Can an Ideal Court Model in Private Antitrust Enforcement Be Established?

• Authors: Wolski Dominik
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Any discussion of private antitrust enforcement usually focuses on substantive law and proceedings applicable to private antitrust cases. Those elements are important, however, the efficacy of both public and private enforcement relies upon rules of law (substantive and procedural) along with their application. The latter constitutes a substantial aspect affecting the institutions which make decisions in private antitrust enforcement cases, namely the relevant courts. The enforcement of competition law is inextricably intertwined with the economy and markets. As a result, antitrust cases are demanding for non-specialist judges, who usually do not have enough knowledge and experience in the field of competition. Even if the Damages Directive has already been implemented in all EU Member States, there is still room for discussion about developing an optimal court model for the adjudication of private antitrust enforcement cases. In the aforementioned discussion the issue of the binding effect of decisions made by the European Commission (EC) and National Competition Authorities (NCAs) in private enforcement cases, as well as the experience of judges stemming from the number of cases they have resolved, cannot be missed. Bearing this in mind, the main aim of this paper is to analyse the model of competent courts operating in private antitrust cases in twenty selected countries including the US, the UK and the vast majority of EU Member States. Taking into account that a theoretically pure concept of an ideal model of relevant court operations presumably does not exist, it is essential to try to figure out what the main characteristics of the courts might be that can lead to effective private antitrust enforcement.

FR

Toute discussion sur l’application privée du droit de la concurrence se concentre habituellement sur le droit matériel et sur les procédures applicables aux affaires antitrust privées. Ces éléments sont importants, cependant, l’efficacité de l’application publique et privée repose sur des règles de droit (matériel et procédural) ainsi que leur application. Ce dernier constitue un aspect important affectant les institutions qui prennent des décisions dans les cas d’application des lois antitrust privées, qui sont les tribunaux compétents. L’application du droit de la concurrence est inextricablement liée à l’économie et aux marchés. En conséquence, les affaires antitrust exigent des juges non spécialisés, qui n’ont généralement pas suffisamment de connaissances et d’expérience dans le domaine de la concurrence. Même si la directive ‘dommages-intérêts’ a été mise en œuvre dans tous les États membres de l’Union européenne, il reste encore des discussions sur la mise au point d’un modèle judiciaire optimal pour le règlement des affaires d’antitrust privées. Dans la discussion susmentionnée, la question de l’effet contraignant des décisions prises par la Commission européenne et par les autorités nationales de la concurrence dans les affaires privées, ainsi que l’expérience des juges découlant du nombre d’affaires résolues, ne peuvent manquer. Dans cet esprit, l’objectif principal de cet article est d’analyser le modèle des tribunaux compétents opérant dans les affaires antitrust privées dans vingt pays sélectionnés, y compris les États-Unis, le Royaume-Uni et la grande majorité des États membres. Puisqu’un concept théoriquement pur de modèle idéal d’activités judiciaires pertinentes n’existe pas, il est essentiel de tenter de déterminer quelles pourraient être les caractéristiques principales des tribunaux susceptibles de conduire à une application efficace des lois antitrust dans les affaires privées

Keywords

EN

antitrust private enforcement; specialized; quasi-specialized and non-specialized courts; antitrust litigations; judges; jury; judicial review

