The recent reform in European antitrust enforcement is embodied in Regolation n. 1/2003/
Ce and related Communications. Since 2004 when it came into force, some crytical
assessments can already be made. The work starts from some technical analysis of the
reform, under a procedural perspective, to assess the proceedings’ real impact on parties’
rights and to criticize its limits. Decentralisation has brought about more complicacies,
since community procedural systems are not harmonized, neither in their administrative
rules, nor in their civil proceedings, which are all involved in the European antitrust
network. Therefore, antitrust proceedings end un as being more jurisdictional in their
effects than in their guarentees, which is a flaw to be mended by legislators. National laws
shoud be harmonized, community law should be clarified and the system should turn more
honestly towards a rationalized jurisdiction-cented mechanism. Otherwise, parties defense
rights and the overall efficiency are put into doubt. Italy is a good exemple of how many
colmlicacies can outburst from national procedures and national decentralised application.
An uncertain pattern of judicial control, together with unclear relationships among the
institutions to cooperate in the antitrust network can produce more problems than they aim
to solve. As to the private enforcement, Regulation n.1 does not even attempt to give
precise regulation to this underdeveloped sector. A continual comparison with U.S. system
has brought the Commission to become aware both of the risks and of the advanteges of
an increased civil antitrust litigation in fronto of national judges. In order to substain a
larger development of this parallel and, presently, difficult way of judicial compensation, it
is presently ongoing a consultation among states to find suitable incentives to make
private enforcement more appealing and effective. The solution to this lack of private
litigation is not to be sought in Regulation n. 1 which calls into action national legislators
and proceedures to implement further improvements. As a conclusion, Regulation n. 1 is
the outpost of an ambitious community design to create an efficient control mechanism
over antitrust violations. It focuses on Commission proceedings, powers and sanctions in
order to establish deterrence, then it highlights civil litigation perspectives and it involves
directly states into antitrust application. It seems that more could be done to technically
shape administrative proceedings in a more jurisdictionally oriented form, then to clarify
respective roles and coordination mecanisms in order to prevent difficulties easy to forsee.
Some of jurisprudential suggestions have been accepted, but much more is left to be done
in the future to improve european antitrust enforcement system.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:unibo.it/oai:amsdottorato.cib.unibo.it:770 |
| Date | 19 June 2008 |
| Creators | Buttazzi, Barbara <1973> |
| Contributors | Biavati, Paolo |
| Publisher | Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna |
| Source Sets | Università di Bologna |
| Language | Italian |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Doctoral Thesis, PeerReviewed |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds