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.

Czech courts regularly deal with a question of so-called just satisfaction; particularly, when, on what basis, and how much should be awarded. Just satisfaction, as a form of damages, is primarily compensatory. However, there are some indications that it is perfectly legitimate for law of damages to pursue also another aims than compensation such as prevention or punishment. This view was recently upheld by the Czech Constitutional Court and the Highest Court of the Czech Republic. According to doctrinal approach, it is the domain of punitive or exemplary damages as a specific Anglo-American instrument that covers these two principles (prevention and punishment). Still, the Czech Civil courts consistently refuse to award exemplary damages albeit they do not provide us any sound argumentation. The author of this article suggests it is inaccurate and only partial understanding of exemplary damages that causes the current judicial refusal of them. While focusing on current English and Czech law, the author in his article describes exemplary damages in great detail with respect to their theoretical, conceptual and systematic position. Subsequently, he shows that the negative attitude of the Czech courts is not always appropriate. First, looking at relevant case law, the article characterises what the...

This thesis reports on the economic analysis of trade secrets via data collected from prosecutions under the U.S. Economic Espionage Act (EEA.) Ratified in 1996, the EEA increases protection for trade secrets by criminalizing the theft of trade secrets. The empirical basis of the thesis is a unique database constructed using EEA prosecutions from 1996 to 2008. A critical and empirical analysis of these cases provides insight into the use of trade secrets. The increase in the criminal culpability of trade secret theft has important impacts on the use of trade secrets and the incentives for would-be thieves. A statistical analysis of the EEA data suggest that trade secrets are used primarily in manufacturing and construction. A cluster analysis suggests three broad categories of EEA cases based on the type of trade secret and the sector of the owner. A series of illustrative case studies demonstrates these clusters. A critical analysis of the damages valuations methods in trade secrets cases demonstrates the highly variable estimates of trade secrets. Given the criminal context of EEA cases, these valuation methods play an important role in sentencing and affect the incentives of the owners of trade secrets. The analysis of the lognormal distribution of the observed values is furthered by a statistical analysis of the EEA valuations, which suggests that the methods can result in very different estimates for the same trade secret. A regression analysis examines the determinants of trade secret intensity at the firm level. This econometric analysis suggests that trade secret intensity is negatively related to firm size. Collectively, this thesis presents an empirical analysis of trade secrets.

This thesis discusses the responsibility of and risk for infestations of spruce bark beetle. The spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus, is a natural part of the Swedish forest ecosystem but causes severe financial damage in forestry. Since 2018, the spruce bark beetle infestations have been substantial in Sweden. The first task of the thesis is to evaluate the balance between the forest production interests and the environmental interests, based on the legal regulation of spruce bark beetle control. Production and environment are the equal aims of the Swedish Forestry Act. The regulation of spruce bark beetle control differs depending on whether the forest is in a conservation area or not. For example, owners of forests outside conservation areas are obliged to take care of damaged, fresh wood of spruce and pine, while such an obligation in general does not exist in conservation areas. In this evaluation, I conclude that the balance between the two interests in the spruce bark beetle regulation is good as a whole.  The second question of the thesis is the legal allocation of risk for spruce bark beetle infestations. In this investigation, it is examined whether established law presents a possibility to claim damages for spruce bark beetle infestations that may derive from an adjacent forest. The conclusion drawn is that the regulation of compensation for certain kinds of environmental damage in the Swedish Environmental Code probably would not be applicable as a legal basis for such a claim. By contrast, neighbour law and the Swedish Torts Act could be used as the basis of an action for damages. However, to prove causality regarding the origins of a specific infestation might bring problems, which altogether means that an action for damages faces considerable difficulties. Therefore lastly, some alternative ways of allocating the risk for spruce bark beetle infestations are presented. / I denna uppsats diskuteras ansvar och risk för granbarkborreangrepp. Granbarkborren, Ips typographus, är en naturlig del av skogens ekosystem men orsakar stora ekonomiska skador i skogsbruket. Sedan 2018 har granbarkborreangreppen i Sverige varit omfattande.  Uppsatsens första uppgift är att utifrån regleringen av granbarkborrebekämpning i skogen utvärdera avvägningen mellan produktions- och miljöintresset, som är skogsvårdslagens jämställda mål. Den rättsliga regleringen av bekämpning av granbarkborrar skiljer sig åt beroende på om skogen är skyddad eller oskyddad. Bland annat är ägare av oskyddad skog ålagda att ta hand om skadat, färskt barrvirke, medan en sådan skyldighet ofta saknas i skyddade områden. I utvärderingen kommer jag fram till att avvägningen mellan de två intressena över lag är god i granbarkborreregleringen.  Den andra frågan i uppsatsen är fördelningen av risk för granbarkborreangrepp. För att undersöka det utreds om det enligt gällande rätt är möjligt att få skadestånd för granbarkborreangrepp som kan härstamma från närliggande skyddad eller oskyddad skog. Slutsatsen är att 32 kap. miljöbalken förmodligen inte skulle vara tillämplig, medan däremot grannelagsrätten och skadeståndslagen kan läggas till grund för en sådan talan. Att bevisa orsakssambanden kan dock innebära problem, vilket sammantaget gör att en skadeståndstalan för granbarkborreangrepp från närliggande skog möter ansenliga hinder. Sist presenteras därför några alternativa sätt att fördela risken för barkborreangrepp.