The Interaction of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Lithuania

• Authors: Stanikunas Rimantas Antanas , Burinskas Arunas
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper provides a study of the interaction between public and private enforcement of Lithuanian antitrust law. The study refers to the Damages Directive. It has been found that private enforcement depends greatly on public enforcement of competition law. Therefore, their compatibility and balance are of great importance to antitrust policy. The Lithuanian NCA prioritises cases where an economic effect on competition does not have to be proven. This creates uncertainty about the outcome of private enforcement cases. Private enforcement in Lithuania is also in need of detailed rules on the identification of harm and causality. The analysis reveals how challenging it can be to estimate and prove harm or a causal link in private enforcement cases. Support from the NCA is therefore exceedingly needed. Moreover, even though the use of the leniency programme helps, it remains insufficient to solve the problem of under-deterrence. However, measures introduced by the Damages Directive do not make the leniency programme safe.

Keywords

EN

antitrust damages actions; private enforcement of antitrust rules; competition law; leniency programme

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 8(12)
• Pages: 237-258

Dates

published

2015-12-31

Contributors

author

Stanikunas Rimantas Antanas

• Professor at the Vilnius University

author

Burinskas Arunas

• Ph.D. candidate at the Vilnius University

References

• Abele H.A., Kodek G.E., Schaefer G.K., ‘Proving Causation in Private Antitrust Cases’ (2011) 7(4) Journal of Competition Law and Economics.
• Audzevičius R., ‘Lithuania’ [in:] I.K. Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review, Law Business Research Ltd 2014.
• Dunne N., ‘The Role of Private Enforcement within EU Competition Law’ (2014) 36 University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper.
• Friederiszick W., Röller L.H., ‘Quantification of harm in damages actions for antitrust infringements: insights from German cartel cases’ (2010) 6(3) Journal of Competition Law and Economics.
• Hüschelrath K., Schweitzer H., ‘Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Europe – Introduction and Overview’ [in:] K. Hüschelrath, H. Schweitzer (eds.), Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Europe. Legal and Economic Perspectives, ZEW Economic Studies Vol. (48), Springer, Berlin – Heidelberg 2014.
• Kersting Ch., ‘Removing the Tension Between Public and Private Enforcement: Disclosure and Privileges for Successful Leniency Applicants’ (2014) 5(1) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice.
• Louis F., ‘Promoting private antitrust enforcement: remember article 102’ [in:] Ph. Lowe, M. Marquis (eds.), European Competition Law Annual 2011: Integrating Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law-Implications for Courts and Agencies, Bloomsbury Publishing, Oxford 2014.
• Malinauskaite J., ‘Private enforcement of competition law in Lithuania: a story of under-development’ (2013) 3 Global Competition Litigation Review.
• Monti G., Parcu P.L., European Networking and Training for National Competition Enforcers (ENTRANCE 2012). Selected Case Notes (May 2014), Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS, 68, San Domenico di Fiesole 2014.
• Motta M., Competition Policy: Theory and practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004.
• Pais S.O., Piszcz A., ‘Package on Actions for Damages Based on Breaches of EU Competition Rules: Can One Size Fit All?’ (2014) 7(10) Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies.
• Prosperetti L., ‘Antitrust Damages in Europe: An Economic Perspective’ [in:] E.A. Raffaelli (ed.), Antitrust between EC Law and National Law: 7 Conference, 18–19 May 2006, Bruylant, Bruxelles 2007.
• Prosperetti L., ‘Proving and quantifying antitrust damages: an economic perspective’ (2008) 10(3) Mercato Concorrenza Regole.
• Rubinfeld D., ‘An Empirical Perspective on Legal Process: Should Europe Introduce Private Antitrust Enforcement?’ [in:] P. Nobel, M. Gets (eds.), New Frontiers of Law and Economics, Schulthess Juristische Medien, Zurich 2006.
• Stripeikiene J., ‘Klevo Lapas v. ORLEN Lietuva’ [in:] G. Monti, P.L. Parcu (eds.), European Networking and Training for National Competition Enforcers (ENTRANCE 2012). Selected Case Notes.Selected Case Notes (May 2014). Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS, 68, San Domenico di Fiesole 2014.
• Woods D., Sinclair A., Ashton D., ‘Private enforcement of Community competition law: modernisation and the road ahead’ (2004) 2 Competition policy newsletter.

Identifiers

ISSN

1689-9024