How Much May an Unreasonable Delay Cost? TAR Lazio Annuls the Highest Sanction Ever Issued by the Italian Competition Authority

• Authors: Zofia M. Mazur , Elisa Luna Scimeca

Abstracts

FR

Le présent commentaire porte sur le(s) récent(s) jugement(s) rendu(s) par le Tribunal administratif régional italien (TAR Lazio) qui annule la plus haute sanction jamais imposée par l’Autorité italienne de la concurrence (AGCM) pour violation du droit de la concurrence. Le tribunal a estimé que la décision finale de l’AGCM était entachée d’irrégularités tant sur le plan de la procédure que sur celui du fond. Le TAR Lazio a estimé que l’Autorité de la concurrence a violé le principe de “durée raisonnable de la procédure” en reportant l’ouverture de l’enquête sans justification valable. Pour cette raison, dans la dernière partie du commentaire, les auteurs analysent brièvement les conséquences possibles des retards injustifiés dans la procédure administrative sur les décisions finales.

EN

The present contribution describes and comments on recent ruling(s) issued by the Italian Regional Administrative Court of Lazio Region (TAR Lazio) which annuls the highest sanction ever imposed by the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) for the breach of competition law. The Court found that the AGCM’s final decision vitiated on both procedural and substantive grounds. The TAR Lazio held that the Competition Authority violated the principle of ‘reasonable length of proceedings’ by deferring the initiation of the investigation without valid justification. For this reason, in the last part of the contribution, the authors briefly analyse the possible consequences of the unjustified delays in the administrative proceedings on the final rulings.

Keywords

EN

anti-competitive agreement; unreasonable delays; consequences of undue delay; AGCM; parental liability; incorrect determination of relevant market

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 24
• Pages: 159-176

Dates

published

2021

Contributors

author

Zofia M. Mazur

• University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’

• https://orcid.org/0000000204931545

author

Elisa Luna Scimeca

References

• Basilico, A.E. (2011). Il controllo del giudice amministrativo sulle sanzioni antitrust e l’art. 6 CEDU, Rivista AIC, N. 4/2011. Retrieved from: https://www.rivistaaic.it/images/rivista/pdf/Basilico_controllo.pdf.
• Celone, C. (2017). Il “nuovo” rapporto tra cittadino e pubblica amministrazione alla luce dell’art. 41 della carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’unione europea. In: Astone F. et al. (eds.), Studi in memoria di Antonio Romano Tassone, Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.
• Edel, F. (2007). The length of civil and criminal proceedings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Files, No. 16, Council of Europe Publishing.
• Ginsburg, D.H. and Owings, T.M. (2015). Due Process in Competition Proceedings, Competition Law International, 11(1).
• Giuffrida, A. (2012). Il “diritto” ad una buona amministrazione pubblica e profili sulla sua giustiziabilità. Torino: Giappichelli.
• Gonzalez, A.O. (2017). The enforcement of EU competition law in cartel cases: seeking effectiveness in divergence. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen.
• Lipari, M. (2003). I tempi del procedimento amministrativo: certezza dei rapporti, interesse pubblico, e tutela dei cittadini. Diritto amministrativo, 11(2), 291–385.
• Osservatorio Permanente sull’applicazione delle regole di concorrenza (2020). Vendita auto tramite finanziamenti Auto: TAR Lazio annulla il provvedimento. Retrieved from: https://www.osservatorioantitrust.eu/it/vendite-auto-tramite-finanziamenti-auto-il-tar-lazio-annulla-il-provvedimento/.
• Perfetti, L.R. (2010). Diritto ad una buona amministrazione, determinazione dell’interesse pubblico ed equità. Riv. Ital. Dir. Pubbl. Communitario, 789–844.
• Scordamaglia, A. (2010). Cartel Proof, Imputation and Sanctioning in European Competition Law: Reconciling effective enforcement and adequate protection of procedural guarantees. The Competition Law Review, 7(1), 5–52.
• Scordamaglia, A. (2009). The new Commission settlement procedure for cartels: a critical assessment. Global Antitrust Review, 2, 61–91.
• Vese, D. (2019). Sul sindacato del Giudice amministrativo sulle decisioni dell’AGCM. Pienezza della giurisdizione e tutela dei diritti, Judicium. Il processo civile in Italia e in Europa, Pacini Giuridica. Retrieved from: https://www.judicium.it/sul-sindacato-del-giudice-amministrativo-sulle-decisioni-dellagcm-pienezza-della-giurisdizione-tutela-dei-diritti/.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2021.14.24.7

Biblioteka Nauki

2158423