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

Results found: 7

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  standard of proof
help Sort By:

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

The Judicial Review of the Standard of Proof in Cartel Cases:Raising the Bar for the Croatian Competition Authority Case comment to the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia No. U-III-2791/2016 of 1 February 2018 (Sokol Marić d.o.o.)

100%
Svetlicinii A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2018
|
vol. 11(18)
EN
The Security agencies case represents another example of the procedural diversity among Member States in applying national competition rules that mirror Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. In its infringement decision the Croatian NCA specified that the presence at the meeting with competitors and participation in the discussion concerning minimum prices was sufficient to impute to the parties participation in an anti-competitive agreement prohibited under the national equivalent of Article 101 TFEU. As the Croatian NCA investigated an agreement ‘by object’, it considered itself relieved of the burden to demonstrate the anti-competitive effects. The Constitutional Court has taken a different approach and held that the fact that the participants of the meeting have not publicly denounced the results of the meeting, cannot serve as evidence of an anti-competitive agreement. The court also found that the Croatian NCA did not manage to provide a reasonable explanation why the ‘hourly cost of service’ apparently discussed by competitors is the same as ‘hourly price of service’ that appears in the NCA’s decision. As a result, the Constitutional Court’s approach deviated from several substantive presumptions developed by the EU Commission and the EU courts when applying competition rules in relation to anti-competitive agreements. This places a heavier burden of proof on the Croatian NCA in cartel cases when compared to its own preceding practice or the enforcement practices of the EU Commission or other European NCAs.
FR
L’affaire des agences de sécurité représente un autre exemple de la diversité des procédures entre les États membres dans l’application de règles de concurrence nationales qui reflètent les articles 101 et 102 du TFUE. Dans sa décision d’infraction, l’autorité croate de la concurrence a précisé que la présence à la réunion avec les concurrents et la participation à la discussion sur les prix minimaux étaient suffisantes pour imputer aux parties la participation à un accord anticoncurrentiel interdit par l’équivalent national de l’article 101 du TFUE. L’autorité croate ayant enquêté sur un accord ‘par objet’ s’estime déchargée du fardeau de démontrer les effets anticoncurrentiels. La Cour constitutionnelle a adopté une approche différente et a jugé que le fait que les participants à la réunion n’ont pas dénoncé publiquement les résultats de la réunion ne peut servir de preuve d’un accord anticoncurrentiel. La Cour a également conclu que l’autorité croate n’avait pas réussi à expliquer de manière raisonnable pourquoi le ‘coût horaire du service’ apparemment discuté par les concurrents était identique au ‘prix horaire du service’ figurant dans la décision de l’autorité. En conséquence, l’approche de la Cour constitutionnelle s’écartait de plusieurs présomptions de fond développées par la Commission et les tribunaux de l’Union européenne lorsqu’elle appliquait les règles de concurrence relatives aux accords anticoncurrentiels. Cela alourdit la charge de la preuve incombant à l’autorité croate dans les cas des accords anticoncurrentiels par rapport à sa propre pratique antérieure ou aux pratiques répressives de la Commission de l’UE ou d’autres autorités européennes.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Proof of Causation in Tort Cases

72%
Karnaukh B.
Studia Iuridica
|
2019
|
vol. 82
149-160
EN
The article addresses the problem of uncertainty over causation in tort cases. It reveals the interconnection between burden of proof and standard of proof. The author provides a comparative overview of approaches to standard of proof in common law and civil law systems. It is argued that while in common law there are two different standards viz: beyond-reasonable-doubt-standard for criminal cases and balanceof-probabilities standard for civil cases in civil law system there is only one standard applicable both to criminal and civil cases. With comparative analysis in the background the article also reveals the peculiarities of Ukrainian law in the respect of the issue raised. The problem is approached in a pragmatic manner: using a hypothetical case the author models practical outcomes entailed by each of the approaches being applied to the case. Eventually the conclusion is made that there are four ways of coping with uncertainty over causation: (1) to reverse the burden of proof; (2) to calibrate the standard of proof for certain cases; (3) to recognize the very creation of the abnormal risk as a compensable damage; and (4) to multiply damage plaintiff sustained by the probability factor indicating the likelihood of the damage being actually caused by the defendant.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Polish Antitrust Experience with Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies

72%
Bolecki A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2011
|
vol. 4(5)
25-46
EN
A hub-and-spoke conspiracy involves an exchange of confidential information primarily concerning future prices. The exchange takes place generally between competing distributors via a common supplier but a reverse relationship is also possible. The essence of hub-and-spoke lies in the fact that there is no direct contact between competitors – the party guaranteeing the information flow is normally the common supplier (distributor in a reverse scenario). A hub-and-spoke conspiracy was first identified and specifically described by the British Office of Fair Trade in 2003. There are currently several pending investigations concerning hub-and-spoke practices in a number of EU Member States including Germany, France, Italy and the UK. Three cases of that type have been so far assessed in the Polish antitrust practice: Polifarb Cieszyn Wrocław (2007), Tikurilla (2010) and Akzo Nobel (2010). The main objective of this article is the reconstruction of hub-and-spoke conduct in Poland. Commented will also be issues such as: the connection between hub-and-spoke practices and ‘classic’ retail price maintenance; standard of proof, and duration of the agreements.
FR
La pratique de “hub-and-spoke” implique une échange d’information confidentielle, surtout celle concernant les prix envisagés. De façon générale, l’échange a lieu entre les distributeurs concurrents, au travers d’un fournisseur commun, mais une relation inverse est aussi possible. Le système de “hub-and-spoke” est fondé sur le fait qu’il n’y a pas de contact direct entre les concurrents – le flux d’information est garanti par le fournisseur commun (distributeur dans un scénario inverse). Trois cas de ce type ont été jugés dans la pratique antitrust polonaise: Polifarb Cieszyn Wrocław (2007), Tikurilla (2010) et Akzo Nobel (2010). Le but principal de cet article est de reconstruire la pratique de “hub-and-spoke” en Pologne. Autre questions, notamment la relation entre les pratiques de hub-and-spoke” et les prix de revente imposés, le standard de la preuve et la durée des accords, seront commentées.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Impact of the New Approach to Article 102 TFEU on the Enforcement of the Polish Prohibition of Dominant Position Abuse

72%
Kohutek K.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2010
|
vol. 3(3)
93-113
EN
This paper will analyze the impact of the modernized approach to Article 102 TFEU on the application of the prohibition of dominant position abuse contained in Polish competition law. For that purpose, several questions will be answered. Has the consumer-welfare standard already become, or will it become (in particular under the influence of the effects-based approach), the decisive criteria for the finding of a violation of Article 9 of the Polish Competition Act as well as its past equivalents? Will EU’s new approach to the abuse of dominance lead to a re-orientation of the goals pursued by Polish competition law on unilateral conduct? Has Polish enforcement practice attached as much emphasis to the protection of market structures as some EU cases that might have justified the accusation of over-enforcement? Has the recent reform introduced any new requirements, standards or tests in the procedural dimension of the application of the ban on the abuse of dominance and if so, to what an extent will they influence the traditional approach employed by Polish antitrust and judiciary institutions? In order to answer these questions, relevant Polish legislation and case-law will be analyzed. The article will try to establish the actual scope of the change relating to substantive as well as procedural rules which will (or should) affect the enforcement of Article 9 of the Polish Competition Act under the impact of the new EU approach.
FR
Cet article a pour but d’analyser l’impact de l’interprétation modernisée de l’article 102 TFUE sur l’application de l’interdiction de l’abus de position dominante dans la loi polonaise. Dans ce but, nombreuses questions seront adressées. Par exemple, le bien être des consommateurs, est-il déjà, ou sera-t-il dans le future (en particulier, sous l’influence de l’approche fondée sur les effets), le critère décisif pour constater une violation de l’article 9 du Droit de la concurrence polonais, aussi que leurs équivalents? La législation polonaise et la jurisprudence seront analysées. Cet article tente d'établir l'étendue actuel des changements relatifs aux règles substantives et procédurales, qui affectent (ou devraient affecter) le renforcement de l’article 9 du Droit de la concurrence polonais sous l’influence de la nouvelle approche de l’UE.
5
Content available remote

Snížení míry důkazu a dílčí odpovědnost – problémy související s nemožností vyjasnění skutkového stavu v oblasti náhrady škody

58%
Ahrens H.-J.
Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)
|
2016
|
vol. 155
|
issue 12
1057-1073
EN
This article analyses the German law on the standard of proof in civil procedure. It focuses on two main paradigms, namely conviction of the judge and the doctrine of likehood. From the perspective of the German civil procedural law, there exists only one clear solution which is based on the conviction of the judge.Relevant is the judge’s conviction of the facts which are decisive for the claim. The degree of likelihood must be close to certainty (§286 of Code on Civil Procedure). Slightly lower degree of conviction is required by § 287. The author is against the proportional liability. The régime of the standard of proof should be based on substantive law. In this sense, procedural law should only be exception.
CS
Článek analyzuje německou úpravu míry důkazu v civilním soudním řízení. Zabývá se dvěma základními paradigmaty: přesvědčením soudce, respektive doktrínou pravděpodobnosti. Z hlediska německého procesního civilního práva existuje jednoznačné řešení, tj. hodnocení míry důkazu na základě přesvědčení soudce. Rozhodující je přesvědčení soudce o tvrzených skutečnostech jako základu žalobního návrhu. Míra přesvědčení se musí blížit jistotě (§ 286 německého civilního soudního řádu ZPO). Poněkud nižší stupeň míry přesvědčení soudce je dovolen podle § 287. Autor nesouhlasí s proporcionální odpovědností. Režim míry důkazu by měl vycházet z hmotněprávní úpravy. Jeho úprava v právních procesních předpisech by měla být doplňkem či výjimkou.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Burden of Proof: Standard of Proof in Court Proceeding. Latvian Experience

58%
Jurkeviča T. I.
De Securitate et Defensione. O Bezpieczeństwie i Obronności
|
2022
|
issue 2(8)
216-232
PL
Ciężar dowodu: stopień dowodu w postępowaniu sądowym. Doświadczenia Łotwy
7
Content available remote

Míra důkazu - základní problémy z hlediska srovnávací analýzy

44%
Tichý L.
Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)
|
2019
|
vol. 158
|
issue 12
1109-1135
EN
This contribution presents an overview of how European jurisdictions tackle the key problem of civil procedural law: the standard of proof. In order to arrive at an adequate solution, the contribution evaluates the expert assessments of fourteen law professors and their different perspectives from across the continent and presents the “ideal” picture of standard of proof.
CS
Příspěvek poskytuje přehled o řešení míry důkazu - zásadního problému nejen civilního procesního práva - v hlavních evropských jurisdikcích, analyzuje klíčové faktory tohoto institutu a dospívá tak k jeho ideálnímu pojetí, které slouží jako tertium comparationis, tedy měřítko hodnocení konkrétních národních přístupů, zejména českého pojetí, pro které navrhuje vlastní řešení.
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.