Cover des Buchs: Enforcing European Competition Law through Leniency Programmes in the Light of Fundamental Rights
Im Shop erwerben
, um zu prüfen, ob Sie einen Vollzugriff auf diese Publikation haben.
Monographie Kein Zugriff

Enforcing European Competition Law through Leniency Programmes in the Light of Fundamental Rights

With an Overview of the US Leniency Programme
Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2019

Zusammenfassung

Mit dem Inkrafttreten des Lissabon-Vertrags kam auch den Grundrechten eine stärkere Bedeutung zu; seitdem wird der Grundrechtecharta der gleiche Rechtswert wie den EU-Verträgen beigemessen.

Vor diesem Hintergrund analysiert der vorliegende Band zum einen, ob das derzeitige Niveau des Grundrechtsschutzes im Kronzeugenverfahren unter die anerkannten Normen der EMRK fällt. Zum anderen wird untersucht, ob das aktuelle Schutzniveau der Grundrechte im Kronzeugenverfahren unter die anerkannten Normen der EMRK fällt. Es kann gezeigt werden, dass das Kronzeugenverfahren nicht vollständig mit den Grundrechten vereinbar ist, woraufhin ein alternatives Programm vorgestellt wird, das ein effizientes Kronzeugenprogramm mit dem Schutz der Grundrechte in Einklang bringen kann.

Schlagworte

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Auflage
1/2019
Copyrightjahr
2019
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-5634-6
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-9717-0
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Luxemburger Juristische Studien - Luxembourg Legal Studies
Band
18
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
438
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis Kein Zugriff 1 - 10
  2. General Introduction Kein Zugriff 11 - 32
    1. Introduction Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The Antitrust Division Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. The Federal Trade Commission Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. The State Attorneys General Kein Zugriff
          4. 4. The Interplay between State and Federal Antitrust Law Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The European Commission Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. National Competition Authorities: the European Competition Network Kein Zugriff
        1. I. Criminalization in the USA Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Under EU Law Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Criminal Law Classification under Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights: Court of Justice of the European Union vs European Court of Human Rights Kein Zugriff
        1. I. Historical Background Kein Zugriff
        2. II. The Benefits of Leniency Kein Zugriff
        3. III. The Efficiency and Effectiveness of Leniency Programmes Kein Zugriff
        4. IV. The Prisoner’s Dilemma Model Kein Zugriff
        1. I. The Scope of the Programme Kein Zugriff
        2. II. The Legal Basis of the US System Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Conditions for the Grant of Leniency Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Corporate Conditional Leniency Letter Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. Leniency for Corporate Directors, Officers and Employees Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The Conditions for the Grant of Leniency to Individuals Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. The Individual Conditional Leniency Letter Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The Marker System Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. The Leniency PLUS and Penalty PLUS Kein Zugriff
        1. I. The Scope of the Programme Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The Commission Notice on Immunity from Fines and Reduction of Fines in Cartel Cases (the Leniency Notice) Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. The Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (the Network Notice) Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. The ECN Model Leniency Programme (the ECN MLP) Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Immunity from Fines Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Reduction of the Fine Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Allocation of Powers between the Commission and NCAs Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Exchange of Information within the ECN Kein Zugriff
        1. I. Scope of the Leniency Programmes Kein Zugriff
        2. II. Excluded Immunity Applicants Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Type 1 A Immunity: The Evidential Threshold Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Type 1 B Immunity: the evidential threshold Kein Zugriff
        4. IV. Reduction of Fines Kein Zugriff
        5. V. “De facto” Partial Immunity Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Obligation to End Involvement in the Cartel Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Genuine Cooperation Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. Pre-Application Obligations Kein Zugriff
          4. 4. Failure to Comply Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Anonymous Approaches and Hypothetical Application Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Marker for Immunity Applicant Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. Summary Application Kein Zugriff
          4. 4. The Procedure for Granting and Rejecting Immunity Kein Zugriff
          5. 5. The Procedure for the Reduction of Fines Kein Zugriff
          6. 6. Oral Procedure Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Summary Leniency Applications and Core Leniency Features Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Protection of Leniency Material Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. Interplay between Corporate Leniency Programmes and Sanctions on Individuals Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. No EU Action Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Soft Action Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. Legislative Action by the EU Complemented by Soft Action Kein Zugriff
          4. 4. Legislative Action by the EU Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Scope of the Programme Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Excluded Immunity Applicants Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. Thresholds for Immunity Kein Zugriff
          4. 4. Reduction of Fine Kein Zugriff
          5. 5. “De Facto” Partial Immunity Kein Zugriff
          6. 6. Conditions Attached to Leniency Kein Zugriff
          7. 7. Procedural Issues Kein Zugriff
    4. Conclusion Kein Zugriff
    1. Introduction Kein Zugriff
        1. I. The Principle of Equality Applied to the Scope of Application Ratione Materiae Kein Zugriff
        2. II. The Principle of Legal Certainty and Equality Applied to the Scope of Application Ratione Personae Kein Zugriff
        1. I. The Legal Uncertainty of the Fine Reduction Procedure: The Meaning of Significant Added Value Kein Zugriff
        2. II. The Principle of Equality and the Fines Reduction Procedure: Timeframe and Justified Difference of Treatment between Subsequent Applicants Kein Zugriff
        3. III. The Principle of Legal Certainty Applied to the Discretionary Marker System Kein Zugriff
        1. I. The Protection of the Right of Defence and Legal Certainty during the Re-Allocation of the Leniency Applications within the ECN Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The Privilege against Self-Incrimination in Competition Proceedings before the EU Courts Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. The Privilege against Self-Incrimination in the European Convention Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. The Privilege against Self-Incrimination in Leniency Applications Kein Zugriff
        3. III. The Presumption of Innocence Kein Zugriff
        1. I. The Right to an Independent and Impartial Tribunal Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The Assessment of the Significant Added Value Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. The Evaluation of the Level of Cooperation Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. The Requirement of Genuine Cooperation Kein Zugriff
