In June, the EC published a draft proposal intended to both increase private antitrust enforcement, esp. damages actions, as well as improve conformity in national courts. As our guest editor Andreas Reindl—who has organized a sterling group of contributors—says in his introduction, “When the Commission drafts legislation in a controversial area with no prior history of EU involvement, where the Commission has no particular expertise, and where first legislative efforts might be seen as needlessly encroaching on Member State prerogatives, one can expect that not every individual provision will be warmly welcomed by all stakeholders. The diversity of views expressed in this symposium and elsewhere, including the sometimes critical reactions to the Commission’s proposal, is therefore not particularly remarkable.” We hope this symposium will help sharpen and hone that diversity.
-
EU Private Enforcement Proposals
The European Commission’s Package on Private Enforcement in Competition Cases: Introduction to a CPI Antitrust Chronicle
What is remarkable, though, is that there appears to be no common understanding as regards the policy goals behind legislation on private competition law enforcement. Andreas Reindl (Leuphana University, Lneburg)
The Proposal for a Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions: The European Commission Sets the Stage for Private Enforcement in the European Union
It must be stressed that the focus of the Directive is on compensation, not on litigation. Daniele Calisti & Luke Haasbeek (DG Comp)
Two Concerns Regarding the European Draft Directive On Antitrust Damage Actions
Some of the measures proposed by the Commission are likely to have the opposite effect of discouraging the parties from reaching amicable settlements. Jeroen Kortmann & Rein Wesseling (Univ. of Amsterdam & Stibbe)
Disclosure of Leniency Documents in the United Kingdom: Is the Draft Directive Creating Barriers?
The revelation of documents in competition law proceedings is likely to be controversial in many Member States because ordering the defendant to release substantial and potentially damaging material is an alien concept in most EU civil procedure laws. Sebastian Peyer (University of Leicester)
The Damages Lie in the Details: Why the Proposed Directive Fails in Harmonizing Incentives to Sue Across the European Union
We argue that the EU Directive will potentially achieve its first goal, i.e. the Effectiveness Objective, but may fall short of the second one, the Harmonisation Objective. Hans Friederiszick (E.CA Economics & ESMT)
The Binding Nature of NCA Decisions in Antitrust Follow-on Litigation: Is EU Antitrust Calling For Affirmative Action?
By tipping the scale in favor of plaintiffs in private enforcement actions, Article 9 amounts to a sort of procedural affirmative action statute: as such, it is at odds with due process. Stefano Grassani (Pavia e Ansaldo)
