Renato Nazzini, Ali Nikpay, Nov 01, 2008
The paper considers the case for reform of the system of private actions in the European Union. In doing so, it seeks to identify the central changes which would need to be made if private actions are to play a more significant role in the competition regime. Contrary to recent statements made by the European Commission, the paper argues that any changes made must recognize that private actions perform a dual function in EC competition law: they not only compensate those who have been harmed by anticompetitive behavior but also contribute to the overall level of deterrence generated by the competition regime.
Going further, it argues that whilst increased deterrence and compensation almost always go hand in hand, the primary objective of private actions is to support effective competition enforcement. Building on this, the paper identifies and examines the main pillars of any effective reform program in Europe: enhancing the role of collective actions, clarifying the issues surrounding indirect purchasers standing and passing-on, and ensuring, as far as possible, that public and private enforcement operate in harmony where they clash, the paper argues that the former must take precedence over the latter. In light of this discussion, the paper goes on to assess the proposals made by the European Commission (Commission) and the U.K. Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for reform of the system. It concludes that the proposals made, if implemented, would appreciably increase the incentives of businesses to comply with the EC competition rules while at the same time achieving higher levels of compensation. In addition the reformed system would retain significant safeguards to guard against the risk of unmeritorious or speculative claims. However both sets of proposals are cautious in particular in relation to the availability of opt-out collective actions. This is an issue which policymakers in Europe may need to return to in the future.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Congress Pushes to Combat AI Deepfakes in Year-End Funding Deal
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Games Board Resignations Linked to DOJ Antitrust Investigation
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Renault Supports Potential Honda-Nissan Merger Talks
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea’s Antitrust Body Raises Concerns Over AI Market Competition
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Perplexity Caught in Crossfire as DOJ and Google Battle Over Search Dominance
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Remedies After Illumina/GRAIL– The Thorny Question of Proportionality
Dec 17, 2024 by
Aleksander Tombinski & Ciara Denihan
Why Was Illumina/GRAIL Blocked in the EU? Reviewing The European Commission’s Assessment of Vertical Mergers in Light of the 2022 Prohibition Decision
Dec 17, 2024 by
Will Sparks
The Role of Uncertainty in the Future European Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Lessons Learned From Illumina/GRAIL
Dec 17, 2024 by
Svend Albaek & Daniel Donath
Illumina’s Light on Article 22 EUMR: The Suspended Step and Uncertain Future of EU Merger Control Over Below-Threshold “Killer” Mergers
Dec 17, 2024 by
Anna Tzanaki
EU-Level Jurisdiction Over “Killer Acquisitions” in the Aftermath of Illumina/GRAIL
Dec 17, 2024 by
Peter Whelan