          4. 4. The Decision of Granting or Rejecting a Marker Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The Re-allocation Period Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. The Duration of the Leniency Procedure before the Commission Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. The Duration of the Procedure before the General Court Kein Zugriff
        4. IV. The Right to an Oral Hearing Kein Zugriff
        1. I. The Relationship between Public and Private Enforcement Kein Zugriff
        2. II. The Right to Damages in Competition Law Kein Zugriff
        3. III. The Right of Access to Documents: Legal Framework Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Access via Article 15 (1) of Regulation 1/2003 Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Access via the Transparency Regulation Kein Zugriff
        5. V. The Access to Leniency Statements according to the Jurisprudence of the CJEU Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The Critics to the Ban of Disclosure of Leniency Statements Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. The relation between Private and Public Enforcement in the USA Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The Necessity of Disclosure of Corporate Leniency Statements Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. The Compatibility of Article 6 (6) of the Damages Directive with Article 47 of the CFR Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. Possible Alternatives to the Ban on Disclosure Kein Zugriff
        1. I. The Principle of Ne Bis in Idem according to the ECHR Kein Zugriff
        2. II. The Principle of Ne Bis in Idem according to the CFR Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. Subsequent Intervention by an NCA after a Commission’s Decision Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. Intervention by the Commission after a NCA’s Decision Kein Zugriff
          3. 3. Parallel Prosecution of NCAs Kein Zugriff
        1. I. The Exchange of Information (and Risk of Parallel Investigation) within NCAs Kein Zugriff
        2. II. The Current System of Leniency Applications Kein Zugriff
        3. III. Previous Proposal for Avoiding Multiple Applications Kein Zugriff
          1. 1. The Principle of Mutual Recognition Kein Zugriff
          2. 2. The One-Stop Leniency Shop Kein Zugriff
    5. Conclusion Kein Zugriff
  5. General Conclusion Kein Zugriff 390 - 396
  6. Bibliography Kein Zugriff 397 - 412
  7. Table of cases Kein Zugriff 413 - 428
  8. Table of Legislation Kein Zugriff 429 - 432
      1. Link of national leniency programmes Kein Zugriff
      1. Questionnaire sent to the NCAs in 2017QUESTIONNAIRE Kein Zugriff

Literaturverzeichnis (267)

  1. Books Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  2. American Bar Association. State Antitrust Enforcement Handbook. 2nd ed. ABA, 2003. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  3. Andreangeli, Arianna. EU Competition Enforcement and Human Rights. EE-Edward Elgar, 2008. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  4. Areeda, P., L. Kaplow, and A. Edlin. Antitrust Analysis - Problems, Text, and Cases. 7th edition. Wolters Kluwer, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  5. Bailey, David, and Vivien Rose. Bellamy & Child -European Union Law of Competition. 7th Edition. 3 vols. Oxford University Press, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  6. Balasingham, Baskaran. The EU Leniency Policy - Reconciling Effectiveness and Fairness. Wolters Kluwer, 2017. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  7. Barnard, Catherine, and Steve Peers. European Union Law. Oxford University Press, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  8. Beaton-Wells, Caron, and Christopher Tran. Anti-Cartel Enforcement in a Contemporary Age - Leniency Religion. 1st ed. Caron Beaton-Wells, Christopher Tran, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  9. Bombois, Thomas. La Protection Des Droits Fondamentaux Des Entreprises En Droit Européen Répressif de La Concurrence. Larcier, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  10. Brammer, Silke. Co-Operation between National Competition Agencies in the Enforcement of EC Competition Law. Oxford and Portland, 2009. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  11. Buhart, Jacques. Leniency Regimes. 5th ed. Jacques Buhart, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  12. Clifford, Jones. Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the EU, UK and USA. Oxford University Press, 1999. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  13. Cseres, Katalin J., Maarten Pieter Schinkel, and Floris O.W. Vogelaar. Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement - Economic and Legal Implications for the EU Member States. EE-Edward Elgar, 2006. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  14. Dashwood, Alan, Michael Dougan, Anthony Arnull, Eleanor Spaventa, Derrick Wyatt, and M. G. Ross. European Union Law. 5th ed. Hart Publishing, 2006. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  15. De VerLoren van Themaat W., and B. Reuder. European Competition Law: A Case Commentary. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  16. DG Competition. Antitrust Manual of Procedures, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  17. Furse, Mark. The Criminal Law of Competition in the UK and in the US - Failure and Success. EE-Edward Elgar, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  18. Gippini Fournier, and Castillo de la Torre. Evidence, Proof and Judicial Review in EU Competition Law. EE-Edward Elgar, 2017. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  19. Groussot, Xavier. General Principles of Community Law. 1st ed. Hardback, 2006. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  20. Hanschitz, Georg Christoph. Future of Leniency: A Comparative and Qualitative Analysis of Leniency Programmes. Akademiker Verlag, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  21. Harding, Christopher, and Julian Joshua. Regulating Cartels in Europe. 2nd ed. Oxford, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  22. Regulating Cartels in Europe: A Study of Legal Control of Corporate Delinquency. 2nd ed., 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  23. Hovenkamp, Herbert. Federal Antitrust Policy the Law of Competition and Its Practice. 4th ed. West, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  24. Kessler, Jeffrey L., and Spencer Weber Waller. International Trade and U.S. Antitrust Law. 2nd ed. Spencer Weber Waller, 2006. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  25. Khan, Nicholas. EU Antitrust Procedure. 6th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  26. Kiran, Klaus Patel, and Heike Schweitzer. The Historical Foundations of EU Competition Law. Oxford University Press, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  27. Kronstein, H., and John T. Miller. Major American Antitrust Laws - A Guide to Their Domestic and Foreign Application, 1965. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  28. Langer, Howard. Competition Law of the United States. 2nd edition. W. Kluwer, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  29. Lenaerts, K., I. Maselis, and K. Gutman. Eu Procedural Law. Oxford University Press, 2016. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  30. Lenaerts Koen, Piet Van Nuffel, Robert Bray, and Nathan Cambien. European Union Law. Sweet & Maxwell, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  31. Lifland, William T. State Antitrust Law. Law Journal Press, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  32. Merola, Massimo, and Waelbroeck. Towards an optimal enforcement of competition rules in Europe - Time for a Review of Regulation 1/2003?. 1st edition. Bruylant, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  33. Mobley, Samantha, and Ross Denton. Global Cartels Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  34. Peers, Steve, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary. 1st ed. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  35. Scordamaglia-Tousis, Andrea. EU Cartel Enforcement: Reconciling Effective Public Enforcement with Fundamental Rights. Wolters Kluwer, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  36. Shenefield, John H., and Irwin M. Stelzer. The Antitrust Laws. 4th ed. The AEI Press, 2001. