In the strive towards a highly competitive market, the European Commission has long promoted an extensive use of so-called private enforcement, where individuals claim their rights, as guaranteed by the acquis communautaire, before national courts. The incentive to litigate is, mostly, the right to receive damages for loss suffered due to another private party’s violation of the EU antitrust rules, established by the CJEU in its famous ruling in Courage, in 2001.          Lately, the Commission seems to believe that the aim of a more effective private enforcement of antitrust law justifies rather extensive intrusions into the internal legal systems of the Member States. In a White Paper of 2008, the Commission proposed several measures aimed at enhancing the possibilities for individuals to be awarded with compensation for having suffered from a breach of the antitrust rules. These measures include the harmonization of certain national procedural laws, to facilitate inter alia damages claims at a national level. One year later, in 2009, an internal document with a draft for a directive was leaked out from the Commission, which suggests that there are advanced plans for issuing a harmonizing legislation.          Extensive critique has been aimed at the Commission’s proposal, mainly on the basis that procedural rules should be left unaltered by the European Union. Procedural rules are often considered to be the result of careful considerations of specific domestic characteristics and problems, which over time have resulted in a well-balanced internal system based on legal traditions and culture. Even though national rules would still apply in purely domestic situations, it is said that the internal balance of the national procedural systems would be undermined if certain procedural rules were to be harmonized throughout the Union.          This thesis aims at analysing whether the aim of an effective private enforcement of Union competition law does justify a harmonization of procedural rules that could facilitate inter alia private damage claims before national courts. In the case of a confirmative answer, the work also aims at answering to the question of what form such a harmonization should take: should the Commission initiate a legislative process or should it be left to the CJEU to continue developing the state of law through sporadic rulings on the matter? Recourse is made throughout the work to several important general principles of Union law, such as the principles of national procedural autonomy, subsidiarity, and equality. / I sin strävan efter att åstadkomma en marknad med hög konkurrenskraft har Europeiska kommissionen länge förespråkat ett mer extensivt nyttjande av så kallad private enforcement (ung. privat genomförande) där individer åberopar sina rättigheter, som följer av acquis communataire, inför nationella domstolar. Incitamentet för att driva processer består i dessa fall mestadels av rätten att erhålla skadestånd för den skada som klaganden lidit på grund av en annan privat aktörs brott mot konkurrensreglerna, grundad av EU-domstolen (EUD) i målet Courage, 2001.          På senare tid tycks kommissionen anse att målet med en mer effektiv private enforcement rättfärdigar relativt djupa intrång i medlemsstaternas interna rättssystem. I en Vitbok från 2008 föreslog kommissionen flera medel för att förbättra möjligheterna för individer att erhålla kompensation för skada orsakad av konkurrensöverträdelser. Förslagen skulle innebära en harmonisering av vissa processuella regler för att underlätta bland annat skadeståndstalan på nationell nivå. Ett år efter Vitbokens publicering läckte ett annat dokument ut från kommissionen, innehållande ett utkast på ett direktiv som föreslår liknande regler som Vitboken. Detta tyder på att det finns långt skridna planer för att skapa en harmoniserande lagstiftning på EU-nivå.          Omfattande kritik har riktats mot kommissionens förslag, mestadels på grunden att processuella regler bör undanhållas från Europeiska Unionens inflytande. Processuella regler anses ofta vara en produkt av noggranna överväganden av nationella särdrag och problem, som under tidens gång lett till ett välbalanserat internt system baserat på gamla rättstraditioner och rättskultur. Trots att nationella regler skulle fortsätta att gälla för rent interna situationer, påstås det att den interna balansen inom de nationella processuella systemen skulle undergrävas vid en harmonisering.          Denna magisteruppsats syftar till att analysera huruvida målet med en effektiv private enforcement av Unionens konkurrensregler rättfärdigar en harmonisering av processuella regler, för att underlätta bland annat privata skadeståndstalan i nationella domstolar. Om så visar sig vara fallet skall arbetet även undersöka vilken form en sådan harmonisering borde ta: skall kommissionen initiera en lagstiftningsprocess eller skall det vara upp till EUD att fortsätta utveckla det relevanta rättsläget? Under arbetet används genomgående några viktiga generella EU-rättsliga principer som referensramar. Dessa är bland annat principen om nationell processautonomi, subsidiaritet och likabehandling.

No description available.

