Compensatory remedies in EU law: the relationship between EU law and national law
Posted by Social Science Research Network
Compensatory remedies in EU law: the relationship between EU law and national law
By Dorota Leczykiewicz (University of Oxford)
Abstract: The chapter investigates the complex interaction between EU law and national rules on compensatory remedies. It starts by explaining the problems lying behind the use of the label of ‘EU Tort law’, which is not a recognised category and generates confusion unless some independent definition of the concept of ‘tort law’ is selected. The chapter proposes to define ‘tort law’ by reference to the function of the examined rules, and in particular to the function of regulating compensatory remedies. Following this definition the chapter discusses the different ways in which EU law regulates compensatory remedies; first, by looking at EU competence to regulate compensatory remedies in its two guises, legislative and judicial, and then by examining the different modes in which the EU regulates compensatory remedies. It argues that these modes could be classified in a three-fold manner:
1) as involving complete harmonisation,
2) as involving only partial harmonisation, where national provisions constitute gap-fillers and/or provide residual rules, and
3) as involving only rudimentary harmonisation, where EU law provides merely regulatory standards and the link between their breach and a compensatory obligation is established by national law.
In terms of the substantive content, the chapter looks at EU rules governing damages actions for breach of competition law, liability for damage caused by products, the Fracovich remedy, damages for infringements of intellectual property rights, and the relevant rules in consumer Directives. The chapter concludes by discussing briefly the consequences of codifying private law at the EU level for the continued applicability of national rules on compensatory remedies in the sphere covered by the ‘scope of EU law’.
Featured News
Senators Urged to Expedite Gail Slater’s Confirmation as DOJ Antitrust Chief
Feb 11, 2025 by
CPI
Former Michigan Asphalt Executive Pleads Guilty in Bid-Rigging Scheme
Feb 11, 2025 by
CPI
Ballard Spahr Expands Litigation Team with Addition of Antitrust Attorney in Seattle
Feb 11, 2025 by
CPI
Portuguese Court Overturns €225 Million Fine for Banking Collusion Due to Statute of Limitations
Feb 11, 2025 by
CPI
Binance and SEC Request Stay in Crypto Lawsuit Amid New Regulatory Task Force
Feb 11, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – International Criminal Enforcement
Jan 23, 2025 by
CPI
The Antitrust Division’s Recent Work to Combat International Cartels
Jan 23, 2025 by
Emma Burnham & Benjamin Christenson
Information Sharing: The New Frontier of U.S. Antitrust Enforcement
Jan 23, 2025 by
Brian P. Quinn, Casey Kovarik & Michael Tubach
The Key Role of Guidelines on Exchanges of Information Among Competitors and the Divergent Transatlantic Paths
Jan 23, 2025 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz & Albert Metz
Leniency, Whistleblowers, and Compliance
Jan 23, 2025 by
Richard Powers, Tara O’Malley & Cory Gordon