Each year, the Awards Jury contributes to this achievement by selecting the best writings published. A Board and two Steering Committees, composed of leading enforcers, academics and counsels, participate impartially in this selection and seek to reward the most meaningful antitrust publications of In order to ensure impartiality, members of the Board, the Steering Committees and Editorial Committee are not eligible to compete. The Awards consist of:
In the last ten years there have been a lot of developments, indeed, a true revolution with regard to private antitrust enforcement in Europe. The Court of Justice has spoken three times in preliminary rulings.
In the legislative context, the last ten years have seen important developments. Ina leaked copy of a Directive proposal was widely circulated in Brussels but the Union has so far not proceeded to legislate in this area. Nevertheless, the recent Commission Work programme confirms that in there will be a legislative proposal for private enforcement.
Then, there is now a growing mass of national cases, including awards for damages, establishing national precedents and dealing not only with the fundamental questions of the existence of a remedy but also with the more specific conditions for the exercise of the right to damages. E-Competitions has played a critical role in these developments.
The private initiative has filled in an important gap, i. Standing and passing-on Many national laws in Europe contain restrictive rules on standing for competition law-related damages actions.
In continental legal systems, the question of damages for competition law infringements has been more or less clear in jurisdictions following the unitary norm system of the French Civil Code Articlewhere the sweeping general nature of the national rule on civil liability allows for a liberal approach with regard to standing, but problems have existed in countries following the German doctrine of Schutznorm, where plaintiffs claiming damages have to belong to a group of persons whom the legislator intended to protect.
In some other countries, notably Italy, the courts had difficulties in granting standing to certain persons, in particular consumers, because of a distinction made between subjective rights diritti soggettivi and lawful interests interessi legitimi.
However, even under the more relaxed test, German courts have struggled with the question of standing because of the existence of a specific rule against the passing-on defence in the Competition Act section 33 3 GWB.
This rule led the courts to be rather reluctant to grant standing to indirect purchasers, bar some exceptional circumstances. The reason has invariably been the risk of unjust enrichment for claimants and multiple liability for defendants.
The latter risk has actually led some German courts to innovative, if not impracticable, solutions, while attempting to reconcile the EU law requirements for a broad rule of standing with the German sensitivities. The court, however, stopped short from providing a rule on contribution among the joint creditors.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court awarded damages to a savings bank acting on behalf of an indirect purchaser but, controversially, the judgment strengthened the case of direct purchasers by restricting the passing-on defence.
In so doing, it narrowed the chances for indirect claimants, as well as the circumstances under which they can seek redress. According to the court, such indirect purchasers can only pursue damages if they are customers of direct subsidiaries of the cartel members.
In France, on the contrary, where standing has never been an issue, the courts fully recognise the passing-on defence.
A ruling of the French Supreme Court actually reversed an appellate judgment for failure to assess whether the claimant had fully or partly passed on to its clients the overcharge resulting from the lysine cartel. Such passing-on would have amounted, according to the Supreme Court, to unjust enrichment.
This is not the first time that a French court admitted the passing-on defence. Of the two judgments, the first one received a lot of criticism because the court adduced that there was a pass-on from statements by the Commission that the cartel harmed consumers.
Quantification of harm National courts have not very often reached the stage of quantifying the harm in private antitrust enforcement cases. This can be quite a demanding procedure, as both the Study and the Draft Guidance Paper show.Through reading, I escaped the bad parts of my life in the South Bronx.
And, through books, I got to travel the world and the universe. It, to me, was a passport out of my childhood and it remains a way — through the power of words — to change the world.
SAMPLE BRIEF. Gray (cop) initiativeblog.como (crime victim). Procedural History. Cop sues for reward money. District court awards money to the cop.
Antitrust Writing Awards. The awards are organised by Concurrences Review and the George Washington University Law School Competition Law Center. At the dinner celebrating the awards, Kıvanç Kırgız spoke about key antitrust topics for the coming year. His remarks are available here. Peter Scott is a partner in the Antitrust, Competition and Regulatory team at Norton Rose LLP, based in London. He specialises in all areas of contentious competition law work, including High Court litigation, arbitration cases and . «The Concurrences writing awards highlight outstanding work by practitioners in the area of competition law and policy and shed valuable light on "cutting edge" topics.
Defendant appeals. Issue.
At the time the contract was formed, was the plaintiff acting as a police officer charged with a . «The Concurrences writing awards highlight outstanding work by practitioners in the area of competition law and policy and shed valuable light on "cutting edge" topics.
Both a contract drafter and a contract reviewer can save some time by first reviewing — together — the Common Draft short-form contract drafts (as well as other clause titles) and discussing just what types of provision they want in their document.
Analysis Group Authors Nominated for Concurrences Antitrust Writing Awards January 12, Three papers authored by Analysis Group consultants have been nominated for the Antitrust Writing Awards, a joint initiative between Concurrences Review and the George Washington University Law School.
Articles are judged according to writing, scholarship, originality, practical relevance and the contribution they make to competition advocacy. There are two award-winning articles for each of the sub-categories mentioned on item 1 above, being one for the Academic category and one for the Business category.