrence entre 1993 et 2012. Une analyse quantitative de cette jurisprudence montre que très peu de cas de ce type existent. Leurs caractéristiques qualitatives montrent que : aucun d’entre eux ne concernait les consommateurs ; aucune des revendications ne constituait une demande d’indemnisation dans le sense exacte ; tous ces cas axaient sur la nullité partielle ou générale des contrats conclus à la suite d‘une pratique anticoncurrentielle ; la quasi-totalité d’entre eux concernaient un abus de position dominante ; une seule visait aux accords restreignant la concurrence. La jurisprudence se concentrait surtout sur la force contraignante d’une décision préalable de l’organe polonais de la concurrence prise par des tribunaux civils. Même si le fait que certains cas de ce type-là étaient notés, il pourrait suggérer qu’il existe un potentiel de développement de l’application privée de la concurrence en Pologne – rien que cela ne s’est réellement passé. Malheureusement, la Loi sur les recours collectif (en vigueur depuis juillet 2010) n’a pas contribué à une augmentation du nombre de consommateurs (ou d’autres entités) s’engageant dans des litiges judiciaires avec les entreprises qui restreignent la concurrence.
    Źródło:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2013, 6(8); 107-128
    1689-9024
    2545-0115
    Pojawia się w:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Proving the Grounds for Compensation – Reflections on Private Enforcement in the Polish Cement Cartel Case. Case Comment to the Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Cracow of 10 January 2014 (Ref. No I ACa 1322/13)
    Autorzy:
    Knapp, Magdalena
    Korycińska-Rządca, Paulina
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/530355.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2017-06-30
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
    Tematy:
    private enforcement of competition law
    antitrust damage claims
    quantification of harm
    passing-on of overcharges
    burden of proof
    binding decision
    final decision of a competition authority
    Opis:
    Despite the fact that the right to full compensation of harm caused by the breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU was confirmed in European Union jurisprudence many years ago, and that actions for damages for competition law infringements were admissible in Poland also before the transposition of Directive 2014/104/EU (hereinafter, the Damages Directive), the number of reported court cases regarding private enforcement of competition law is very low. The commented judgment of the Court of Appeals in Cracow (Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie) of 10 January 2014 is one of the very few judgments of Polish courts regarding actions for damages for an infringement of competition law.
    Źródło:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2017, 10(15); 251-268
    1689-9024
    2545-0115
    Pojawia się w:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Antitrust Private Enforcement – Case of Poland
    Autorzy:
    Jurkowska, Agata
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/530057.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2008-12-01
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
    Tematy:
    private and public enforcement
    private parties
    antitrust damages
    court proceedings
    collective redress
    damage actions
    Opis:
    This article presents the main difficulties surrounding private enforcement of antitrust law in Poland, currently the key implementation problem in the field of antitrust law. Whereas the basic standards concerning the public pillar of antitrust enforcement have already been established, either in the European Community (EC) or in its Member States, the private pillar of antitrust enforcement has not yet been fully developed. The fact that private enforcement of antitrust law is possible, and in fact equal, to public enforcement is not yet commonly recognized. In response to the European Commission’s White Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, private enforcement of antirust law is presently under intense discussion in EC Member States. This article should be considered as one of the contributions to this debate. It presents the main legal framework of private enforcement of antitrust law in Poland. In order to do so, it directly refers to the Polish Act on competition and consumer protection, the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code. This article also discusses Polish case law in this area. It aims to assess whether existing Polish legal provisions are, in fact, sufficient to ensure effective private enforcement of Polish as well as EC antitrust law. The article refers to the main proposals of the European Commission’s White Paper. It is concluded that private enforcement of antitrust law is indeed possible in Poland on the basis of currently applicable procedural rules, even if there are no special instruments designed to facilitate it. However, it cannot be expect that in the current legal climate, private parties will eagerly and frequently apply for damages in cases of a breach of Polish antitrust law. Antitrust cases are special in many aspects and, thus, they require specific solutions in procedural terms. This article aims to pinpoint those areas, where the Polish law needs to be changed in order to develop and promote private enforcement of antitrust law in Poland.
    Źródło:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2008, 1(1); 59-79
    1689-9024
    2545-0115
    Pojawia się w:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    How to Throw the Baby out with the Bath Water. A Few Remarks on the Currently Accepted Scope of Civil Liability for Antitrust Damages
    Autorzy:
    Jurkowska-Gomułka, Agata
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/530217.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2015-12-31
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
    Tematy:
    antitrust civil liability
    damage
    Directive 12014/104
    joint and several liability
    immunity recipient
    private enforcement of competition law
    public enforcement of competition law
    umbrella pricing
    Opis:
    The Damages Directive introduces the right to ‘full compensation’ and the principle of ‘joint and several liability’ for antitrust damages (Article 3(1) and Article 11(1) respectively). The Directive does not determine the type of damage that can be awarded in civil proceedings. In theory, there are thus no barriers to establish punitive, multiple or other damages. In practice, it is rather unlikely that such types of damages will be awarded after the implementation of the Directive due to the ban placed on overcompensation in its Article 2(3). This paper will try to decode the concept of ‘full compensation’ and ‘joint and several liability’ in light of the Damages Directive as well as EU jurisprudence. An adequate understanding of these terms is without a doubt one of the key preconditions of correctly implementing the Directive and, consequently, a condition for making EU (competition) law effective. While on the one hand, a limitation of the personal scope of civil liability can currently be observed in EU law (covering both legislation and case law), a broadening of its subject-matter scope is visible on the other hand. With reference to the personal scope of civil liability, the Directive itself limits the applicability of the joint and several responsibility principle towards certain categories of infringers: small & medium enterprises (Article 11(2)) and immunity recipients in leniency (Article 11(3)). Considering the subject-matter scope of civil liability, the acceptance by the Court of Justice of civil liability for the ‘price umbrella effect’ should be highlighted. In addition, the principle of the ‘passing-on defence’ can also be regarded as a manner of broadening the scope of civil liability for antitrust damage (Article 12–16). The paper will present an overview of the scope of civil liability for antitrust damages (in its personal and subject-matter dimension) in light of the Directive and EU jurisprudence. The paper’s goal is to assess if the applicable scope will in fact guarantee the effective development of private competition law enforcement in EU Member States. This assessment, as the very title of this paper suggests, will be partially critical.
    Źródło:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies; 2015, 8(12); 61-78
    1689-9024
    2545-0115
    Pojawia się w:
    Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-9 z 9

      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