Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  damages actions
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Private enforcement ad portas? Projekt dyrektywy harmonizującej krajowe przepisy służące dochodzeniu roszczeń odszkodowawczych z tytułu naruszenia unijnego prawa konkurencji

100%
Nestoruk I. B.
Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego
|
2014
|
vol. 23
|
issue 1
181-224
EN
The private (civil) law elements are deeply rooted in the nature of the competition rules as adopted in the Rome Treaty and currently regulated by Articles 101 and 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Surprisingly, even if the direct applicability of these norms has been confirmed already in the first decades of the European integration by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), their enforcement remains concentrated through the tools of the public and not private law. Significant changes in this former policy have been introduced quite recently with the regulation No. 1/2003. One of its main goals was to involve the national authorities and national courts in the process of implementation of rules of competition within the internal market. Despite that, decentralization of the initial enforcement model has not resulted with a notable progress in the private enforcement on the national level. The real source of the ‘privatization’ process was not the secondary legislation. Once again it was stimulated by the ECJ. With the milestones cases the ECJ has consistently paved the way for EU wide effective competition rules in the area of damage actions. Even if limited only to damages claims to be brought by private parties to national courts this form of private enforcement seems to be one of the strongest tendencies in the evolution of European competition law in the last decade. The main legal developments, which could be observed in the EU law, are exemplified in this paper. Starting point is the case law of the ECJ with its most important judgments from Courage v. Crehan of 2001 to the most recent ones represented by Donau Chemie case of 2013. By identifying the legal barriers to the injured parties and at the same time balancing out other legitimate interests it is focused on guaranteeing the effet utile of the competition rules. On the legislative level the development of case law is accompanied by many legal provisions, particularly in the field of judicial cooperation, which may serve as practical tools for cross-border actions for damages. Simultaneously the Commission supports the debate on the perspective of ‘optimising the interaction between the public and private enforcement of competition law’. After closing public consultation illustrated e.g. by green paper of 2005 and white paper of 2009, the debate moved on to the next level. In July 2013 Commission has released a proposal for a directive 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. With this realistic proposal the right to damages for breaches of the EU competition rules becomes (again) a vivid topic for both academic and practical debate. Considering the advances of some national regimes (e.g. results of consultations recently published by the British government) the provisions of the proposed directive are examined in search of its main characteristics and due to potential consequences of its future implementation within the national (Polish) competition law regime.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Individuals and the Enforcement of Competition Law – Recent Development of the Private Enforcement Doctrinein Polish and European Antitrust Law

70%
Gac M.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2015
|
vol. 8(11)
53-82
EN
The following article focuses on the issue of private enforcement of competition law as one of the key elements of the current European and national debate on the efficiency of competition law. By analyzing this concept, the article aims to determine the influence of the European private enforcement model on the national competition law enforcement practice. The goal of the analysis is to answer two main questions: Does the current convergence of the national competition law enforcement system towards the European model guarantee the establishment of an effective, public-private system of antitrust enforcement? Under which conditions may the development of private methods of antitrust enforcement lead to an increase in the efficiency of Polish and European competition law? In order to address these questions, the article analyses the development of the private enforcement doctrine in the European Union and Poland. It refers to European and Polish jurisprudence on private enforcement, the competition policy of the European Commission as well as of the Polish competition authority – the UOKiK President. It also covers recent legislative changes introduced in the European and national legal orders. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the current convergence of the national antirust system towards the European model did not lead to the establishment of an effective mechanism of private enforcement in Poland. Nevertheless, the assessment of recent changes at the European level gives grounds to assume that the adoption of the Directive on Damages Actions, and its transposition into the national legal order, might overcome this problem and allow for better protection of individuals against anti-competitive behaviors.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Collecting Evidence Through Access to Competition Authorities’ Files – Interplay or Potential Conflicts Between Private and Public Enforcement Proceedings?

