Development of Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Lithuania

• Authors: Moisejevas Raimundas
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article reviews the jurisprudence of Lithuanian courts on private enforcement of competition law and identifies the main obstacles for the development of this practice. The analysis of the jurisprudence makes it possible to summarise that: most rulings of the Lithuanian courts relate to cases on the abuse of dominance; usually, dominant undertakings were allegedly applying discriminatory conditions towards the injured party and; most of the claims were presented as follow-on actions after a decision of the Competition Council. The courts held that damages caused by a breach of competition law have to be recovered in accordance with Lithuania’s main principles of civil responsibility. At the same time, the courts made it clear that their jurisprudence is based on the rulings of European Courts and the main principles of EU competition law. The main obstacles for the successful development of antitrust damages claims in Lithuania are, inter alia: complexity of competition cases; difficulty in obtaining substantive evidence; proving a consequential relationship and; high legal costs. The article also analyses substantial and procedural provisions of Lithuanian legislation that regulate the submission of antitrust damage claims.

Keywords

EN

antitrust damage; antitrust damage claims; Directive on antitrust damages actions; evidence; follow-on action; Lithuania; nullity; private enforcement of competition law; public enforcement of competition law

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 8(11)
• Pages: 35-52

Dates

published

2015-06-30

Contributors

author

Moisejevas Raimundas

• Faculty of Law, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania

References

• Brkan M., Bratina T., ‘Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Slovenia: A New Field to Be Developed by Slovenian Courts’ (2013) 6(8) YARS.
• Downie G., Charrier M., ‘UK and EU Developments in Collective Action Regimes for Competition Law Breaches’ (2014) E.C.L.R, issue 8.
• Hjelmeng E., ‘Competition Law Remedies: Striving for Coherence or Finding New Ways?’ (2013) 50 CMLR.
• Gumbis J., Juonys M., Keserauskas Š., ‘National report for Lithuania concerning the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules’ [available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/national_reports/ lithuania_en.pdf].
• Jurkowska-Gomułka A., ‘Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Polish Courts: The Story of an (Almost) Lost Hope for Development’ (2013) 6(8) YARS.
• Piszcz A., ‘Still-unpopular Sanctions: Developments in Private Antitrust Enforcement in Poland After the 2008 White Paper’ (2012) 5(7) YARS.
• Sein K., ‘Private Enforcement of Competition Law – the Case of Estoni’ (2013) 6(8) YARS. Terebeiza Ž., ‘Laisvas įrodymų vertinimas civiliniame procese: teoriniai ir praktiniai
• aspektai’ (2007) 5(95) Jurisprudencija.
• Weidt C.F., ‘The Directive on Actions for Antitrust Damages After Passing the European Parliament’ (2014) ECLR 2014, 35(9).

Identifiers

ISSN

1689-9024