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  37. Simonsson, Ingeborg. Legitimacy in EU Cartel Control. Oxford and Portland, Hart Publishing, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  38. Tridimas, Takis. The General Principles of EU Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2007. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  39. U.S. Department of Justice. Antitrust Division Manual, 2017. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  40. Whish, Richard, and David Bailey. Competition Law. 8th ed. Oxford University Press, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  41. Wils, Wouter P. J. Efficiency and Justice in European Antitrust Enforcement. Hart Publishing, 2008. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  42. Articles and Books Chapters Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  43. Albers, Michael, and Karen Williams. “Oral Hearings—Neither a Trial Nor a State of Play Meeting.” CPI Antitrust Chronicle 3, no. 1 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  44. Allendesalazar, Rafael, and Paloma Martínez Lage. “Evidence Gathered through Leniency: From the Prisoner’s Dilemma to a Race to the Bottom.” In European Competition Law Annual 2009: The Evaluation of Evidence and Its Judicial Review in Competition Cases. Hart Publishing, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  45. Anderson, David G., and Rachel Cuff. “Cartels in the European Union: Procedural Fairness for Defendants and Claimants.” Fordham Competition Law Institute 34, no. 3 (September 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  46. Andreangeli, Arianna. “Between Economic Freedom and Effective Competition Enforcement: The Impact of the Antitrust Remedies Provided by the Modernisation Regulation on Investigated Parties’ Freedom to Contract Aand to Enjoy Property.” The Competition Law Review 6, no. 2 (July 2010): 225–57. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  47. “Competition Law and Fundamental Rights.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 8, no. 8 (2017): 524–38. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  48. “Competition Law and the Opinion 2.13 on the Accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights: Back to Square One?” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 6, no. 8 (April 8, 2015): 583–85. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  49. “Ne Bis in Idem and Administrative Sanctions: Bonda.” Common Market Law Review 50, no. 6 (2013): 1827–42. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  50. Arbault, François, and Francisco Peiro. “The Commission’s New Notice on Immunity and Reduction of Fines in Cartel Cases: Building on Success.” Competition Policy Newsletter, no. 2 (June 2002): 15–22. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  51. Bantekas, Ilias. “The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Criminal Law.” European Competition Law Review 32, no. 3 (2007): 365–85. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  52. Baran, Mariusz, and Adam Doniec. “EU Courts’ Jurisdiction over and Review of Decisions Imposing Fines in EU Competition Law.” Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 3, no. 3 (2010): 235. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  53. Baratta, Roberto. “Sui Requisiti Applicativi Del Ne Bis in Idem in Materia Di Concorrenza.” Giustizia Civile 62, no. 3 (2012): 590–97. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  54. Bartalevich, Dzmitry. “EU Competition Policy and US Antitrust: A Comparative Analysis.” European Journal of Law and Economics 44, no. 1 (August 2017): 91–112. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  55. Bernardeau, Ludovic, and Étienne Thomas. “Principes Généraux Du Droit et Contrôle Juridictionnel En Droit de La Concurrence - ‘M. Jourdain : Juge Pénal?’” Cahiers de Droit Européen 52, no. 1 (2016): 365–84. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  56. Beumer, A., and A. Karpetas. “The Disclosure of Files and Documents in EU Cartel Cases: Fairytale or Reality?” European Competition Journal 8, no. 1 (2012): 123–51. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  57. Beumer, Elsbeth. “The Cross-Examination of Leniency Applicants in EU Cartel Proceedings.” Concorrenza e Mercato, 2013, 5–26. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  58. “The Interaction between EU Competition Law Procedures and Fundamental Rights Protection: The Case of the Right to Be Heard.” Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 7, no. 10 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  59. Billiet, Philippe. “How Lenient Is the EC Leniency Policy? A Matter of Certainty and Predictability.” European Competition Law Review 30, no. 1 (2009): 14–21. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  60. Bombois, Thomas. “L’arrêt Menarini c. Italie de La Cour Européenne Des Droits de l’homme - Droit Antitrust, Champ Pénal et Contrôle de Pleine Juridiction.” Cahiers de Droit Européen 47, no. 2 (2011): 541–89. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  61. Boni, Stefano. “Précisions Sur La Délimitation Des Compétences de La Commission Européenne et Des Autorités Nationales de Concurrence Au Sein Du ‘REC’ et Sur l’application Du Principe Ne Bis in Idem - CJUE, 14 Février 2012, Toshiba Corporation e.a., Aff. C-17/10.” Revue Des Affaires Européennes, no. 1 (2012): 183–90. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  62. Botteman, Y., and P. Hughes. “Access to File: Striking the Balance Between Leniency and Private Enforcement Tools.” The European Antitrust Review, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  63. Bouquet, A. “The Compatibility of the Commission Role in Competition Procedures with the Fundamental Rights: A Real Pressing Legal Problem or Just a Question of Opportunity?” In Towards an Optimal Enforcement of Competition Rules in Europe - Time for a Review of Regulation 1/2003? Bruylant, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  64. Brammer, Silke, Damien Gérard, Marc Van Der Woude, and Robert Wagner. “Report on the Enforcement by NCAs and ECN.” In Towards an Optimal Enforcement of Competition Rules in Europe - Time for a Review of Regulation 1/2003, by Massimo Merola and Denis Waelbroeck, 289–342. Bruylant, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  65. Brokx, Lidwyn. “A Patchwork of Leniency Programmes.” European Competition Law Review 22, no. 2 (2001): 35–46. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  66. Bronckers, Marco, and Anna Vallery. “No Longer Presumed Guilty? The Impact of Fundamental Rights on Certain Dogmas of EU Competition Law.” World Competition: Law and Economics Review 34, no. 4 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  67. “Fair and Effective Competition Policy in the EU: Which Role for Authorities and Which Role for the Courts after Menarini?” European Competition Journal 8, no. 2 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  68. Buccirossi, Paolo, and Giancarlo Spagnolo. “Optimal Fines in the Era of Whisteblowers. Should Price Fixers Still Go to Prison?” In Contributions to Economic Analysis - The Political Economy of Antitrust, 282:1–489, 2007. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  69. Campbell, Scott, and Tristan Feunteun. “Designing a Balanced System: Damages, Deterrence, Leniency and Litigants’ Rights – A Claimant’s Perspective.” In European Competition Law Annual 2011- Integrating Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law - Implications for Courts and Agencies, 1st ed., 640. Philip Lowe, Mel Marquis, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  70. Canenbley, Cornelis, and Till Steinvorth. “Effective Enforcement of Competition Law: Is There a Solution to the Conflict between Leniency Programmes and Private Damages Actions?” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 4, no. 2 (August 2011): 315–26. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  71. Caramés, J. Guillén. “Leniency Programs, Inquiries and the Problematic Use of Confidential Information.” In The Fight against Hard Core Cartels in Europe, 1st edition. Bruylant, 2016. