Cumulative Enforcement of European and National Competition Law and the Ne Bis In Idem Principle Case Comment to the Judgement of EU Court of Justice of 3 April 2019 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (Case C-617/17)

• Authors: Mario Libertini

Abstracts

FR

L’arrêt de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne en réponse à la demande de décision préjudicielle de la Cour suprême polonaise confirme que le principe ne bis in idem, consacré à l’article 50 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, doit être interprété en ce sens qu’il ne s’oppose pas à ce qu’une autorité nationale de concurrence inflige une amende à une entreprise dans une decision unique pour infraction au droit national de la concurrence et pour infraction à l’article 82 CE (devenu article 102 TFUE). A cet égard, on peut conclure que l’arrêt ne comporte rien de nouveau et ne constitue qu’une confirmation d’une jurisprudence constante. Malheureusement, cette affaire représente une occasion manquée de revoir la doctrine de la «double barrière» et de clarifier si la relation entre le droit européen et national de la concurrence est une «spécialité bilatérale» ou pas.

EN

The judgement of EU Court of Justice in response to the request for a preliminary ruling by the Polish Supreme Court confirms that the principle of ne bis in idem, enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a national competition authority from fining an undertaking in a single decision for an infringement of national competition law and for an infringement of Article 82 EC (now Article 102 TFEU). In that regard it can be concluded that the judgement does not have anything new and is just a confirmation of settled case-law. Unfortunately, this case represents a lost opportunity to review the ‘double barrier’ doctrine and to clarify if the relationship between European and national competition law is one of ‘bilateral specialty’ or not.

Keywords

EN

ne bis in idem principle; objectives of EU competition law; objectives; of national competition laws

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 20
• Pages: 231-244

Dates

published

2019

Contributors

author

Mario Libertini

• Sapienza University of Rome

References

• Briguglio, A. (2019). Quante azioni di responsabilità contro gli amministratori di società in house? (How many liability claims against directors of in house companies?), Rivista di diritto dell’impresa [Business Law Review] 1, 129 ff.
• Felisatti, V. (2018). Il ne bis in idem domestico. Tra coordinazione procedimentale e proporzionalità della sanzione [The Italian ne bis in idem between procedural coordination and proportionality of the punishment]. Diritto penale contemporaneo 3 (121 ff., at p. 141).
• Filippelli, M. (2018). Il mito della “doppia barriera” nell’attuale assetto dell’enforcement antitrust [The myth of the “double barrier” in the current structure of the antitrust enforcement]. Rivista di diritto industriale.
• Libertini, M. (2017). Economia e politica nel diritto antitrust [Economics and Politics in Antitrust Law]. In M.C. Malaguti, L. Oglio, S. Vanoni (eds.) Politiche antitrust ieri, oggi, domani [Antitrust policies: yesterday, today, tomorrow] (p. 1–39), Giappichelli, Torino.
• Palombino, F.M. (2016). Cumulation of offences and purposes of sentencing in international criminal law: A troublesome inheritance of the Second World War. International Comparative Jurisprudence 2 (89 ff).
• Scoletta, M. (2019). Il ne bis in idem “preso sul serio”: la Corte EDU sulla illegittimità del doppio binario francese in materia di abusi di mercato (e i possibili riflessi nell’ordinamento italiano) [The ne bis in idem taken seriously: the ECHR and the illegality of French “double track” on market abuses (and possible effects into Italian law). Diritto penale contemporaneo, 17 June.
• Tome’ Feteira, L. (2015). The Interplay between European and National Competition Law after Regulation 1/2003. ‘United should we stand’? Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
• Ullrich, H. (ed.) (2006). The Evolution of European Competition Law: Whose Regulation, Which Competition, Elgar, Cheltenham (UK).
• Van Bockel, B. (ed.) (2016). Ne bis in idem in EU Competition law, Cambridge University Press.
• Zorzetto, S. (2010). La norma speciale. Una nozione ingannevole [The special norm. A misleading notion], ETS, Pisa.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2019.12.20.9

Biblioteka Nauki

2159151