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 11(18)
• Pages: 115-152

Dates

published

2018-12-30

Contributors

author

Wolski Dominik

• Katowice School of Economic

References

• Adkins, B., Beighton, S. (2016). Private Antitrust Litigation in the UK (England and Wales): Overview, Thomson Reuters Practical Law. Retrieved from: https://uk.practicallaw. thomsonreuters.com/1-6331531?transitionType=Default&conte xtData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1) (9.08.2018).
• American Bar Association,(2018). State Antitrust Enforcement Handbook.
• Anastá cio, G., Anastácio, C. (2018). Portugal. In: I.K.Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review (Eleventh Edition, pp. 237–249). London: Law Business Research Ltd.
• Barling, G. (2013). Competition litigation: what the next few years may hold, The David Vaughan CBE, QC/Clifford Chance Annual Lecture on Anti- Trust Litigation, 19 June 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-01/Competition_litigation_what_the_next_few_years_may_hold_190613.pdf (9.08.2018).
• Baye, M.R., Wright, J.D. (2010). Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of Economic Complexity & Judicial Training on Appeals, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 54, No. 1 (February 2011), p. 1–24.
• Bernatt, M. (2017), McWane and Judicial Review of Federal Trade Commission decisions – Any Inspirations for EU Competition Law? 38(6) European Competition Law Review 288 (2017)
• Bernatt, M. (2016). The Effectiveness of Judicial Review in the Polish Competition Law System and the Place for Judicial Deference, Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, Vol. 9(14), 97–124.
• Bernatt, M., Gac, M. (2017). Transposition of the EU Antitrust Damages Directive in Poland. In: B. Rodger, M. Sousa Ferro, F. Marcos (eds.), The EU Antitrust Damages Directive: Transposition in the Member States, Oxford University Press (forthcoming in 2019). Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract _id=3006298 (9.08.2018).
• Blažo, O. (2017). Slovakia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (pp. 247–262). Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press.
• Broder, D.F. (2005). A Guide to US Antitrust Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
• Buntscheck, M., Stichweh, H. (2015). Germany: Private Antitrust Litigation, The European Antitrust Review, 154-158. Retrieved from: https://www.buntscheck.com/sites/default/files/downloads/european-antitrust-review-2015.pdf (9.08.2018).
• Butorac Malnar, V. (2017). Croatia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries(pp. 55–84). Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press.
• Castronovo, C. (2007). Private Law Remedies in Antitrust Law Violations – A Point of View from Italy. In: Basedow, J. (ed.), Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law, Wolters Kluwer.
• Competition Appeal Tribunal, Annual Report and Accounts 2016/2017. Retrieved from: http://www.catribunal.org.uk/ files/Annual_Report_16_17.pdf (9.08.2018).
• Competition Litigation in France. Retrieved from: https://globalcompliancenews.com/antitrust-and-competition/competition-litigation-in-france/ (9.08.2018).
• Cornelissen, R., Dempsey, N., Knigge, A., Sluijter, P., VerLoren van Themaat, W. (2018). Netherlands. In: I.K.Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review (Eleventh Edition, pp. 184–206). London: Law Business Research Ltd.
• Crane, D.A. (2010). Optimizing Private Antitrust Enforcement, Vanderbilt Law Review 63, No. 2 (2010), pp. 675–723.
• De Á vila Ruiz-Peinado, F.R. (2016). Spanish Antitrust Private Enforcement: Enhancing Consumer Collective Redress. Working Paper IE Law School, AJ8-229-I, 20-01-2016, pp. 2–48.
• Delgado, J., Perez-Asenjo, E. (2011). Economic evidence in private-enforcement competition law in Spain, European Competition Law Review, vol. 32/10 (2011).
• Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2016). Consultation: Implementing the EU Directive on damages for breaches of competition law. Retrieved from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/495757/BIS-16-6-consultation-implementing-the-EU-directive-on-damages-for-breaches-of-competition-law.pdf (9.08.2018).
• De Sousa e Alvim, M. (2017). A Brief Review of the Implementation of the EU Antitrust Damages Directive in Portugal. Global Competition Litigation Review, Issue 4, pp.212 – 215.
• Elsner, B., Zandler, D. Kos, M. (2018). Austria. In: I.K.Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review (Eleventh Edition, pp. 41–50). London: Law Business Research Ltd.
• Freeman, P. (2016). Better to travel hopefully than to arrive? The Reform of UK Competition Law 1991–2016, Regulatory Policy Institute 25th Anniversary Conference, Merton College Oxford 12th/13th September 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.catribunal.org.uk/files/The%20Reform%20of%20UK%20Competition%20 Law%201991-2016.pdf (9.08.2018).
• Gelmini, F. (2017). Brexit: The Future of Private Antitrust Enforcement in the UK, 20 December 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/article-5714 (9.08.2018).
• Gotts, I.K. (2018). Preface. In: I.K. Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review (Eleventh Edition, pp. vii–xi). London: Law Business Research Ltd.
• Gutié rrez, A., Arranz, T. (2018). Spain. In: I.K. Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review(Eleventh Edition, pp. 277–289). London: Law Business Research Ltd.
• Hovenkamp, H. (2005). Antitrust, Thomson/West.Idot, L. (2007). Private Enforcement of Competition Law – Recommendation Flowing from the French Experience. In: Basedow, J. (ed.), Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law, Wolters Kluwer.
• Ion, M., Ambrozie, L., Nistor, V. (2018). Romania. In: I.K. Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review (Eleventh Edition, pp. 250–260). London: Law Business Research Ltd.
• Jerneva, J., Druviete, I. (2017). Latvia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries(pp. 157–178). Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press.
• Jones, C.A. (1999). Private enforcement of antitrust law in the EU, UK and USA. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Jurkowska, A. (2008). Antitrust Private Enforcement – Case of Poland. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, Vol. 2008, 1(1), 59–79.
• Jurkowska-Gomułka, A. (2013). Publiczne i prywatne egzekwowanie zakazów praktyk ograniczających konkurencję. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