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  72. Carmeliet, Tine. “How Lenient Is the European Leniency System? An Overview of Current (Dis) Incentives to Blow the Whistle.” Jura Falconis jg 48, no. 3 (2011 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  73. Cauffman, Caroline. “Access to Leniency Related Documents after Pfleiderer.” World Competition 34, no. 4 (2011): 597–615. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  74. ———. “The Interaction of Leniency Programmes and Actions for Damages.” The Competition Law Review 7, no. 2 (July 2011): 181–220. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  75. Chen, I-Ju. “The Interface between Companies’ Fundamental Rights and Competition Law Enforcement in the EU: Past, Present and Future.” Global Antitrust Review 9 (2016): 7–41. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  76. Connor, John M. “Has the European Commission Become More Severe in Punishing Cartels? Effects of the 2006, Guidelines.” European Competition Law Review, no. 1 (2011): 27–36. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  77. De Stefano, Gianni. “Access of Damage Claimants to Evidence Arising out of EU Cartel Investigations: A Fast Evolving Scenario.” Global Competition Litigation Review 5, no. 3 (2012): 95–110. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  78. Devroe, W. “Limits of Differentiation in European Economic Law: Ne Bis in Idem and Minimum versus Maximum Harmonisation.” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 16, no. 2 (2009): 141–48. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  79. “Enforcement by the Commission the Decisional and Enforcement Structure in Antitrust Cases and the Commission’s Fining System.” In Towards an Optimal Enforcement of Competition Rules in Europe. Bruylant, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  80. Flattery, Jaime. “Balancing Efficiency and Justice in EU Competition Law: Elements of Procedural Fairness and Their Impact on the Right to a Fair Hearing.” The Competition Law Review 7, no. 1 (December 2010): 53–81. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  81. Forrester, Ian S. “Due Process in EC Competition Cases: A Distinguished Institution with Flawed Procedures.” Europen Law Review 34, no. 6 (2009): 817–43. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  82. Frédéric, Louis, and Accardo Gabriele. “Ne Bis in Idem, Part ‘Bis.’” World Competition 34, no. 1 (2011): 97–112. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  83. Gauer, Céline, and Maria Jaspers. “Designing a European Solution for a ‘One-Stop Leniency Shop.’” European Competition Law Review 27, no. 12 (2006): 685–92. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  84. Gaulard, Géraldine. “Le Principe Non Bis in Idem En Droit de La Concurrence de l’Union.” Cahiers de Droit Européen, no. 3 (2013): 703–81. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  85. Gavil, A. “Designing Private Rights of Action for Competition Policy Systems: The Role of Interdependence and the Advantages of a Sequential Approach.” In European Competition Law Annual 2011 Integrating Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law - Implications for Courts and Agencies, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  86. Goddin, Gaëtane. “Recent Judgments Regarding Transparency and Access to Documents in the Field of Competition Law: Where Does the Court of Justice of the EU Strike the Balance?” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2, no. 1 (February 2011): 10–23. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  87. Groussot, Xavier, and Justin Pierce. “Transparency and Liability in Leniency Programmes: A Question of Balancing?” In Harmonising EU Competition Litigation : The New Directive and Beyond, 343. by Maria Bergström, Marios Iacovides and Magnus Strand, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  88. Hanns, A. Abele, Georg E. Kodek, and Guido K. Schaefer. “Proving Causation in Private Antitrust Cases.” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 7, no. 4 (December 2011): 847–69. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  89. Hesse, P. “The Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions : Is the Absolute Protection of Leniency Statements in Balance with the Case Law and Public and Private Enforcement Interests?” Österreichische Zeitschrift Für Kartellrecht - Austrian Competition Journal. 2 (2016): 43–52. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  90. Idot, Laurence. “Application Parallèle Du Droit National et Du Droit.” Europe, no. 4 (April 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  91. Idot, Laurence, and Fabien Zivy. “L’accès Au Dossier Des Autorités de Concurrence Dans Le Cadre Des Actions Privées: Etat Des Lieux Deux Ans Après l’arrêt Pfleiderer.” Revue Des Droits de La Concurrence - Competition Law Journal, no. 3 (2013): 34–53. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  92. Jegou, Estelle, and Clémence Barraud. “Vers plus de Cohérence Dans La Protection Des Documents Liés Aux Procédures de Clémence ?” Revue Des Droits de La Concurrence - Competition Law Journal 4 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  93. Kecsmar, Krisztian, and Andreas Keidel. “Shaping the EU Leniency Programme: The Recent Approach Adopted by EU Courts.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 6, no. 8 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  94. Keith, Jones, and Farin Harrison. “Criminal Sanctions: An Overview of EU and National Case Law.” E-Competitions, no. 64713 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  95. Kersting, Christian. “Removing the Tension between Public and Private Enforcement: Disclosure and Privileges for Successful Leniency Applicants.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 5, no. 1 (November 2013): 2–5. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  96. Kirst, Philipp, and Roger Van den Bergh. “The European Directive on Damages Actions: A Missed Opportunity to Reconcile Compensation of Victims and Leniency Incentives.” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 12, no. 1 (March 2016): 1–30. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  97. Lemaire, Christophe. “La Clémence: Nouvelle Étape de La Convergence Des Droits de La Concurrence En Europe.” EUROPE, no. 12 (December 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  98. Leslie, Christopher R. “Antitrust Amnesty, Game Theory, and Cartel Stability.” Journal of Corporation Law 31 (2006): 453–88. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  99. Malet-Vigneaux, Julie. “L’action En Réparation Du Consommateur Victime de Pratiques Anticoncurrentielles : À Propos de La Directive 2014/104/UR Du 26 Novembre 2014 Relative à Certaines Règles Régissant Les Actions En Dommages et Intérêts En Droit National Pour Les Infractions Aux Dispositions Du Droit de La Concurrence Des États Membres et de l’Union Européenne.” Revue Européenne de Droit de La Consommation, no. 2 (2015): 357–81. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  100. Mandrescu, Daniel. “One Stop Shop Leniency: The Case of DHL Express v Autorita Garante Della Concorrenza e Del Mercato (C-428/14).” European Competition Law Review 37, no. 10 (2016): 397–402. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  101. Mauricio, Ana Julia. “Access of Damages Claimants to Leniency Material Held by National Competition Authorities or by the European Commission.” Common Law Review 13 (2014): 35–40. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  102. Migani, Caterina. “Directive 2014/104/EU: In Search of a Balance between the Protection of Leniency Corporate Statements and an Effective Private Competition Law Enforcement.” Global Antitrust Review 2014, 2014, 81–111. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  103. Monti, Mario. “Why Should We Be Concerned with Cartels and Collusive Behaviour?” In Fighting Cartels - Why and How?, by Swedish Competition Authority, 2001. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  104. Motta, Massimo, and Michele Polo. “Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution.” International Jornal of Industrial Organization, no. 21 (2003): 347–79. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  105. Mouta Pereira, Virgilio. “The Seven Deadly Sins: Shortfalls of a ‘True European Solution’ for a ‘one-Stop Leniency Shop’’.’” European Competition Law Review 37, no. 5 (2016): 186–92. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  106. Müller, Felix. “The New Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 on the Implementation of the Rules on Competition.” German Law Journal 5, no. 6 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  107. Murphy, F., and F. Liberatore. “Simplified Procedures for Multiple Leniency Applications across Europe.” European Competition Law Review 34, no. 8 (2013): 407–9. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  108. Nascimbene, Bruno. “Interaction between Leniency Programmes and Damages Actions in Antitrust Law: Perspectives for Collective Redress.” World Competition 36, no. 2 (2013): 269–83. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  109. O’Brien, Ann. “Leadership of Leniency.” In Anti-Cartel Enforcement in a Contemporary Age -Leniency Religion. Caron Beaton-Wells, Christopher Tran, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  110. Oliver, Peter, and Bombois Thomas. “« Ne Bis in Idem » En Droit Européen : Un Principe à Plusieurs Variantes.” Journal de Droit Européen, no. 9 (2012): 266–72. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  111. “Competition and Fundamental Rights.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 6, no. 8 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  112. Ottervanger, Tom. “Designing a Balanced System: Damages, Deterrence, Leniency and Litigants’ Rights.” In European Competition Law Annual 2011- Integrating Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law - Implications for Courts and Agencies, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  113. Page, William H. “Ideological Conflict and the Origins of Antitrust Policy.” Tulane Law Review 66, no. 1 (1991). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  114. Partsch, Philippe-Emanuel. “Les Procédures Administratives et Juridictionnelles En Matière de Concurrence à l’épreuve Des Droits Fondamentaux.” Cronique de Droit de La Concurrence, no. 7 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  115. Paulis, Emil, and Céline Gauer. “Le Règlement N°1/2003 et Le Principe Du Ne Bis in Idem.” Concurrences, no. 1 (2005): 32–40. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  116. Perroud, Thomas. “The Impact of Article 6(1) ECHR in Competition Law Enforcement: A Comparison between France and the United Kingdom.” Global Antitrust Review, no. 1 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  117. Pescatore, Pierre. “Le Recours, Dans La Jurisprudence de La Cour de Justice Des Communautés Européennes, à Des Normes Déduites de La Comparaison Des Droits Des Etats Membres.” Revue International de Droit Comparé 32, no. 2 (1980): 337–59. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  118. Petr, Michael. “The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in Competition Law.” European Competition Law Review 29, no. 7 (2008): 392–400. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  119. Petrucci, Carlo. “Effective Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: An Input and Output Legitimacy Analysis of Collective Redress.” In New Directions in the Effective Enforcement of EU Law and Policy, by Sara Drake and Melanie Smith. EE-Edward Elgar, 2016. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  120. Peyer, Sebastian. “Access to Competition Authorities’ Files in Private Antitrust Litigation.” Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 3, no. 1 (2015): 58–86. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  121. Pike, Richard. “Disclosure of Leniency Materials by EU Competition Authorities: Protection in the Face of Civil Damages Claims.” Global Competition Litigation Review 5, no. 4 (2012): 136–37. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  122. Pilar Canedo, Maria. “Ne Bis in Idem in Antitrust Enforcement.” In The Fight against Hard Core Cartels in Europe. Bruylant, 2016. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  123. Posner, Richard A. “Federalism and the Enforcement of Antitrust Laws by State Attorneys General.” The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 2, no. 1 (2004): 5–16. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  124. Przemysław, Kamil Rosiak. “The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in Proceedings Related to AntiCompetitive Agreements in EU Competition Law.” Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 5, no. 6 (2012): 111–35. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  125. Ramsden, Michael. “EC Dawn Raids: A Human Rights Violation?” The Competition Law Review 5, no. 1 (December 2008): 61–87. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  126. “Relationship between EC Competition Law and National Competition Law.” In Towards an Optimal Enforcement of Competition Rules in Europe - Time for a Review of Regulation 1/2003?, 125–96. Bruylant, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  127. Repas, Martina. “Taking Leniency Documents as Evidence in Damages Actions in Cases of Competition Law Infringements.” In Evidence in Contemporary Civil Procedure, 1st ed., 105–24. C.H. van Rhee, Alan Uzelac, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  128. Rey, Claire. “The Interaction between Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law, and Especially the Interaction between the Interests of Private Claimants and Those of Leniency Applicants.” Global Competition Litigation Review 8, no. 3 (2015): 109–25. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  129. Rizzuto, Franco. “Leniency and Damages Actions: The Impact of Recent European Union Court Jurisprudence.” Global Competition Litigation Review 5, no. 1 (2012): 1–13. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  130. The Procedural Implication of Pfleiderer for the Private Enforcement of European Union Competition Law in Follow-up Actions for Damages.” Global Competition Litigation Review 4, no. 3 (2011): 116–24. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  131. Ryan, Stephen. “Co-Operation between Competition Agencies in Cartel-Investigations.” Competition Policy Newsletter, no. 2 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  132. Saavedra, Alberto. “Access by National Courts and Private Plaintiffs to Leniency Documents Held by the Commission.” Revista de Concorrência & Regulação 3, no. 10: 2012. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  133. Safjan, Marek, and Dominik Düsterhaus. “A Union Effective Judicial Protection: Addressing a Multi-Level Challenge through the Lens of Article 47 CFREU.” Yearbook of European Law 33, no. 1 (2014): 3–40. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  134. Salemme, Emma “L'autonomia dei programmi di clemenza in Europa: la sentenza DHL”, in "Mercato Concorrenza Regole" 2/2016, pp. 329-38. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  135. Sanders, M., E. Jordan, C. Dimoulis, K. Schwedt, B. Di Luigi, and M. Van Wissen. “Disclosure of Leniency Materials in Follow-on Damages Actions: Striking ‘the Right Balance’ between the Interests of Leniency Applicants and Private Claimants?” European Competition Law Review 34, no. 4 (2013): 174–82. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  136. Sandhu, Jatinder S. “The European Commission’s Leniency Policy: A Success?” European Competition Law Review 28, no. 3 (March 2007): 148–57. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  137. Schroeder, Dirk, and Heinz Silk. “Request for Leniency in the EU: Experience and Legal Puzzles.” In Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement - Economic and Legal Implications for the EU Member States, 356. EE-Edward Elgar, 2006. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  138. Schwarze, J. “Les Sanctions Imposées Pour Les Infractions Au Droit Européen de La Concurrence Selon l’article 23 Du Règlement n. 1/2003 CE à La Lumière Des Principes Généraux Du Droit.” Revue Trrimestrielle de Droit Euroéen, no. 1 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  139. Shimose, Takashi. “The System of Subsequent Applications for the EU Leniency Program.” European Competition Law Review 37, no. 2 (2016): 51–76. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  140. Singh, Amit Kumar. “Disclosure of Leniency Evidence: Examining the Directive on Damages Action in the Aftermath of Recent ECJ Rulings.” Global Competition Litigation Review 7, no. 4 (2014): 200–213. