Search

Should companies that have been fined for EU antitrust infringements be allowed to recover such fines from their (former) directors or employees? On the basis of an analysis of the EU Treaty provisions, legislation and case law on antitrust fines, as well as of the economic nature of antitrust infringements and the economic rationale of fines on undertakings/companies, this paper argues that it would appear contrary to EU law to allow undertakings/companies that have been fined by the European Commission or by a national competition authority(NCA) for infringements of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU to recover such fines from the companies’ (former) directors or employees, as such recovery would significantly impair the full effectiveness of those fines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb is the property of Fachmedien Otto Schmidt KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Regulation 1/2003 brought about a radical change in the way in which the EU antitrust prohibitions contained in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU are enforced. The previous enforcement regime, under Regulation 17, which dated from 1962, was characterized by a centralized notification and authorization system for Article 101(3) TFEU. Regulation 1/2003 abolished this system and replaced it by a system of ex post enforcement. The objectives of this reform were to allow the European Commission to become more active in the pursuit of serious infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, as well as to decentralize enforcement to the Member States’ competition authorities and to the national courts, while maintaining EU-wide consistency. This article provides an overview of the genesis of Regulation 1/2003, its objectives, and its main results, as apparent twenty years later. It finds that the decentralization to the national competition authorities, cooperating with the European Commission and each other in the European Competition Network, has been a major success, beyond expectations. On the other hand, the prediction that the reform would lead to a significant increase in the number of prohibition decisions adopted by the European Commission has turned out to be too optimistic. Ten possible explanations for this lack of increase in the number of prohibition decisions are tentatively examined. Taking together the figures for the European Commission and the national competition authorities, however, there can be no doubt that Regulation 1/2003 has led to a spectacular increase in the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, and that Regulation 1/2003 has thus been a great success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the objectives and principles of the use of settlements in public antitrust enforcement. Two questions, that is, conditions under which the use of settlements gives optimum antitrust enforcement and the conditions under which self-incrimination and waivers of the procedural rights by candidates opting for settlement are agreeable with the fundamental rights of defense are examined.

The purposes and methods behind the European Commission's 2006 guidelines for antitrust fines are investigated.

The theory and practice of leniency in antitrust enforcement, or granting of immunity from penalties or reduction of penalties for antitrust violations in exchange for cooperation with the antitrust enforcement authorities, is described. The positive effects and the negative effects of leniency on optimal antitrust enforcement and the degree to which the effects can be measured are discussed.

Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 provides for formal settlements of investigations by the European Commission into suspected infringements of Articles 81 or 82 EC. The origin and optimal use of this provision, the procedure for the adoption of commitment decisions, the content and effect of such decisions and the scope for judicial review is analyzed and the possibilities of informal settlement, and of settlements that include payment of a fine are explored.

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)