欧盟竞争法：公权和私权的执行 EU Competition Law Lecture Public and Private Enforcement
合集下载
相关主题
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Application of 101/102by national courts • Power to apply Art. 101 & 102 TFEU [formerly 81/82 EC] • National courts primarily give effect to Articles 101 & 102 by – granting injunctions, – finding contracts to be void, – awarding damages. • EU competition rules are rules of public policy: national courts are obliged to apply them even if not invoked by parties ECJ, C‐430/93 and C‐431/93 – van Schijndel • Obligation to apply Articles 101/102 if agreement or practice is capable of affecting trade between Member States (Art. 3 of Reg. 1/2003)
Court of Justice & Acquis (cont’d)
Acquis communautaire: • Principles of equivalence and of effectiveness – Indirect purchaser standing – Limitation periods – Access to evidence • Full compensation excludes caps for the amount of compensation • “Binding effect” of Commission decisions (Article 16(1) of Regulation 1/2003)
The relationship between public and private enforcement
Damages actions and cooperation mechanisms
Outline
• 1. Private enforcement and the EU right to damages – acquis communautaire and open questions • 2. Regulation 1/2003: mechanisms of cooperation between the Commission and national courts • 3. Case study – issues in private enforcement • 4. Policy developments: quantification and collective redress
1. Private enforcement and the EU right to damages acquis communautaire and open questions
1. Private enforcement and the EU right to damages acquis communautaire and open questis – damages actions
* Articles [101] and [102] produce direct effects in relations between individuals, and create rights that national courts must safeguard (BRT v Sabam, 1974) *Articles [101] and [102] are a matter of public policy which must be automatically applied by national courts (Eco Swiss, 1999) * Any individual can rely on a breach of Article [101] [and 102] EC before a national court (Courage v Crehan, 2001) *Any individual can claim compensation for the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship between that harm and the prohibited agreement or practice. (Manfredi, 2006) * In the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive directly from Community law, provided that such rules comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
Court of Justice & Acquis
• Case C‐453/99 Courage and Crehan & Joined Cases C‐295/04 to C‐298/04 Manfredi “the full effectiveness of Article 101 […] would be put at risk if it were not open to any individual to claim damages for loss caused to him by a [such an infringement]” • Right to compensation for antitrust harm is guaranteed by the Treaty
Court of Justice & Acquis (cont’d)
Acquis communautaire: • Principles of equivalence and of effectiveness – Indirect purchaser standing – Limitation periods – Access to evidence • Full compensation excludes caps for the amount of compensation • “Binding effect” of Commission decisions (Article 16(1) of Regulation 1/2003)
The relationship between public and private enforcement
Damages actions and cooperation mechanisms
Outline
• 1. Private enforcement and the EU right to damages – acquis communautaire and open questions • 2. Regulation 1/2003: mechanisms of cooperation between the Commission and national courts • 3. Case study – issues in private enforcement • 4. Policy developments: quantification and collective redress
1. Private enforcement and the EU right to damages acquis communautaire and open questions
1. Private enforcement and the EU right to damages acquis communautaire and open questis – damages actions
* Articles [101] and [102] produce direct effects in relations between individuals, and create rights that national courts must safeguard (BRT v Sabam, 1974) *Articles [101] and [102] are a matter of public policy which must be automatically applied by national courts (Eco Swiss, 1999) * Any individual can rely on a breach of Article [101] [and 102] EC before a national court (Courage v Crehan, 2001) *Any individual can claim compensation for the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship between that harm and the prohibited agreement or practice. (Manfredi, 2006) * In the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive directly from Community law, provided that such rules comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
Court of Justice & Acquis
• Case C‐453/99 Courage and Crehan & Joined Cases C‐295/04 to C‐298/04 Manfredi “the full effectiveness of Article 101 […] would be put at risk if it were not open to any individual to claim damages for loss caused to him by a [such an infringement]” • Right to compensation for antitrust harm is guaranteed by the Treaty