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  141. Siragusa, Mario, Federico Marini Balestra, and Alice Setari. “The ECtHR Judgment in Case A Menarini Diagnostic Srl v Italy and Its Implications for Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law.” Global Competition Litigation Review 5, no. 4 (2012): 129–35. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  142. Slater, Donald, Sébastien Thomas, and Denis Waelbroeck. “Competition Law Proceedings Before the European Commission and the Right to a Fair Trial: No Need for Reform?” European Competition Journal 5, no. 1 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  143. Smyrnova, Ksenya. “Competition Law & Human Rights Protection: Controversial New Dimensions.” Contemporary Legal Institutions - Romanian-American University 5, no. 1 (2013): 51–55. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  144. Taladay, John M. “Time for a Global ‘One-Stop Shop’ for Leniency Markers.” Antitrust 27, no. 1 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  145. Terrien, Vivien. “L’impact de La Charte Des Droits Fondamentaux de l’union Européenne Sur Le Droit de La Concurrence.” L’observateur de Bruxelles, no. 91 (January 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  146. Vala Kristjánsdóttir, Margrét. “Good Administration as a Fundamental Right.” Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration 9, no. 1 (2013): 237–55. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  147. Van Barlingen, Bertus, and Marc Barennes. “The European Commission’s 2002 Leniency Notice in Practice.” Competition Policy Newsletter, no. 3 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  148. Veljanovski, Cento. “Cartel Fines in Europe - Law, Practice and Deterrence.” World Competition 29 (March 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  149. Verma, P., and P. Billiet. “Why Would Cartel Participants Still Refuse to Blow the Whistle under the Current EC Leniencw Policy?” Global Antitrust Review, no. 2 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  150. Vesterdorf, Bo. “The Court of Justice and Unlimited Jurisdiction: What Does It Mean in Practice?” The Online Magazine for Global Competition Policy 2 (June 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  151. Voss, Katharina. “The Principle of Equality: A Limit to the Commission’s Discretion in EU Competition Law Enforcement?” Global Antitrust Review, 2013, 149–66. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  152. Waelbroeck, Denis, and Denis Fosselard. “Should the Decision-Making Power in EC Antitrust Procedures Be Left to an Independent Judge?—The Impact of the European Convention of Human Rights on EC Antitrust Procedures.” Yearbook of European Law 14, no. 1 (November 1994): 111–42. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  153. Walsh, Declan J. “Carrots and Sticks—Leniency and Fines in EC Cartel Cases.” European Competition Law Review 30, no. 1 (2009): 30–35. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  154. Wardhaugh, Bruce. “Cartel Leniency and Effective Compensation in Europe: The Aftermath of Pfleiderer.” Web Journal of Current Legal Issues 19, no. 3 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  155. Weck, Thomas. “Antitrust Infringements in the Distribution Chain - When Is Leniency Available to Suppliers?” European Competition Law Review 31, no. 10 (2010): 394–401. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  156. Weiß, Wolfgang. “After Lisbon, Can the European Commission Continue to Rely on ‘Soft Legislation’ in Its Enforcement Practice?” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2, no. 5 (October 1, 2011): 441–51. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  157. “Human Rights and EU Antitrust Enforcement: News from Lisbon.” European Competition Law Review, no. 4 (2011): 186–95. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  158. Wils, Wouter P. J. “Discretion and Prioritisation in Public Antitrust Enforcement.” World Competition 34, no. 3 (September 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  159. Is Criminalization of EU Competition Law the Answer?” World Competition 26, no. 2 (June 2005): 117–59. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  160. Leniency in Antitrust Enforcement: Theory and Practice.” World Competition 30, no. 1 (2007): 25–64. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  161. “Optimal Antitrust Fines: Theory and Practice.” World Competition 26, no. 2 (June 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  162. “Self-Incrimination in EC Antitrust Enforcement: A Legal and Economic Analysis.” World Competition 26, no. 4 (2003): 567–88. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  163. “The Combination of the Investigative and Prosecutorial Function and the Adjudicative Function in EC Antitrust Enforcement: A Legal and Economic Analysis.” World Competition 27, no. 2 (2004): 201–24. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  164. “The Compatibility with Fundamental Rights of the EU Antitrust Enforcement System in Which the European Commission Acts Both as Investigator and as First-Instance Decision Maker.” World Competition 37, no. 1 (March 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  165. “The EU Network of Competition Authorities, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.” In European Competition Law Annual, 1st ed., 2002. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  166. “The Increased Level of EU Antitrust Fines, Judicial Review, and the European Convention on Human Rights.” World Competition 33, no. 1 (March 2010). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1492736. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  167. “The Relationship between Pubic Antitrust Enforcement and Private Actions for Damages.” World Competition 32, no. 1 (March 2009): 3–26. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  168. “EU Antitrust Enforcement Powers and Procedural Rights and Guarantees: The Interplay between EU Law, National Law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.” World Competition 34, no. 2 (June 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  169. “The Principle of ‘Ne Bis in Idem’ in EC Antitrust Enforcement: A Legal and Economic Analysis.” World Competition 26, no. 2 (2003): 131–48. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  170. “The Use of Leniency in EU Cartel Enforcement: An Assessment after Twenty Years.” World Competition 39, no. 3 (September 2016): 327-388. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  171. Zingales, Nicolo. “European and American Leniency Programmes: Two Models Towards Convergence?” The Competition Law Review 5, no. 1 (December 2008): 5–60. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  172. Theses Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  173. Carmeliet, Tine. “A Critical Analysis of the Procedural Fairness of the Leniency Instrument: Finding the Right Balance between Efficiency and Justice in EU Competition Law.” Master’s Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  174. Duch, Martin. “The Impact of Leniency Program on Cartel Enforcement - Law and Economic Analysis of Leniency Program and Its Impact on Detecting Cartels.” Master’s Thesis, Tilburg University, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  175. Kaselow, Jordan. “L’accès Aux Documents Liés à La Procédure de Clémence Par Les Victimes d’ententes Souhaitant Engager Une Action En Dommages et Intérêts En Droit Européen de La Concurrence.” Master 2 Juriste d’affaires International et Européen, Université de Lorraine, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  176. Kersten, Nikki. “Ending a Cartel and Request for Leniency: The Factors Which Play a Role in These Two Decisions.” Master’s Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  177. Lombardi, Claudio. “Causation in Private Enforcement of Competition Law: A Comparative Analysis of Divergent National Approaches.” PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Trento, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  178. Lundeholm, Carl. “The Principle of Ne Bis in Idem: Human Rights and the Enforcement of European Union Competition Law.” Master’s Thesis, Lund University, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  179. Nielen, M.G. “Leniency Material Unveiled? Access by Cartel Victims to Commission and NMa Files from a Perspective of EU Fundamental Rights and Cartel Enforcement.” Master’s Thesis, Utrecht University, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  180. Putkonen, Lauri. “Privilege against Self-Incrimination in EU Competition Law - Undertaking’s Right to Remain Silent.” Master’s Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2016. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  181. Radic Boskovic, Lazar. “The Blanket Prohibition of Disclosure of Corporate Statements Contained in Article 6(1) of the Proposed Directive for Actions for Antitrust Damages: Proportional Safeguard of Public Enforcement or Insurmountable Burden for Claimants?” Master’s Thesis, Universiteit van Amesterdam, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  182. Sorf, Jiri. “The Leniency Policy.” Master’s Thesis, Charles University in Prague, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  183. Working Papers Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  184. Buccirossi, Marvao, and Spagnolo. “Leniency and Damages.” Working paper. Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, February 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  185. Cauffman, Caroline, and Niels Philipsen. “Who Does What in Competition Law: Harmonizing the Rules on Damages for Infringements of the EU Competition Rules?” Working paper, November 2014. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  186. Geradin, Damien, and David Henry. “The EC Fining Policy for Violations of Competition Law: An Empirical Review of the Commission Decisional Practice and the Community Courts’ Judgments.” GCLC Working Paper, February 2005. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  187. Hammond, Scott D. “The Evolution of Criminal Antitrust Enforcement over the Last Two Decades.” The 24th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, February 25, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  188. Riley, Alan. “The Modernisation of EU Anti-Cartel Enforcement: Will the Commission Grasp the Opportunity?” CEPS, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  189. Slaters, Thomas, Waelbroeck. - Competition law proceedings before the European Commission and the right to a fair trial: no need for reform? GCLC Working Paper April 2008. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  190. Trepka, Marcin, and Martyna Wurm. “Leniency Programs – The Devil Is In The Details.” CPI Europe Column, September 2016. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  191. EU Documents Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  192. European Commission Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  193. “White Paper on Modernization of the Rules Implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty.,” April 28, 1999. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  194. Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2000)582 - Implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty and amending Regulations (EEC) No 1017/68, (EEC) No 2988/74, (EEC) No 4056/86 and (EEC) No 3975/87 ("Regulation implementing Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty"). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  195. “Commission Staff Working Paper Annex to the Green Paper Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules,” 2005. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  196. Green Paper, on conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in criminal proceedings, COM (2005) 696 final (December 23, 2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  197. “Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules,” 2005. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  198. “Competition: the European Competition Network launches a Model Leniency Programme – frequently asked questions” (MEMO/06/356) (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  199. White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules,” 2008. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  200. “Commission Staff Working Paper Accompanying the White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules,” 2008. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  201. Report on assessment of the State of Convergence” of October, 13 2009, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/model_leniency_programme.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  202. “Guidance on Procedures of the Hearing Officers in Proceedings Relating to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (Ex- Articles 81 and 82 EC),” 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  203. “Commission Staff Working Document: Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress,” 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  204. “Commission Staff Working Document - Enhancing Competition Enforcement by the Member States’ Competition Authorities: Institutional and Procedural Issues (Accompanying the Comunication on Ten Years of Regulation 1/2003),” 2014. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  205. “Commission Staff Working Document – Ten Years of Antitrust Enforcement under Regulation 1/2003 – Accompanying the Document – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Ten Years of Antitrust Enforcement under Regulation 1/2003: Achievements and Future Perspectives [Pag. 66],” 2014. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  206. “Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the Document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to Empower the Competition Authorities of the Member States to Be More Effective Enforcers and to Ensure the Proper Functioning of the Internal Market,” March 22, 2017. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  207. “Commission Staff Working Document Implementation Plan Accompanying the Document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to Empower the Competition Authorities of the Member States to Be More Effective Enforcers and to Ensure the Proper Functioning of the Internal Market,” March 22, 2017. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  208. “ECN Plus: Empowering the National Competition Authorities to Be More Effective Enforcers Consultation Strategy,” 2017. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  209. “Summary Report of the Replies to the Commission’s Public Consultation on Empowering the National Competition Authorities to Be More Effective Enforcers,” 2017. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  210. European Commission – Memorandum – Information on the oral hearing, page 1, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/hearing_officers/info1.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  211. Amicus curiae observation of 03112011 to the UK High Court in National Grid case available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/court/amicus_curiae_2011_national_grid_en.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  212. ECN Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  213. Commission Report on the functioning of Regulation 1/2003, COM (2009) 206 final, 29 April 2009. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  214. Resolution of the Meeting of Heads of the European Competition Authorities of 23 May 2012 - Protection of leniency material in the context of civil damages actions available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/leniency_material_protection_en.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  215. ECN Model Leniency Programme: revision November 2012 available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/mlp_revised_2012_en.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  216. US Documents Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  217. Department of justice. “Department of Justice - Corporate Leniency Policy (US),” August 10, 1993. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  218. U.S. Department of Justice. “Antitrust Enforcement and the Consumer,” n.d. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  219. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Documents Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  220. Peer review of Competition Law and Policy (2005) available at: http://www.oecd.org/eu/35908641.