Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

Compensation of Damages in Standalone Cases: Lessons to Be Learned from a Case Against a State-owned Telecommunication Company. Case Comment to the Judgment of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal of 3 March 2017 (Case No. e2A-27-464/2017)

100%

Zaščiurinskaitė R.

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

2017

vol. 10(15)

269-278

Private enforcement in Lithuania is still at the early development stage, as only a few infringement decisions of the national competition authority – the Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania – have been followed on by private antitrust claims. Nevertheless, it might be observed that victims of competition law infringements tend to initiate standalone claims for compensation of damages in Lithuania. However, not all of those cases are successful. On 3 March 2017, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania rejected a damages claim for EUR 2.9 million brought by a company that claimed to have been refused infrastructure access (an essential facility) by the dominant state-owned telecommunication company; infrastructure access was necessary for the provision of its own services. The case is interesting and worth mentioning due to the complexity and interrelation of competition law and the regulation of electronic communications (such as the interrelation of dominance in competition law and significant market power under the regulatory framework). The case is also noteworthy becaouse of the lack of involvement by the Competition Council and the Communication Regulatory Authority as well as their position in the dispute. Of relevance is also a change made to the laws related to the dispute and further consequences of the dispute.

Quantification of Harm and the Damages Directive: Implementation in CEE Countries

63%

Mikelėnas V., Zaščiurinskaitė R.

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

2017

vol. 10(15)

111-132

Quantification of harm is regarded as one of the most significant obstacles for the full compensation of harm and development of private enforcement within the European Union, including CEE Member States. Consequently, the Damages Directive establishes general rules and requirements for the quantification of harm, such as a rebuttable presumption of harm in case of cartels, the power of national courts to estimate harm as well as others, which closely interact with the principle of full compensation emphasized by the case-law of the European Union and directly established in the Damages Directive. The main focus of this paper is the effectiveness of the rules on the quantification of harm in general, and how these rules will contribute to the development of private antitrust enforcement in CEE Member States. Therefore, one of the issues to be discussed in the paper is the analysis of how, and to what extent specific rules and requirements for the quantification of harm have been transposed into the national legislation of CEE Member States. As certain CEE national jurisdictions have had certain rules for the quantification of harm already before the implementation of the Damages Directive, the paper analyses how effective these rules have been, and how much they have contributed to the development of private antitrust enforcement of those CEE national jurisdictions. Previous experience of those CEE Member States in applying specific rules for the quantification of harm is important, in order to assess the possible impact of the newly introduced rules on the quantification of harm and on private antitrust enforcement in general in other CEE Member States. The rules for the quantification of harm will not enhance private antitrust enforcement on their own, however, their effective application by national courts together with other rules under the Damages Directive should contribute to a quicker development of private enforcement in CEE Members States.

Refine search results

2 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

2 Zaščiurinskaitė R.

1 Mikelėnas V.

2 2017

Search results

Compensation of Damages in Standalone Cases: Lessons to Be Learned from a Case Against a State-owned Telecommunication Company. Case Comment to the Judgment of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal of 3 March 2017 (Case No. e2A-27-464/2017)

Quantification of Harm and the Damages Directive: Implementation in CEE Countries