61%
Gulińska A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2015
|
vol. 8(12)
161-180
EN
Information asymmetry between claimants seeking damages for competition law violations and the alleged infringing undertaking(s) is a key problem in the development of private antitrust enforcement because it often prevents successful actions for damages. The Damages Directive is a step forward in the facilitation of access to evidence relevant for private action claims. Its focus lies on, inter alia, 3rd party access to files in proceedings conducted by national competition authorities (NCAs). The harmonization was triggered by the inconsistencies in European case-law and yet the uniform rules on access to documents held in NCAs’ files proposed in the Damages Directive seem to follow a very stringent approach in order to protect public competition law enforcement. The article summarizes the most relevant case-law and new provisions of the Damages Directive and presents practical issues with respect to its implementation from the Polish perspective.
4
Content available remote

Legitimace v řízení o žalobách na náhradu škody v soutěžních věcech

41%
Kuncová L.
Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)
|
2018
|
vol. 157
|
issue 12
1004
EN
The main objective of this article is to identify a plaintiff (the injured person) and a defendant (the person oliged to pay damages) in actions for damages caused by forbidden agreements and abuse of a dominant position. The first part is devoted to the position of the plaintiff and his right to compensation for damages. The term "anyone" used in Directive 2014/104/EU is interpreted and specific groups of persons, such as parties to an anticompetitive agreement, umbrella plaintiffs and indirect customers are addressed. The contribution also briefly discusses the limitation of potential claimants. The second part deals with the identification of the defendant and the person obliged to compensate for the damage. An undertaking (in Czech "a competitor") within the meaning of EU competition law as an infringer of competition rules typically consists of several natural or legal persons, e.g. parent and subsidiary companies. Hence, it is key to determine the obligation to pay damages on the aprt of an individual legal entity (entities) forming that undertaking. The attribution of liability to a parent company for a conduct committed by its subsidiary is typically applied in public enforcement of competition law. The contribution discusses various options that could be applied by civil courts and argues that it would be preferable, due to the principle of legal certainty and consistency of legal system, to apply the principles developed in administrative proceedings also in private enforcement of competition law. Legal and economic arguments for introducing such approach to Czech civil law reflect the wording of EU Directive 2014/104/EU, Act No. 262/2017 Coll. implementing the directive into the Czech legal system, as well as case-law of the CJEU and the principles of EU law.
CS
Identifikace žalobce (poškozeného) a žalovaného (škůdce) v řízení o žalobách na náhradu škody způsobené uzavřením zakázané dohody nebo zneužitím dominantního postavení je hlavním cílem tohoto článku. První část se věnuje postavení žalobce a jeho aktivní legitimaci k náhradě škody. Zabývá se výkladem pojmu „každý“ a skupinou osob jako jsou účastníci zakázané dohody, deštníkoví žalobci a nepřímí odběratelé. Součástí příspěvku je rovněž krátká úvaha nad možnou limitací okruhu potenciálních žalobců. Druhá část je zaměřena na určení žalovaného a osoby povinné k náhradě škody. Porušitelem unijního a vnitrostátního soutěžního práva, který způsobil škodu, je „podnik“ (soutěžitel) ve smyslu soutěžního práva EU, který se často skládá z několika fyzických či právnických osob, např. mateřských a dceřiných společností. Určení konkrétní osoby (či osob) v rámci soutěžitele povinné k náhradě škody je proto klíčové. Přičtení odpovědnosti mateřské společnosti za faktické protiprávní jednání společnosti dceřiné je běžně používáno v oblasti veřejnoprávního prosazování soutěžního práva. V příspěvku je poukázáno na několik možností, které mohou české civilní soudy využít, přičemž z důvodu naplnění principu právní jistoty a jednotné aplikace právního řádu je jako vhodnější navrženo užití veřejnoprávních pravidel i v rámci soukromoprávního vymáhání soutěžního práva. Právní i ekonomické argumenty pro vtažení těchto pravidel do českého civilního práva reflektují požadavky unijní směrnice č. 2014/104/EU a příslušná ustanovení zákona č. 262/2017 Sb., který tuto směrnici implementuje do českého právního řádu, i relevantní judikaturu SDEU a principy unijního práva.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.