EU competition law rhetoric attributes particular importance to ‘consumer interest’. However, despite these often repeated pronouncements, final consumers and their respective interests play only an ancillary role in EU competition law enforcement. This thesis embarks from this observation with the aim of strengthening the importance attributed to ‘consumer interest’ in the application and enforcement of EU competition law. Taking into account the difficulty in adopting a ‘final consumer welfare standard’ as the substantive enforcement standard in EU competition law, the thesis shall explore an alternative route and focus predominantly on consumer participation in private competition law enforcement. The analysis is conducted at three levels. First normative justifications for the advocated consumer involvement are provided (‘added value spectrum’ of consumer participation); these include deterrence of competition law violations and compensation to affected consumers (principal aims), as well as aligning the substantive enforcement standard with policy pronouncements, legitimise EU competition policy and contribute to empowering and informing EU consumers (derivative aims). Second, practical proposals in relation to remedial and procedural measures enabling consumer involvement are formulated. Third, in so far as institutional and political limitations impede the adoption of effective measures in the field of private enforcement, alternative routes of consumer participation in public competition law enforcement (that possess the potential to promote the ‘added value spectrum’) are also examined. In light of the above, practical proposals will also be formulated.

In this dissertation the opening up to competition of the ferry route between the cities Elsinore in Denmark and Helsingborg in Sweden is analysed. The Danish government was forced by a decision adopted by the Competition Directorate (DG IV) in the European Commission to open up this ferry route for ferry operators other than the state owned Danish operator, Danish Rail. Accordingly, the main case analysed in this dissertation illustrates the relationship between the competition authorities in the European Union (EU), empowered with supranational legislative powers through article 90 in the Treaty, and the member states. In the literature, DG IV, the service within the Commission mainly responsible for competition policy, is often described as an autonomous body. The main aim of this dissertation is to assess the autonomy of DG IV in its enforcement and implementation of EU competition policy; and, as the presentation of the main case above indicates, this question is discussed in the context of the introduction of EU competition policy into the domain of public sector monopolies. Two main broad approaches are adopted in analysing this area. First, a systems approach is set out, in which the EU competition policy-making regime is analysed by focusing on its development, legal foundation, and practical formulation in general and in relation to public sector monopolies. The aim here is primarily to reveal the nitty gritty of this regime, which till now has been only fragmentally described in the literature, and to ease the modelling of the main case study undertaken in this dissertation. The Elsinore case is then analysed by adopting three well known perspectives for analysing EU decision-making: an interest group approach; an interorganisational approach; and finally, an institutional approach. The analysis's main observation is that an institutional approach to EU decisionmaking seems to provide us with a more thorough understanding of the processes focused on here than the two other approaches, and that this, at least, should lead us to rephrase the notion of an autonomous DG IV in this area.

The thesis deals with selected competition issues that occur within the dynamic and high-risk market of shipping, examining competition law issues in liner consortia and tramp pools through an EU Competition Law prism. These partial function joint ventures are the predominant form of alliances in the maritime sector. Liner trade is primarily organised in consortia, while pools are the most common form of tramp shipping alliance. The thesis' synthetic and analytic research incorporates the methodology and structure used in its competition law bibliography, while the legal analysis is informed with sources from microeconomics and maritime economics. The issues that are examined in relation to shipping include the four main areas of competition law: the relevant market, indicators of dominance, compliance of the alliance agreements with Article 101 TFEU and abusive conducts by dominant undertakings under Article 102 TFEU. The development of the above areas aims to demonstrate the interaction of sector particularities with competition law as a whole.

In the past, an Irish barrister and arbitrator James Bridgeman remarked that the arbitration of competition law is a meeting of two black arts. This perception has not changed since and yet, the adjudication of anti-competitive agreements in arbitration is an everyday event of real life. This thesis, after a brief summary of history of arbitrability of competition law, picks specific issues closely tied to current practical problems that arbitrators must face. First, whether arbitrators should consider themselves as being under obligation to raise competition issues of their own motion (ex officio) during arbitration proceedings, secondly, whether national courts of the EU Member States must automatically set arbitral awards in breach of competition rules aside and thirdly, whether arbitrators are in a good position to address complex antitrust questions properly and whether they can receive some help from the official competition authorities entrusted with primary enforcement of antitrust law. Mainly EU law will be covered here albeit with few brief excursions into particular problems of national law of the Czech Republic, to which this thesis endorses relevant solutions.

