More Than a Decade of the Slovak Settlement Regime in Antitrust Matters: From European Inspirations to National Inventions

• Authors: Ondrej Blažo

Abstracts

FR

Il existe trois sources d’inspiration à la procédure de transaction en Slovaquie: de haut en bas (droit de l’Union européenne), de bas en haut (incitation de l’avocat d’une entreprise) et de sources horizontales (Tchéquie). Après plus de dix ans d’application de cette caractéristique du droit slovaque de la concurrence, plusieurs affaires ont été réglées. Ces affaires présentent une certaine variété du point de vue de la base juridique, du stade de la procédure ainsi que du caractère ou de la pertinence de l’affaire. Cela permet d’évaluer leurs caractéristiques, leur pratique, leurs effets et les conséquences des règlements amiables d’un point de vue empirique. Le présent article analyse le cadre juridique et la pratique d’un point de vue historique. Il fournit un aperçu qualitatif avec une évaluation de la procédure de transaction dans le contexte du droit européen et de l’ordre juridique slovaque ainsi qu’un aperçu quantitatif basé sur des données extraites des décisions de l’autorité slovaque de la concurrence (PMÚ) et des décisions de justice. Il conclut en présentant de nouvelles propositions de lege ferenda.

EN

The settlement procedure in Slovakia stems from three sources of inspiration: top-to-bottom (European Union law), bottom-up (incentive of an undertaking’s lawyer) and horizontal sources (Czechia). After more than ten years of application of this feature of Slovak competition law, there are several cases which were settled. These cases show a certain variety from the point of view of the legal basis, the stage of procedure as well as the character or relevance of the case. This makes it possible to assess their features, practice, effects, and consequences of settlements from the empirical point of view. The present paper analyses the legal framework and practice from a historical point of view. It provides a qualitative overview with evaluation of the settlement procedure in the context of European law and the Slovak legal order as well as a quantitative overview based on data extracted from the decisions of the Slovak NCA (PMÚ) and court rulings. In its conclusions it brings forward fresh suggestions de lege ferenda.

Keywords

EN

cartels; settlements; Slovak competition law; EU competition law; convergence; length of antitrust proceeding

