Provisions of the Damages Directive on Limitation Periods and their Implementation in CEE Countries

• Authors: Vlahek Ana , Podobnik Klemen
• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The article analyses the provisions on limitation of antitrust damages actions set out in Directive 2014/104/EU on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union. It presents (draft) implementing legislation of CEE countries from the perspective of their general rules on limitation, and the problems the Member States have faced in the process of transposing the Directive into their national legal systems. Within that, focus is placed upon the analysis of the types of limitation periods, their length and their suspension or interruption. In addition, the authors present the effects of the new limitation regime on the balance between the interests of the claimants and of the defendants, as well as on the relation between public and private antitrust enforcement.

Keywords

EN

limitation of antitrust damages claims; limitation; limitation periods; suspension of limitation; interruption of limitation; competition law; antitrust; liability for damages; Directive 2014/104/EU; CEE countries; private enforcement of antitrust

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 10(15)
• Pages: 147-176

Dates

published

2017-06-30

Contributors

author

Vlahek Ana

author

Podobnik Klemen

References

• Akman, P. (2013). Period of Limitations in Follow-on Competition Cases: The Elephant in the Room?. CCP Working Paper 13–8.
• Areeda, P. E. and Hovenkampm, H. (2007). Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application. New York: Aspen Publishers.
• Ashton, D. and Henry, D. (2013). Competition Damages Actions in the EU. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar, http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781782540762.
• Blagojević, B. T. and Krulj, V. (1983). Komentar Zakona o obligacionim odnosima, I knjiga. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
• Blažo, O. (2015). Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions and Current Changes of Slovak Competition and Civil Law. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 8(12), 259–272. doi: 10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2015.8.12.12.
• Blažo, O. (2017). Slovakia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (247–262). Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Broder, D. (2012). US Antitrust Law and Enforcement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Brus, M. (2011). Uvod v zasebno pravo: splošni del civilnega prava. Ljubjana: GV Založba.
• Butorac Malnar, V. (2017). Croatia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (55–84). Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Cigoj, S. (1984). Komentar obligacijskih razmerij, II. Knjiga. Ljubljana: Časopisni zavod Uradni list SR Slovenije.
• Foer, A.A. and Stutz, R.M. (eds.). (2012). Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the United States. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar, http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9780857939609.
• Franklin, C.N.K., Fredriksen, H.H. and Barlund, I.M.H. (2016). Private Enforcement and Collective Redress in European Competition Law. National report for Norway. FIDE. Retrieved from: http://www.uib.no/sites/w3.uib.no/files/attachments/fide_2016_norway_final.pdf (15.05.2017).
• Havu, K. (2016). Limitation Periods in Damages Claims: Notes on a Finnish Supreme Court Precedent in the Context of the European Landscape. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 7(6), 401–406. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpw033.
• Jerneva, J. and Druviete, I. (2017). Latvia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (157–178). Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Mikelėnas, V. and Zaščiurinskaitė, R. (2017). Lithuania. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (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 (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 (127–156). Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Pärn-Lee, E. (2017). Estonia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (109–126). Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Pearl, J. (2017). Antitrust Statute of Limitations: A Limit Only in Theory. Law360, LexisNexis. Retrieved from: https://www.law360.com/articles/417025/antitrust-statute-of-limitations-a-limit-only-in-theory (25.02.2017).
• Petr, M. (2017). Czech Republic. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (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 (25–53). Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Piszcz, A. (2017). Quo vadis CEE? In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (297–307). Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press.
• Piszcz, A. and Wolski, D. (2017). Poland. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (211–236). Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Practicing Law Institute (2017). Antitrust Law Answer Book 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.pli.edu/product_files/Titles/4153/58678_sample01_20141108153021.pdf (27.04.2017).
• Pusztahely, R. (2013). The New Hungarian Civil Code and the International Law Regulation in the Viewpoint of the Suspension of Prescription. European Integration Studies, 10(1), 71–81.
• Rodger, B.J. (2013). Why not court? A study of follow-on actions in the UK. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 1(1), 104–131. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jns001.
• Stewart, C.E. (2012). The Government Suspension Provision of the Clayton Act's Statute of Limitations: For Whom Does It Toll?. St. John’s Law Review, 60(1), 70–92.
• Vlahek, A. (2004). Reforma antitrusta v Evropski uniji. Podjetje in delo, 30(2), 230–272.
• Vlahek, A. (2009). In: P. Grilc et al., ZPOmK–1 with Commentary. Ljubljana: GV Založba.
• Vlahek, A. (2016a). Challenges of Private Enforcement of Antitrust in Slovenia. In: M. Kovač, A.-S. Vandenberghe (eds.), Economic evidence in EU competition law, European studies in law and economics, 18. Cambridge–Antwerp–Portland: Intersentia.
• Vlahek, A. (2016b). Novosti na področju odškodninskih tožb zaradi kršitev evropskega antitrusta. Pravnik, 7(8), 547–590.
• Vlahek, A. and Lutman, K. (2017). Ureditev zastaranja odškodninskih terjatev zaradi kršitev konkurenčnega prava v Direktivi 2014/104/EU in njena implementacija v pravne rede držav članic. Pravnik, 1(2), 41–70.
• Vlahek, A. (2017). Zadržanje oziroma pretrganje zastaranja odškodninskih zahtevkov zaradi kršitev pravil antitrusta tekom postopka pred organi za varstvo konkurence (39–71, 362–363). In: D. Možina, Razsežnosti zasebnega prava – Liber Amicorum Ada Polajnar–Pavčnik. Ljubljana: Pravna fakulteta, 2017.
• Vlahek, A. and Podobnik, K. (2017). Slovenia. In: A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (263–296). Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management Press.
• Von Bar, C. and Clive, E. (2009). Principles, Definitions and Modern Rules of European Private Law, Draft Common Frame of Reference (Full Edition), Volume 2. Munich: Sellier.
• Waters, T. and Morse, M. (1996). Antitrust and Trade Associations. Chicago: Section of Antitrust Law, American Bar Association.

Identifiers

ISSN

1689-9024

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2017.10.15.8