The submitted work concerns itself with the topic of protection of consumers and their welfare as an objective of the EU competition policy, as well as with the regulation of EU competition law and the way in which this objective has changed over time, both in fact and in legal perception. The first, theoretical, part of this thesis explains concepts essential for this analysis - the concept of "consumer" and its specifics in the context of the EU competition law, the definition of "consumer welfare" and the general relationship between consumer protection law and competition law. The second part deals with the historical development of consumer protection as an objective of EU competition policy. Particular attention is paid to the progress made in understanding the importance of this objective over time. An emphasis is placed on it in the political declarations of the Commission's representatives and subsequently, whether and how these political declarations and efforts were reflected in the actually adopted documents of competition law. This section therefore analyses the processes that formed the ideological basis for consumer protection under competition law and how they were reflected in formal sources of law. Although, at the doctrinal and political level, the parameter of consumer protection and...

No description available.

The aim of the thesis is to examine whether the prohibition of overcompensation in the Antitrust Damages Directive is compatible with the EU legal and normative framework. To this end, the analysis is carried out on two levels. First, the rationale for damages in the selected jurisdictions (England, France and Germany) and in the EU is examined to test the main underpinning justification for the prohibition of overcompensation in the Antitrust Damages Directive, i.e. the 'European legal tradition argument'. Second, the thesis addresses broader constitutional implications that underpin the debate on the desirability of the pursuit to prohibit overcompensation in the EU. These entail questions pertaining to the adoption of such measures and, thus, exploring whether the EU has the legitimacy to legislate and the related question of competence and the choice of the appropriate legal basis. The argument to be advanced in this thesis is that the aim of achieving a sufficient level of deterrence with awarding damages for EU competition law infringements stems from the very conceptual basis in which the right to damages is grounded - the principle of effective judicial protection and the principle of effectiveness. Thus, as the analysis reveals, the prohibition of overcompensation is inconsistent with the EU legal framework, since it has potential to jeopardise the deterrent or dissuasive function of antitrust damages actions. The prohibition of overcompensation has significantly contributed to the business-biased gist of the Directive, and thus to breaking the link between the rationale for the right to damages for EU competition law infringements, the legal basis and the content of the Directive. The thesis ultimately argues that the Directive's prohibition is incompatible with the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality, and to a considerable extent inconsistent with the EU's legal and normative framework.

This thesis seeks to address the question: to what extent is the EU Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions sufficiently framed in its terms to achieve its underlying aims and objectives? It is argued that the Directive has one overriding goal: to make it easier for the victims of infringements of EU competition law - typically end-consumers - to claim compensation from the infringers. It is also argued that the authors of the Directive present a convincing case that one of the main reasons for the lack of victims claiming - let alone being awarded - compensation, prior to the adoption of the Directive, is weaknesses with the existing legal framework governing competition law damages actions at national level. The thesis examines four of the main areas covered by the Directive: disclosure of evidence; the effect of NCA decisions; limitation periods; and indirect purchaser standing and the passing-on defence. In each case, the relevant rules from the Directive are set out and an assessment is carried out. A crucial part of this assessment consists of seeking to ascertain the problems facing potential claimants prior to the adoption of the Directive and asking whether the Directive appears well-framed in terms of addressing those problems. As well as considering case law of the EU courts, the legal rules and jurisprudence of two leading Member States - the United Kingdom and Italy - are used as primary case studies in carrying out this assessment. The assessment of the measures considered in this thesis is a nuanced one. It is argued that the measures set out in Chapter II of the Directive on disclosure of evidence are generally well-framed and beneficial for claimants, crucially showing a keen understanding of the relationship between private and public enforcement. The assessment of Article 9, on the effect of NCA decisions is much less positive. It is argued that the measures are drafted in vague terms and compare unfavourably with existing rules and practices in the two case-study Member States. It is argued that while the measures set out in Article 10 on limitation periods do represent an improvement for claimants in certain respects, there are a number of key issues that they fail to address. Finally, the assessment of Articles 12 to 15 on indirect purchaser standing and the passing-on defence is positive in some respects, but it is argued that many of the measures do not adequately address the issues that they purport to tackle. It is also argued that these measures are unlikely to bear fruit, without certain issues which are not covered by the Directive, being addressed. Ultimately it is concluded that the Directive makes some important strides towards the realisation of its underlying aims and objectives, but that many of the measures examined are found to be too vague, too weak or too incomplete to fully address the key issues and that the Directive also fails to address some important issues at all.