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 27
• Pages: 9-56

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Ondrej Blažo

• Comenius University Bratislava

• https://orcid.org/0000000197218724

References

• Ascione A and Motta M, ‘Settlements in Cartel Cases’, European Competition Law Annual 2008: Antitrust Settlements under EC Competition Law (2008)
• Beleš A, ‘Dočasné Odloženie Vznesenia Obvinenia’ in Jozef Čentéš and others (eds), Trestný poriadok II. § 196–596 (C H Beck 2021)
• Blažo O, ‘Úsvit Urovnania Na Slovensku’ (2011) 3 Antitrust 81
• Blažo O, ‘Vývoj Urovnania Ako Nástroja Zefektívnenia Konania v Súťažnom Práve’ (2015) 98 Právny obzor 58
• Blažo O, ‘Shaping Procedural Autonomy of the Member States of the European Union – A Case of “Market Regulators”’ (2018) 5 European Studies – The Review of European Law, Economics and Politics 271
• Blažo O, ‘Proper, Transparent and Just Prioritization Policy as a Challenge for National Competition Authorities and Prioritization of the Slovak NCA’ (2020) 13 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 117
• Blockx J, ‘The Impact of EU Antitrust Procedure on the Role of the EU Courts (1997–2016)’ (2018) 9 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice 92
• Bobek M, ‘Why There Is No Principle of “Procedural Autonomy” of the Member State’ in Hans Micklitz and Bruno de Witte (eds), The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States (Intersentia 2011)
• Brook O and Cseres K, ‘Policy Report: Priority Setting in EU and National Competition Law Enforcement’ (2021)
• Ciubotaru Ş, ‘At the Mercy of the Gatekeeper: The Theory and Practice of Undertakings’ Fundamental Rights in the EU Cartel Settlement Procedure’ (2021) 12 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 236
• De La Torre FC and Fournier EG, Evidence, Proof and Judicial Review in EU Competition Law (Edward Elgar Pub 2017)
• Dekeyser K and Roques C, ‘The European Commission’s Settlement Procedure in Cartel Cases’ (2010) 55 The Antitrust Bulletin 819
• Dunne N, ‘A “Tunney Act for Europe”? Settlement and the Re-Judicialisation of European Commission Competition Enforcement’ (2020) 11 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice 423
• Giangaspero M, ‘Pometon v Commission: Reviving Staggered Hybrid Settlements?’ (2020) 11 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice 509
• Hellwig M, Hüschelrath K and Laitenberger U, ‘Settlements and Appeals in the European Commission’s Cartel Cases: An Empirical Assessment’ (2018) 52 Review of Industrial Organization 55
• Hüschelrath K and Laitenberger U, ‘The Settlement Procedure in EC Cartel Cases: An Empirical Assessment’ (2015) 15–064
• Hüschelrath K, ‘The Settlement Procedure in the European Commission’s Cartel Cases: An Early Evaluation’ (2017) 5 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 458
• Kalintiri A, Evidence Standards in EU Competition Enforcement: The EU Approach (Bloomsbury Publishing 2019)
• Kowalik-Bańczyk K, Król-Bogomilska M and Zientara A, ‘The Legal Consequences of Breaching Competition Rules in Poland’ in Csongor István Nagy (ed), The Procedural Aspects of the Application of Competition Law. European Frameworks – Central European Perspectives European Frameworks – Central European Perspectives (Europa Law Publishing 2016)
• Laina F and Bogdanov A, ‘The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure: Latest Developments’ (2016) 7 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice 72
• Laina F and Laurinen E, ‘The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure: Current Status and Challenges’ (2013) 4 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 302
• MacCulloch A, ‘The Privilege against Self-Incrimination in Competition Investigations: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Implications’ (2006) 26 Legal Studies 211 Maillo J, ‘EU Cartel Settlement Procedure : An Assessment of Its Results 10 Years Later’ (2017) 47/2017
• Malinauskaite J, ‘Public EU Competition Law Enforcement in Small “newer” Member States: Addressing the Challenges’ (2016) 12 The Competition Law Review 19
• Malinauskaite J, Harmonisation of EU Competition Law Enforcement (Springer International Publishing 2020)
• Martyniszyn M and Bernatt M, ‘Implementing a Competition Law System’Three Decades of Polish Experience’ (2020) 8 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 165
• Nagy CI, ‘The Legal Consequences of Breaching Hungarian Competition Rules in Hungary’ in Csongor István Nagy (ed), The Procedural Aspects of the Application of Competition Law. European Frameworks – Central European Perspectives (Europa Law Publishing 2016)
• Neruda R, ‘Narovnání. Chcete Mě?’ (2011) 2 Antitrust 2
• Pecotic Kaufman J and Šimic Banovic R, ‘The Role of (In)Formal Governance and Culture in a National Competition System: A Case of a Post- Socialist Economy’ (2021) 44 World Competition 81
• Pecotić Kaufman J, ‘On the Development of (Not so) New Competition Systems-Findings from an Empirical Study on Croatia’ (2022) 10 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 326
• Petr M, ‘Narovnání v Českém Soutěžním Právu’ (2011) 4 Antitrust 176
• Petr M, ‘The Legal Consequences of Breaching Competition Rules in the Czech Republic’ in Csongor István Nagy (ed), The Procedural Aspects of the Application of Competition Law. European Frameworks – Central European Perspectives (Europa Law Publishing 2016)
• Pipková PJ and Šimeček I, ‘New Procedural Notices of the Czech Office for the Protection of Competition: Leniency, Settlement, and Alternative Problem Resolution’ (2015) 8 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 185
• Prokeinová M, ‘Mimoriadne Zníženie Trestu v Konaní o Dohode o Vine a Treste’ (2009) 61 Justičná revue 552
• Prokeinová M, ‘Konanie o Dohode o Vine a Treste’ in Jozef Čentéš and others (eds), Trestný poriadok II. § 196–596 (CH Beck 2021)
• Rodriguez EA and Noorali R, ‘Case T-180/15 Icap v Commission: The Facilitator Doctrine and Other Cartel Concepts in Hybrid Settlements’ (2018) 9 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice 320
• Rusu CS, ‘The Real Challenge of Boosting the EU Competition Law Enforcement Powers of NCAs: In Need of a Reframed Formula?’ (2018) 13 The Competition Law Review 27
• Ščerba F, ‘The Concept of Plea Bargaining Under the Czech Criminal Law and the Criminal Law of Other Countries Within the Region of Central Europe’ (2013) 13 International and Comparative Law Review 7
• Scordamaglia A, ‘The New Commission Settlement Procedure for Cartels: A Critical Assessment’ (2009) 1 Global Antitrust Review 61
• Stephan A, ‘The Direct Settlement of EC Cartel Cases’ (2009) 58 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 627
• Valentina GD, ‘Competition Law Enforcement in Italy after the ECN+ Directive: The Difficult Balance between Effectiveness and Over-Enforcement’ (2019) 12 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 91
• Weatherill S, ‘The Limits of Legislative Harmonization Ten Years after Tobacco Advertising: How the Court’s Case Law Has Become a “Drafting Guide” ’ (2011) 12 German Law Journal 827
• Wils WPJ, ‘Antitrust Compliance Programmes and Optimal Antitrust Enforcement’ (2013) 1 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 52 accessed 14 February 2020
• Zingales N, ‘Member State Liability vs. National Procedural Autonomy: What Rules for Judicial Breach of EU Law?’ (2010) 11 German Law Journal 419

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2023.16.27.1

Biblioteka Nauki

20679085