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

Results found: 12

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  private enforcement of competition law
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Harmonising Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Central and Eastern Europe: The Effectiveness of Legal Transplants Through Consumer Collective Actions

100%
Cseres K. J.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2015
|
vol. 8(12)
33-60
EN
The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the manner of harmonizing private enforcement in the EU. The paper examines the legal rules and, more importantly, the actual enforcement practice of collective consumer actions in EU Member States situated in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Collective actions are the key method of getting compensation for consumers who have suffered harm as a result of an anti-competitive practice. Consumer compensation has always been the core justification for the European Commission’s policy of encouraging private enforcement of competition law. In those cases where collective redress is not available to consumers, or consumers cannot apply existing rules or are unwilling to do so, then both their right to an effective remedy and the public policy goal of private enforcement remain futile. Analyzing collective compensatory actions in CEE countries (CEECs) places the harmonization process in a broader governance framework, created during their EU accession, characterized by top-down law-making and strong EU conditionality. Analyzing collective consumer actions through this ‘Europeanization’ process, and the phenomenon of vertical legal transplants, raises major questions about the effectiveness of legal transplants vis-à-vis homegrown domestic law-making processes. It also poses the question how such legal rules may depend and interact with market, constitutional and institutional reforms.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Grounds for Private Enforcement of Albanian Competition Law

100%
Nazifi E., Petrina B.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2016
|
vol. 9(13)
61-76
EN
Infringements of competition law can cause serious harm to both consumers and undertakings. Aside from the development of public enforcement of competition law, much focus has been placed in recent years in the European Union on private competition law enforcement. Lawsuits raised by undertakings that sustained damages from anti-competitive practice concerning the compensation of such damages have historically not been widespread in Europe. No such cases have been recorded in Albania at all yet, despite the fact that its competition protection legislation has provided this possibility since 1995. The main causes of the lack of private competition law enforcement in Albania include the absence of judicial practice and doctrinal approaches in this area. Relevant here is also the inability of Albanian businesses and consumers to react to competition protection cases as they still lack competition law knowledge and as a result of the absence of an appropriate legal framework for class actions. The scope of this article is to analyze the current situation of private competition law enforcement in Albania. The paper emphasizes the current legal framework including existing obstacles to private competition law enforcement and improvements that should be introduced in the context of its competition law, the law of civil procedures and the law of obligations.
FR
Les violations du droit de la concurrence peuvent causer un préjudice grave aux consommateurs et aux entreprises. À part du développement de l'application publique du droit de la concurrence, beaucoup d’attention a été consacrée les dernières années à l’application privée du droit de la concurrence dans l’Union européenne. Néanmoins, les actions en indemnisation introduites par les entreprises qui ont subi des dommages résultant de la violation du droit de la concurrence n’étaient pas trop répandues en Europe. Malgré le fait que depuis 1995 la loi albanaise sur la protection de la concurrence prévoit la possibilité d’introduire les actions en indemnisation par les entreprises qui ont subi des dommages resultant de la violation du droit de la concurrence, aucune de ces actions n’était pas été introduite en Albanie jusqu’à présent. Les raisons principales du non-développement de l’exécution privée du droit de la concurrence en Albanie sont : l’absence de la pratique judiciaire et l’absence de la doctrine juridique dans ce domaine. il faut aussi mentionner sur ce point l'incapacité des entreprises et des consommateurs albanais de répondre aux actions privées ce qui résulte du manque de connaissances en droit de la concurrence et l'absence d'un cadre juridique approprié pour les actions collectives. Le but de cet article est d’analyser l’état actuel de l’exécution privée du droit de la concurrence en Albanie. L’article met l’accent sur le cadre juridique actuel, y compris les obstacles à l’exécution privée du droit de la concurrence, et propose les améliorations qui devraient être introduites dans le droit de la concurrence, dans la procédure civile et dans le droit des obligations afin de changer cette situation.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Polish Courts: The Story of an (Almost) Lost Hope for Development

