Compensatory Collective Redress: Will It Be Part of Private Enforcement of Competition Law in CEE Countries?

• Authors: Piszcz Anna
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article aims to compare and evaluate solutions with regard to compensatory collective redress existing in CEE countries. The author will attempt to illuminate obstacles and challenges to using collective redress as an avenue for antitrust enforcement in CEE countries, as well as possible advantages of the scrutinised legal frameworks. Besides focusing on national provisions, the article will draw on provisions of the Damages Directive and the Commission's Recommendation on collective redress mechanisms. It will open up the field for de lege ferenda proposals also.

Keywords

EN

compensatory collective redress; private enforcement; competition law; opt-in model; opt-out model; mixed model; group actions; representative actions

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 10(15)
• Pages: 223-250

Dates

published

2017-06-30

Contributors

author

Piszcz Anna

References

• Blažo, O. (2017). Slovakia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Butorac Malnar, V. (2017). Croatia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Cseres, K.J. (2015). Harmonising Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Central and Eastern Europe: The Effectiveness of Legal Transplants Through Consumer Collective Actions. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 8(12), 33–59.
• Daly, K. (2017). The Growth of Collective Redress in the EU: A Survey of Developments in 10 Member States. Washington: U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.
• Ervo, L. (2016). “Opt-in is out and opt-out is in”: Dimensions based on Nordic options and the commission's recommendation. In: B. Hess, M. Bergström, E. Storskrubb (eds), EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook. Oxford-Portland: Hart Publishing.
• Gac, M. (2016). Group litigation as an instrument of competition law enforcement – analysis based on European, French and Polish experience. Doctoral thesis prepared in the form of international cooperation between the Jagiellonian University and the University of Toulouse.
• Georgiev, R. and Hinov, H. (2011). Bulgaria. In: The International Comparative Legal Guide to Class & Group Actions 2011: A practical cross-border insight into class and group actions. Global Legal Group.
• Juška, Z. (2015). Country Report: Class Actions in Lithuania. In: Global Class Actions Exchange. Stanford: Stanford Law School. Retrieved from: http://globalclassactions.stanford.edu/content/class-actions-lithuania.
• Juška, Z. (2016). The Impact of Contingency Fees on Collective Antitrust Actions: Experiments from Lithuania and Poland. Review of Central and East European Law, 41, 368–395.
• Mikelėnas, V. and Zaščiurinskaitė, R. (2017). Lithuania. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Mircea, V. (2017). Romania. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Miskolczi Bodnár, P. (2017). Hungary. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Mizaras, V. (2012). Lithuania. In: Focus on collective redress, https://www.collectiveredress.org/collective-redress/member-states. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
• Nikpay, A. and Taylor, D. (2014). The New UK Competition Regime: Radically Different or More of the Same? Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 5(5), 278–286.
• Pais, S.O. and Piszcz, A. (2014). Package on Actions for Damages Based on Breaches of EU Competition Rules: Can One Size Fit All? Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 7(10), 209–234.
• Pärn-Lee, E. (2017). Estonia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Petr, M. (2017). Czech Republic. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Petrov, A. (2017). Bulgaria. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Peyer, S. (2012). Private antitrust litigation in Germany from 2005 to 2007: Empirical evidence. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 8(2), 331–359.
• Piszcz, A. (2014). “Class Actions” in the Court Culture of Eastern Europe. In: L. Ervo, A. Nylund (eds), The Future of Civil Litigation – Access to Courts and Court Connected mediation in the Nordic Countries. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
• Piszcz, A. (2015). A few remarks on standing to bring a collective redress action. In: A. Budnik (ed.), Locus standi across legal cultures. Białystok Volumes on Law & Culture 3. Białystok: Temida2.
• Piszcz, A. and Wolski, D. (2017). Poland. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Rodger, B. (2014). Collective Redress Mechanisms and Consumer Case-Law. In: B. Rodger (ed.), Competition Law Comparative Private Enforcement and Collective Redress across the EU. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
• Silvestri, E. (2013). Towards a Common Framework of Collective Redress in Europe? An Update on the Latest Initiatives of the European Commission. Russian Law Journal, I(1), 46–56.
• Stoica, S., Ion, M. and Bercaru, L. (2015). Romania. In: I. Knable Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review. London: Law Business Research Ltd.
• Strand, M. (2017). The Passing-On Problem in Damages and Restitution Under EU Law. Cheltenham-Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Tulibacka, M. (2016). Class Actions in Poland 2016: Lingering problems and reform proposals. Report for the Conference ‘Empirical Evidence on Collective Redress in Europe’, at the University of Oxford, 12–13 December 2016 Retrieved from: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/poland_-_tulibacka.docx.
• Vlahek, A. (2016). Challenges of Private Enforcement of Antitrust in Slovenia. In: M. Kovač, A.-S. Vandenberghe (eds), Economic Evidence in EU Competition Law. Cambridge: Intersentia.
• Vlahek, A. (2016a). Novosti na področju odškodninskih tožb zaradi kršitev evropskega antitrusta. Pravnik, 71(133), 547–590.
• Vlahek, A. and Podobnik, K. (2017). Slovenia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.

Identifiers

ISSN

1689-9024

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2017.10.15.10