Consensual Dispute Resolution in the Damage Directive. Implementation in CEE Countries

• Authors: Modzelewska de Raad Małgorzata
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper discusses the use of consensual dispute resolution for the purpose of antitrust damage claims as introduced by the Directive. It presents these type of claims in a broader context of arbitration (or ADR), in comparison with traditional claim settling before a state court. Particular focus is on selected CEE countries and their implementation of the Directive, serving as an example of the transposition of the Directive’s rules (Article 18 and 19) into national systems in the area of consensual dispute resolution. Specific institutions intended to encourage consensual resolution included in the Directive (and transposed into national systems) are being commented on as well. Lastly, the paper briefs on the advantages of ADR in general, and concludes that even post-Directive, ADR remains attractive as a complimentary instrument to public enforcement and state judiciary enforcement.

Keywords

EN

private antitrust enforcement; arbitration; competition law arbitration; Damages Directive

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 10(15)
• Pages: 49-68

Dates

published

2017-06-30

Contributors

author

Modzelewska de Raad Małgorzata

References

• Bellinghausen, R. and Grothaus, J. (2015). The CJEU’s Decision in CDC v AKZO NOBEL et al. Cartel: a Blessing or a Curse for Arbitrating Cartel Damage Claims, Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Retrieved from: http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2015/07/31/the-cjeus-decision-in-cdc-v-akzo-nobel-et-al-a-blessing-or-a-curse-for-arbitrating-cartel-damage-claims/ (20.07.2017).
• 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.
• Derains, Y. (2001). Specific Issues Arising in the Enforcement of EC Antitrust Rules by Arbitration Courts. In: C. Ehlerman, I. Atanasiu (eds), European Competition Annual 2001: Effective Private Enforcement of EC Antitrust Law. Oxford, Hart Publishing.
• Ezrahi, A. and Ioannidou, M. (2012). Public compensation as a Complementary Mechanism to Damage Actions: From Policy Justifications to Formal Implementation, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 3(6), 536–544.
• Goldsmith, A. (2015). Arbitrating Antitrust Follow-on Damage Claims: a European Perspective (Part 1). Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Retrieved from: http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2015/09/22/arbitrating-antitrust-follow-on-damages-claims-a-european-perspective-part-1/ (20.07.2017).
• Hodges, Ch. (2014). Fast, Effective and Low Cost Redress: How Do Public and Private Enforcement and ADR Compare. In: B. Rodger (ed.) Competition Law. Comparative Private Enforcement and Collective Redress Across the EU, Kluwer Law International.
• Idot, L. (2010). Arbitration and Competition. In: OECD Report Competition Law and Policy, http://www.oecd.org/competition/abuse/49294392.pdf (14.07.2017)
• Kolber, J. (2012). Zasady stosowania prawa konkurencji Unii Europejskiej przez sądy arbitrażowe, Kwartalnik ADR, 3(19), 67-81.
• Kuijpers, M., Tiunenga, S., Wisking, S., Dietzel, K., Campbell, S. and Fritzsche, A. (2015). Actions for Damages in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 6(2), 129-142.
• Moisejevas, R. (2015). The Damages Directive and Consensual Approach to Antitrust Enforcement, Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 8(12), 181-194.
• Nazzini, R. (2017). Arbitration, Competition Law and the EU Directive, published on www.uianet.org (21.07.2017)
• OECD. (2010). Arbitration and Competition, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/competition/abuse/49294392.pdf (14.07.2017).
• Pavelka, T. (2012). Antitrust Arbitration Review. The Czech Do It Differently: but how much?, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2166073 (17.07.2017).
• Petit, N. (2014). The Principles of Equivalence and Effectiveness as a Limit to National Procedural Autonomy, Paper delivered at ENTraNCE 2014. Retrieved from: https://antitrustlair.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/the-principles-of-equivalence-and-effectiveness-n-petit-final.pdf (17.07.2017).
• 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.
• Piszcz, A. (ed.) (2017). Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press.
• Szpunar, M. (2010). Stosowanie prawa konkurencji Unii Europejskiej przez sądy arbitrażowe. In: J. Okólski (ed.) Księga pamiątkowa 60-lecia Sądu Arbitrażowego prze Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej w Warszawie, Warszawa, Sąd Arbitrażowy.
• Wijckmans, F., Visser, M., Jacques, S. and Noel, E. (2016). The EU Private Damages directive – Practical Insights. Minutes of the Closed Workshop 2015, Antwerpen, Intersentia.
• Živković, P. (2017). Antitrust Arbitration in Europe (Part II): Improving Private Enforcement by Removing Procedural and Evidential Barriers in Arbitration. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Retrieved from: http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2017/06/03/antitrust-arbitration-europe-part-ii-scope-effect-arbitration-clauses-microsoft-case/ (20.07.2017).

Identifiers

ISSN

1689-9024

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2017.10.15.3