86%
Jurkowska-Gomułka A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2013
|
vol. 6(8)
107-128
EN
The article reviews judgments of Polish courts on private enforcement of competition law between 1993 and 2012. A quantitative analysis of this jurisprudence shows that very few cases of that type exist at all. Their qualitative characteristics illustrate that: none of them referred to consumers; none of the claims was a 'pure' damage claim; all of these cases focused on partial or general nullity of contracts concluded as a result of an anticompetitive practice; almost all of them concerned an abuse of a dominant position; only one referred to competition-restricting agreements. The relevant jurisprudence largely focused on the binding force of a prior decision of the Polish competition body upon civil courts. Even if the fact that some cases of this type were at all record might suggest that there is a potential for developing private enforcement of antitrust in Poland, nothing like this actually happened. Unfortunately, the Act on Collective Redress (in force since July 2010) has not contributed to a growth in the number of consumers (or any other entities) engaging in court disputes with undertakings restricting competition.
FR
L’article passe en revue les jugements des tribunaux polonais sur l’application privée du droit de la concurrence entre 1993 et 2012. Une analyse quantitative de cette jurisprudence montre que très peu de cas de ce type existent. Leurs caractéristiques qualitatives montrent que : aucun d’entre eux ne concernait les consommateurs ; aucune des revendications ne constituait une demande d’indemnisation dans le sense exacte ; tous ces cas axaient sur la nullité partielle ou générale des contrats conclus à la suite d‘une pratique anticoncurrentielle ; la quasi-totalité d’entre eux concernaient un abus de position dominante ; une seule visait aux accords restreignant la concurrence. La jurisprudence se concentrait surtout sur la force contraignante d’une décision préalable de l’organe polonais de la concurrence prise par des tribunaux civils. Même si le fait que certains cas de ce type-là étaient notés, il pourrait suggérer qu’il existe un potentiel de développement de l’application privée de la concurrence en Pologne – rien que cela ne s’est réellement passé. Malheureusement, la Loi sur les recours collectif (en vigueur depuis juillet 2010) n’a pas contribué à une augmentation du nombre de consommateurs (ou d’autres entités) s’engageant dans des litiges judiciaires avec les entreprises qui restreignent la concurrence.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Slovenia: A New Field to Be Developed by Slovenian Courts

86%
Brkan M., Bratina T.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2013
|
vol. 6(8)
75-106
EN
This contribution aims to demonstrate the legal framework that can shape and influence private enforcement in Slovenia. This includes, in particular, conditions for damage claims, collective redress mechanisms, legal costs and fees as well as discovery and burden of proof. It is shown which legislative changes may be needed in order to improve the effectiveness of private enforcement and the practical obstacles that will have to be overcome in the future. Furthermore, the article analyses the jurisprudence of Slovenian courts concerning private enforcement. Although there was practically no jurisprudence in this area only a few years ago, Slovenian courts have now ruled on a few such cases already. The number of private enforcement proceedings will most likely increase in the future. Therefore, it can be stated that private enforcement of competition law is an area that is slowly, but steadily, gaining importance in the Slovenian legal system.
FR
La présente contribution vise à démontrer le cadre juridique susceptible de former et d’influencer la mise en œuvre des règles de concurrence de l'UE à l'initiative de la sphère privée (« private enforcement ») en Slovénie. Les conditions pour des recours en dommages et intérêts, des mécanismes des recours collectifs, des règles sur des dépens ainsi que la divulgation des preuves et la charge de la preuve y sont analysés. La contribution démontre quelles modifications législatives seraient nécessaires et quelles obstacles pratiques devront être surmontés à l’avenir afin d’améliorer l’effectivité de ce type de mise en œuvre du droit de la concurrence. La jurisprudence des juridictions Slovènes dans ce domaine y est également analysée. Même si cette jurisprudence a été pratiquement inexistante il y a quelques années, les juridictions Slovènes ont, jusqu’à présent, rendu déjà quelques arrêts dans ce domaine et il est à attendre que le nombre de ce type d’affaires accroîtra dans le futur. Ainsi, il est possible de constater que l’importance de ce type de mise en œuvre du droit de la concurrence augmentera lentement mais sûrement dans l’ordre juridique slovène.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Private Enforcement of Competition Law – the Case of Estonia

