In this issue:
The new EU Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions came into force on Christmas Day, with a promise of wide-spread effects. It’s designed to increase the ability of victims of competition rule infringements to exercise their right to full compensation, as well as to ensure an optimal balance between the public and private enforcement of EU competition rules. This issue presents a variety of viewpoints as to how effectively the new Directive may accomplish those goals—and points out a number of potential pitfalls. The New Year is off to a fast start.
-
The New EU Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions
The Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions and Its role in the Future Enforcement of the EU Antitrust Rules
This Article will briefly discuss the most important provisions of the Directive and their expected impact. Daniele Calisti & Luke Haasbeek (DG Comp)
A Fleet Without a Captain? Taking Stock of European Antitrust Litigation Post EU Directive
The multi-jurisdiction landscape in Europe, paired with partial but incomplete harmonization across Europe and correct, but complex economic damages concepts, is likely to lead to interlinked multinational damages actions in Europe. Hans W. Friederiszick & Michael Rauber (E.CA Economics)
The Appearance of an EU Level Playing Field in the Area of Private Antitrust Enforcement Actions
At this point in time, we can be certain of the boost in European competition litigation claims. Laurent Geelhand (Hausfeld)
The EU Directive on Antitrust Actions for Damages and Its Side-Effects on Civil Procedure in the European Union
It is therefore easy to predict that the Directive will have a dramatic impact on civil proceedings throughout Europe, making discovery a common feature of civil litigation, whether or not related to antitrust litigation. Stefano Grassani (Pavia e Ansaldo)
The Antitrust Damages Directive: The Ideal of Just Compensation and the Primacy of Public Enforcement
The bias of the Damages Directive for just compensation and follow-on claims seems to have resulted in sacrifices for parallel competences, EU exclusive competence, the diversity of national legal orders, and deterrence. Veljko Milutinović (Belgrade)
The Antitrust Damages Directive—Too Little, Too Late
Overall, the Directive provides few incentives for SMEs and consumers—the two groups that are most likely to go uncompensated. Sebastian Peyer (University of Leicester)
The 2014 Directive on Private Enforcement—Looking Back and Looking Forward
Much will depend on the ability of national courts to handle private damages cases and develop practical, consistent, and predictable approaches to the difficult challenges they face in complex, multi-party litigation. Andreas P. Reindl (Leuphana University)
Featured News
FTC and State Attorneys General Sue John Deere Over Repair Restrictions in Antitrust Case
Jan 15, 2025 by
CPI
Enbridge Wins Legal Battle Against Ducere’s Antitrust Allegations
Jan 15, 2025 by
CPI
GOP Pushes for Antitrust Authority Consolidation Under DOJ in New Legislation
Jan 15, 2025 by
CPI
Canadian Government Approves Bunge-Viterra Merger with Conditions
Jan 15, 2025 by
CPI
SEC Sues Elon Musk Over Delayed Disclosure of Twitter Stock Ownership
Jan 15, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand