PL EN


2015 | 8(12) | 161-180
Article title

Collecting Evidence Through Access to Competition Authorities’ Files – Interplay or Potential Conflicts Between Private and Public Enforcement Proceedings?

Authors
Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Information asymmetry between claimants seeking damages for competition law violations and the alleged infringing undertaking(s) is a key problem in the development of private antitrust enforcement because it often prevents successful actions for damages. The Damages Directive is a step forward in the facilitation of access to evidence relevant for private action claims. Its focus lies on, inter alia, 3rd party access to files in proceedings conducted by national competition authorities (NCAs). The harmonization was triggered by the inconsistencies in European case-law and yet the uniform rules on access to documents held in NCAs’ files proposed in the Damages Directive seem to follow a very stringent approach in order to protect public competition law enforcement. The article summarizes the most relevant case-law and new provisions of the Damages Directive and presents practical issues with respect to its implementation from the Polish perspective.
Year
Volume
Pages
161-180
Physical description
Dates
published
2015-12-31
Contributors
  • Graduate of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, holder of a Postgraduate Diploma in EU Competition Law, King’s College, University of London; legal advisor with the Warsaw Bar of Legal Advisors and senior associate at Dentons, anna.gulinska@dentons.com
References
  • Bernatt M. [in:] Skoczny T. (ed.), Komentarz do artykułu 73 ustawy o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów [Commentary to Article 73 of the Act on competition and consumer protection], Warsaw, Legalis 2015.
  • Beumer A.E., Karpetas A., The disclosure of files and documents in EU cartel cases: fairytale or reality? (2012) 8(1) European Competition Journal.
  • Błachucki M., ‘Dostęp do informacji przekazywanych Komisji Europejskiej i Prezesowi UOKiK w trakcie procedury łagodzenia kar pieniężnych (leniency)’ [‘Access to information submitted by applicants to the European Commission and President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection under leniency programmes’] (2015) 5 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy.
  • Callol P., ‘The European Court of Justice acknowledges the need to weigh the different interests at stake when granting access to documents containing leniency applications in the context of civil claims for damages, in line with US courts (Pfleiderer) (2011) June 14 e-Competitions Bulletin Article N° 36988.
  • Jurkowska-Gomułka A., ‘Między efektywnością walki z kartelami a efektywnością dochodzenia roszczeń z tytułu naruszenia Article 101 ust. 1 TFUE. Glosa do wyroku TS z dnia 14 czerwca 2011 r., C-360/09, Pfleiderer AG v. Bundeskartellamt’ [‘Between effectiveness of the fight against cartels and the effectiveness of claims for infringement of Article 101 Sec. 1 TFEU. Commentary to the judgment of the CJ of June 14, 2011, C-360/09, Pfleiderer AG v. Bundeskartellamt’] (2012) 7 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy.
  • Jurkowska-Gomułka A., Publiczne i prywatne egzekwowanie praktyk ograniczających konkurencję [Public and private enforcement of practices restricting competition], Warsaw 2013.
  • Kohutek K., ‘Glosa do wyroku Trybunału z dnia 6 czerwca 2013 r. w sprawie C-536/11 Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde przeciwko Donau Chemie AG’ [‘Commentary to the judgment of the Court of June 6, 2013, in case C-536/11 Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde vs Donau Chemie AG’], LEX el. 2014.
  • Kohutek K. [in:] Kohutek K., Sieradzka M., Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz [Act on competition and consumer protection. Commentary], Warsaw 2014.
  • Matei E., ‘The EU Court of Justice decides that the Austrian Consent Rule allows no possibility for the national courts of weighing up the interests involved and it was precluded by the effectiveness principle (Donau Chemie)’ (2013) June 6 e-Competitions Bulletin Article N° 52707.
  • Pietrzykowski K., Metodyka pracy sędziego w sprawach cywilnych [Methodology of a judge in civil cases], Warsaw 2012.
  • Silton H.M., Davis C.S., Levisohn D., ‘Pfleiderer AG v. Bundeskartellamt: A Step Forward in Efforts to Obtain Discovery from European Commission Antitrust Proceedings’ (2011) 19(6) Westlaw Journal.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
ISSN
1689-9024
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-48ac71c0-cb67-41a3-8177-120609b39bf3
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.