86%
Sein K.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2013
|
vol. 6(8)
129-139
EN
Jurisprudence on private enforcement of competition law has so far been almost non-existent in Estonia. Most cases where competition law issues are raised within the context of damage claims are solved by out-of-court settlements. One of the main reasons for this scarcity is the fact that this is a fairly unfamiliar field for Estonian lawyers, attorneys and judges. The first reason for the low number of private enforcement of competition law cases in Estonia is therefore lacking awareness and legal uncertainty. The other key barrier lies in burden of proof issues associated with damage claims. It has proven very difficult in practice for an injured person to prove that he/she sustained damages as a result of a competition law infringement; even more so to prove the actual extent of such damages. There is no juridical practice yet on how to calculate business losses and judges face considerable difficulties when confronted with this task. Another problem lies in the availability of evidence. As discovery is not possible in Estonia, its civil procedure rules make it difficult for claimants to obtain evidence necessary to prove the facts underlying their claims. Estonian law does not provide for a special procedure for antitrust damage claims – there are no collective claims, no class actions, nor actions by representative bodies or other forms of public interest litigation (no collective redress). It is thus only possible to file damage claims arising from competition law infringements either in normal civil proceedings or as a civil claim within the framework of criminal proceedings on a competition law crime. The need for collective redress has not yet been subject to a legal debate at the national level, and there has not been a single private enforcement case opened by a consumer in Estonia so far. The only Supreme Court case in existence in this field, which was decided in 2011, has cleared the basis and availability of damage claims for competition law infringement. It has shown, at the same time, the many problems connected to calculating damages in this context.
FR
La jurisprudence relative à l’application privée du droit de la concurrence a été jusqu’à présent presque absente en Estonie. La plupart des cas où les questions de droit de la concurence sont soulevées dans le cadre de demandes d’indemnisation, sont résolus par des règlements à l’amiable. L’une des raisons principales de cette pénurie est le fait que c’est un domaine assez inconnu pour les avocats, les procureurs et les juges estoniens. La première raison pour le faible nombre de cas de l’application privée du droit de la concurrence en Estonie est donc la manque de conscience et l’incertitude juridique. L’autre obstacle majeur réside dans des questions relatives à la charge de preuve liées à des demandes d ‘indemnisation. Il s’est avéré très difficile en pratique pour une personne blessée à prouver qu’il/elle a subi des dommages à la suite d’une infraction au droit de la concurrence ; plus encore à prouver l’étendue exacte de tels dommages. Il n’existe pas encore de pratique juridique sur la façon de calculer les pertes commerciales. Alors les juges font face à des difficultés considérables lorsqu’ils sont confrontés à cette tâche. Un autre problème réside dans la disponibilité de la preuve. A cause du fait que la découverte n’est pas possible en Estonie, ses règles de procédure civile rendent l’obtention des preuves nécessaires pour soutenir les faits qui prouvent des revendications soumis par des demandeurs difficile. La législation estonienne ne prévoit pas de procédure spéciale pour les demandes de dommages antitrust – il n’y a pas de revendications collectives, aucune action de classe, ni des measures prises par les organes représentatifs ou d’autres formes de litiges d’intérêt public (pas de resours collectif). Il n’est donc possible que de déposer des demandes d’indemnsation en cas d’infraction au droit de la concurrence soit dans les procédures civiles normales, soit comme une action civile dans le cadre d’une procédure pénale sur un crime de droit de la concurrence. La nécessité de recours collectif n’a pas encore fait l’objet d’un débat juridique au niveau national, et il n’a pas eu en Estonie un seul cas de l’application privée ouverte par un consommateur jusqu’à présent. Le seul cas qui a été présenté à la Cour suprême en ce domaine (le jugement a été prononcé en 2011), a autorisé la base et la disponibilité des demandes d’indemnisation pour violation du droit de la concurrence. Il a présenté en même temps les problèmes nombreux reliés à la calculation des dommages dans ce contexte-là.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Proving the Grounds for Compensation – Reflections on Private Enforcement in the Polish Cement Cartel Case. Case Comment to the Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Cracow of 10 January 2014 (Ref. No I ACa 1322/13)

