By Stavros Makris & Alexandre Ruiz Feases(European University Institute)
To what extent can a national competition authority or a national court find a competition law infringement in a case already subjected to commitments of the European Commission? This is one of the questions that lie at the heart of the controversy in Gasorba. This case provided the ECJ with the opportunity to clarify the legal nature and effects of commitments in EU competition law. In this case note, we analyse the preliminary ruling of the ECJ and we argue that, apart from clarifying the legal nature of commitments, the ECJ strikes a dynamic balance between public and private enforcement. Moreover, far from undermining the principle of legal certainty and generating coordination failures, we claim that Gasorba allows for ‘modest experimentalism’ in EU antitrust enforcement and ‘regulatory conversations’ between enforcers.
Featured News
Plaintiffs Seek Communications In Antitrust Case Against Pioneer
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
UK Government Approves Vodafone-Hutchison Merger
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Senate Majority Leader Announces Plan for AI Regulation Framework
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
BBVA Initiates Aggressive Takeover Bid for Sabadell
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
TikTok to Label AI-Generated Content Amid Election Interference Concerns
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Mapping Antitrust onto Digital Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystems and Competition Law: A Law and Political Economy Approach
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystem Theories of Harm: What is Beyond the Buzzword?
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Open Ecosystems: Benefits, Challenges, and Implications for Antitrust
May 9, 2024 by
CPI