• Kuijpers, M., Tuinenga, S., Wiskin, S., Dietzel, K., Campbell, S., Fritzsche, A. (2015). Actions for Damages in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Volume 6, Issue 2, 1 February 2015, 129–142, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpu125.
• Laguna de Paz, J.C. (2012). Judicial Review in European Competition Law, 1-30. Retrieved from: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/judicial_review_in_ european_competition_law.pdf (9.08.2018).
• Lande, R.H., Davis, J.P., (2008). Benefits From Private Antitrust Enforcement: An Analysis of Forty Cases.University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 42, Iss. 4, 879–918.
• Lande R.H. (2006). Five Myths About Antitrust Damages. University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 40, p. 651.
• Lande, R.H. (2004). Why Antitrust Damage Levels Should Be Raised . Loyola Consumer Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, 329–345.
• Leeflang, F., Kuijper, M. (2013). Netherlands. Private Antitrust Litigation, Global Competition Review.
• Marcos, F. (2013). Competition Law Private Litigation in The Spanish Courts (1999-2012). Working Paper IE Law School AJ8-202. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2351770 (9.08.2018).
• McAfee, R.P., Vakkur, N.V. (2004). The Strategic Abuse of the Antitrust Laws.
• Merril, T.W. (2010). The Origins of the American-style judicial review. In: S. Rose-Ackerman, P.L. Lindseth (eds.), Comparative Administrative Law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
• Mikelėnas, V., Zaščiurinskaitė, R. (2018). Lithuania. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries(pp. 179–210). 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 (pp. 237–246). 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 (pp. 127–156). Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press.
• Nazzini, R. (2015). The Effect of Decisions by Competition Authorities in the European Union. Italian Antitrust Review, No. 2 (2015), 68-97, DOI: 10.12870/iar-11577.
• Oster, T. (2018). France. In: I.K.Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review (Eleventh Edition, pp. 100–108). London: Law Business Research Ltd.
• Pärn-Lee, E. (2017). Estonia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (pp. 109–125). Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press.
• Petit, N. (2009). Judicial Review in French Competition Law and Economic Regulation: A Post Commission v. Tetra Laval Assessment. In: O. Essens, A. Gerbrandy, S.Lavrijssen (eds.), National Courts and the Standard of Review in Competition Law and Economic Regulation (pp. 103-125). Amsterdam: Europa Law Publishing.
• Petr, M. (2017). Czech Republic. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (pp. 85–108). 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 (pp. 25–54). Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press.
• Peyer, S. (2010). Myths and Untold Stories – Private Antitrust Enforcement in Germany. Centre for Competition Policy Working Paper No. 10-12. Retrieved from: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/29237/1/Peyer_-_Myths_and_Untold_Stories-Private_Anti trust_Enforcement_in_Germany.pdf (02.09.2016).
• Piszcz, A., Wolski, D. (2017). Poland. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (pp. 211–236). Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press.
• Raffaelli, E.A. (2018). Italy. In: I.K.Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review (Eleventh Edition, pp. 165–175). London: Law Business Research Ltd.
• Reger, A. (2018). Reflections on the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in Pfizer/Flynn. Kluwer Competition Law Blog, June 21 2018. Retrieved from: http://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2018/06/21/reflections-decision-competition-appeal-tribunal-pfizerflynn/ (9.08.2018).
• Robertson, A. (2017). UK: Competition Damages Litigation In London Pre – And Post-Brexit. Funding in Focus, Issue 4, 2017, 34–39. Retrieved from: https://www.vannin.com/downloads/funding-in-focus-four.pdf (9.08.2018).
• Saint-Antoine, P.H., Lewers, J.C., Hutchison, T.N., Bullard, K.P., Michelen, L.B. (2016).Private antitrust litigation in the United States: overview. Retrieved from: https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/I723cf4636e4e11e698dc8b09b4f043e0/View/FullText.html?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 (9.08.2018).
• Slaughter and May (2017). Private enforcement of competition law in the UK, August 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/2534704/private-enforcement-of-competition-law-in-the-uk.pdf (9.08.2018).
• Sullivan, E.T., Hovenkamp, H. (2003). Antitrust law, policy and procedure: cases, materials, problems. Lexis Nexis.
• Sullivan, L.A., Grimes, W.S. (2006). The Law of Antitrust: An Integrated Handbook. West Academic Publishing.
• Tardella, E., Maggiore, M., Italy, Ashurst. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/national_reports/italy_en.pdf (9.08.2018).
• Toffoletti, L., De Stefano, A. (2018). Private antitrust litigation in Italy: overview, 1 May 2018. Retrieved from: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-633-4469?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1 (9.08.2018).
• VerLoren van Themaat, Hettema, W., Buruma, J.H. (2004). Netherlands. Ashurst. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/national_reports/netherlands_ en.pdf (02.09.2016).
• Vlahek, A., Podobnik, K. (2017). Slovenia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries(pp. 263–296). Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press.
• Wach, K., Epping, M., Zinsmeister, U., Bonacker, E. (2004). Germany. Ashurst. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/national_reports/germany_en.pdf (02.09.2016)
• Wils, W.P.J. (2003). Should Private Antitrust Enforcement Be Encouraged in Europe? World Competition, Volume 26, Issue 3, September 2003, 473–488.
• Zhang, A.H., Liu, J., Garoupa, N. (2017). Judging in Europe: Do Legal Traditions Matter?Journal of Competition Law & Economics (forthcoming). Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082854 (9.08.2018).
• Zuehlke, S., (2018). Germany. In: I.K.Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review(Eleventh Edition, pp. 109–121). London: Law Business Research Ltd.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2018.11.18.5