86%
Knapp M., Korycińska-Rządca P.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 10(15)
251-268
EN
Despite the fact that the right to full compensation of harm caused by the breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU was confirmed in European Union jurisprudence many years ago, and that actions for damages for competition law infringements were admissible in Poland also before the transposition of Directive 2014/104/EU (hereinafter, the Damages Directive), the number of reported court cases regarding private enforcement of competition law is very low. The commented judgment of the Court of Appeals in Cracow (Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie) of 10 January 2014 is one of the very few judgments of Polish courts regarding actions for damages for an infringement of competition law.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Interaction of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law before and after the EU Directive – a Hungarian perspective

72%
Toth T.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2016
|
vol. 9(14)
43-68
EN
The paper explores the changes the EU Directive on harmonizing certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions will bring about in Hungary, with a special focus placed on damages liability rules, the interaction of public and private enforcement of these rules, and the importance of class actions. Amendments of the Competition Act introduced in 2005 and 2009 had created new rules to promote the idea of private enforcement even before the Directive was adopted. Some of these rules remain unique even now, notably the legal presumption of a 10% price increase for cartel cases. However, subsequent cases decided by Hungarian courts did not reflect the sophistication of existing substantive and procedural rules. There has only ever been one judgment awarding damages, while most stand-alone cases involved minor competition law issues relating to contractual disputes. The paper looks at the most important substantial rules of tort law (damage, causality, joint and several liability), the co-operation of competition authorities and civil courts, as well as at (the lack of) class action procedures from the perspective of the interaction of public and private enforcement of competition law.
FR
Le document analyse les changements apportés par la directive européenne relative aux certaines règles régissant les actions en dommages et intérêts en droit national pour les infractions aux dispositions du droit de la concurrence en Hongrie, en particulier concernant les règles sur la responsabilité civile en matière de dommages, l’interaction de l’application publique et privée du droit de la concurrence et l'importance des recours collectifs. Les modifications à loi de la concurrence introduites en 2005 et 2009 ont créé de nouvelles règles pour promouvoir l'idée d'une application privée du droit de la concurrence même avant que la directive a été adoptée. Certaines de ces dispositions sont toujours uniques, notamment la présomption légale d'une augmentation de prix de 10% par les ententes. Néanmoins, les jugements ultérieurs rendus par les tribunaux ne reflétaient pas les règles de fond et de procédures sophistiquées. Il n’y avait juste le jugement qui a accordé des dommages et intérêts, alors que la plupart des actions autonomes (« stand-alone actions ») portaient sur des problèmes secondaires du droit de la concurrence liés aux conflits contractuels. L’article examine des règles les plus importantes du droit de la responsabilité civile (le dommage, la causalité, la responsabilité solidaire), la coopération entre les autorités de la concurrence et les tribunaux civils, ainsi que l’absence de mécanisme de recours collectifs et de la perspective de l’application publique et privée du droit de la concurrence.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

How to Throw the Baby out with the Bath Water. A Few Remarks on the Currently Accepted Scope of Civil Liability for Antitrust Damages

72%
Jurkowska-Gomułka A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2015
|
vol. 8(12)
61-78
EN
The Damages Directive introduces the right to ‘full compensation’ and the principle of ‘joint and several liability’ for antitrust damages (Article 3(1) and Article 11(1) respectively). The Directive does not determine the type of damage that can be awarded in civil proceedings. In theory, there are thus no barriers to establish punitive, multiple or other damages. In practice, it is rather unlikely that such types of damages will be awarded after the implementation of the Directive due to the ban placed on overcompensation in its Article 2(3). This paper will try to decode the concept of ‘full compensation’ and ‘joint and several liability’ in light of the Damages Directive as well as EU jurisprudence. An adequate understanding of these terms is without a doubt one of the key preconditions of correctly implementing the Directive and, consequently, a condition for making EU (competition) law effective. While on the one hand, a limitation of the personal scope of civil liability can currently be observed in EU law (covering both legislation and case law), a broadening of its subject-matter scope is visible on the other hand. With reference to the personal scope of civil liability, the Directive itself limits the applicability of the joint and several responsibility principle towards certain categories of infringers: small & medium enterprises (Article 11(2)) and immunity recipients in leniency (Article 11(3)). Considering the subject-matter scope of civil liability, the acceptance by the Court of Justice of civil liability for the ‘price umbrella effect’ should be highlighted. In addition, the principle of the ‘passing-on defence’ can also be regarded as a manner of broadening the scope of civil liability for antitrust damage (Article 12–16). The paper will present an overview of the scope of civil liability for antitrust damages (in its personal and subject-matter dimension) in light of the Directive and EU jurisprudence. The paper’s goal is to assess if the applicable scope will in fact guarantee the effective development of private competition law enforcement in EU Member States. This assessment, as the very title of this paper suggests, will be partially critical.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Passing-on of Overcharges and the Implementation of the Damages Directive in CEE Countries

72%
Moisejevas R.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 10(15)
133-146
EN
The article focuses on the concept of passing-on of overcharges and the peculiarities of its regulation by the Damages Directive. The Damages Directive obliges Member States to ensure that the defendant in an action for damages may invoke the passing-on defence. Moreover, the Directive establishes the new framework and the main principles that govern the application of the passing-on defence. The national case law on passing-on is very insignificant in Central and Eastern European countries and many questions are expected to be raised in the courts of the CEE Member States. While discussing the concept of passing-on in the Damages Directive, a lot of emphasis should be paid to the issue of causation. Causation will definitely be the subject of most of the questions in cases when an indirect purchaser will bring a claim for damages. Causation may be tricky when an indirect purchaser claims it suffered an ‘overcharge harm’ because of passing-on. In most cases, the issue of causation will be decided mainly by national courts based on national procedural rules. Depending on the situation, passing-on may be used as a basis for the claim (as a ‘sword’) or as a defence (as a ‘shield’). It could be used as a basis for the claim by an indirect purchaser, in case s/he has suffered any harm because of the illegal actions of a cartelist or a dominant company. At the same time, it could be used as a defence by the infringer against a claim for damages. The article also analyses the specifics of the implementation of the Directive into the national laws of CEE Member States.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Development of Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Lithuania

72%
Moisejevas R.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2015
|
vol. 8(11)
35-52
EN
The article reviews the jurisprudence of Lithuanian courts on private enforcement of competition law and identifies the main obstacles for the development of this practice. The analysis of the jurisprudence makes it possible to summarise that: most rulings of the Lithuanian courts relate to cases on the abuse of dominance; usually, dominant undertakings were allegedly applying discriminatory conditions towards the injured party and; most of the claims were presented as follow-on actions after a decision of the Competition Council. The courts held that damages caused by a breach of competition law have to be recovered in accordance with Lithuania’s main principles of civil responsibility. At the same time, the courts made it clear that their jurisprudence is based on the rulings of European Courts and the main principles of EU competition law. The main obstacles for the successful development of antitrust damages claims in Lithuania are, inter alia: complexity of competition cases; difficulty in obtaining substantive evidence; proving a consequential relationship and; high legal costs. The article also analyses substantial and procedural provisions of Lithuanian legislation that regulate the submission of antitrust damage claims.
11
Content available remote

Legitimace v řízení o žalobách na náhradu škody v soutěžních věcech

58%
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.
12
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Damages Directive and Consensual Approach to Antitrust Enforcement

58%
Moisejevas R.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2015
|
vol. 8(12)
181-194
EN
The article focuses on the novelties introduced by the Damages Directive in the field of consensual settlements of disputes concerning private enforcement. The Damages Directive obliges Member States to ensure that the limitation period for bringing an action for damages is suspended for the duration of any consensual dispute resolution process. The Directive also establishes the main principles that govern the effect of consensual settlements on subsequent actions for damages. Since the EU framework for consensual dispute resolution of private enforcement disputes is quite new, many issues must still be solved in Member States’ practice. While analysing consensual dispute resolution in private enforcement cases, particular interest should be paid to mediation and arbitration as a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Mediation is often used in competition law litigation. In a mediation process, parties are subject to fewer legal costs than in litigation and arbitration. It may thus be concluded that consensual dispute resolution is usually a faster way to receive compensation. However, voluntary arrangements and ADR in competition law still raise many problems concerning both procedural and substantial legal acts.
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.