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  221. European Union written contribution submitted for the OECD Competition Committee roundtable discussion on ‘Use of Markers in Leniency Programs’, 16 December 2014. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  222. “Relationship between Public and Private Antitrust Enforcement.” Working Party on Co-operation and Enforcement, June 15, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  223. “Summary of Discussion of the Roundtable in the Relationship between Public and Private Enforcement.” Working Party on Co-operation and Enforcement, June 15, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  224. International Competition Network Documents Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  225. “Drafting and Implementing an Effective Leniency Policy.” In Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  226. Reports and studies Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  227. Clark, Emily, Mat Hughes, and David Wirth. “Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in Case of Infringement of EC Competition Rules.” August 31, 2004. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  228. Erbach, Gregor. “Eu and US Competition Policies - Similar Objectives, Different Approaches.” European Parliamentary Research Activities. European Parliament, March 27, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  229. EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights. “Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,” June 2006. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  230. European Court of Human Rights. “Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,” April 30, 2017. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  231. Ferraro, Francesca, and Jesús Carmona. “Fundamental Rights in the European Union - The Role of the Charter after Lisbon Treaty.” European Parliamentary Research Service, March 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  232. González de Zárate Catón P. “Disclosure of Leniency Materials: A Bridge between Public and Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law.” Research Paper in Law. College of Europe, December 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  233. Motchenkova, Evgenia, Effects of Leniency Programs on Cartel Stability (September 2004). Center Discussion Paper No. 2004-98. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  234. Schwarze, J., R. Bechtold, and W. Bosch. “Deficiencies in European Community Competition Law - Critical Analysis of the Current Practice and Proposals for Change,” September 2008. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  235. Speeches, Presentations and Statements Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  236. Baer, Bill - Antitrust Division - US Department of Justice «Public and Private Antitrust Enforcement in the United States», European Competition Forum 2014, Brussels, February 11, 2014, (available at: https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/517756/download Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  237. Griffin, James M. “The Modern Leniency Program after Ten Years - A Summary Overview of the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Enforcement Program.” San Francisco, California, August 12, 2003. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  238. Italianer, Alexander. “Competition Law within a Framework of Rights and the Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on Antitrust Damage Actions.” Luxembourg, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  239. Jones, Alison. “Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: A Comparison with, and Lessons from, the US.” Uppsala University, 2016. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  240. Komninos, Assimakis. “The Relationship between Public and Private Enforcement: Quod Dei Deo, Quod Caesaris Caesari.” Hart Publishing, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  241. Lenaerts, Koen. “Effective Judicial Protection in the EU” presented at the Assises de la justice conference, Bruxelles, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/events/assises-justice-2013/files/interventions/koenlenarts.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  242. Monti, Mario. Speech/00/295 – Fighting Cartels Why and How? Why should we be concerned with cartels and collusive behavior?” - 3rd Nordic Competition Policy Conference - Stockholm, 11-12 September 2000. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  243. Neframi, Eleftheria. “Judicial Implementation of EU Law”, presented at Academy of European Public Law – 22 August -11September 2016 – Greece. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  244. Weyembergh, Anne. «Punitive administrative sanctions and procedural safeguards with regard to EU citizenship and fundamental rights » at the conference “EU Citizenship and Justice”, 15 September 2015, European Court of Justice. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  245. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 'The Use of Leniency Programmes as a Tool for the Enforcement of Competition Law against Hardcore Cartels in Developing Countries', Sixth United Nations Conference to Review All Aspects of the Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices, Geneva 8-12 November 2010. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  246. Spratling, Gray R. "The corporate leniency policy: Answers to Recurring Questions", presented at the Spring 1998 ABA Meeting (Antitrust section), available for download at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/1626.htm. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  247. Press Releases Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  248. MEMO 02/23 FAQ on 1996 Leniency Notice available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-02-23_en.htm. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  249. Commission Press Release, Commission adopts new leniency policy for companies which give information on cartels, IP/02/247, 13 February 2002 - http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-02-247_en.htm?locale=en. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  250. Brussels, 7th December 2006 - Competition: revised Leniency Notice – frequently asked questions (see also IP/06/1705) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-06-469_en.htm?locale=en. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  251. Websites and Blogs Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  252. Clark, Jonathan, Camilla Sanger, and James Dobias. “Implementation of the Damages Directive across the EU.” Slaughter and May (blog), February 2017. https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/2536289/implementation-of-the-damages-directive-across-the-eu.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  253. Lo Surdo, Cristina. “Programmi Di Leniency, Accesso e Divulgazione Nel Giudizio Civile Alla Luce Della Direttiva Sul Danno Antitrust.” Osservatorio Permanente Sull’Applicazione Delle Regole Di Concorrenza (blog), May 2015. http://www.osservatorioantitrust.eu/it/programmi-di-leniency-accesso-e-divulgazione-nel-giudizio-civile-alla-luce-della-recente-direttiva-sul-danno antitrust/. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  254. Buffier, Beau W, Heather Lamberg Kafele, Stephen Fishbein and Patrick Robbins, Shearman & Sterling LLP Cartel leniency in United States: overview - https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-501-2185?bhcp=1&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  255. January 26, 2017 “Frequently Asked Questions about the Antitrust Division's Leniency Program and Model Leniency Letters”, available at: https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/926521/download. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  256. https://www.ftc.gov/. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  257. https://www.justice.gov/atr. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  258. https://www.justice.gov/atr/leniency-program. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  259. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/statistics/statistics.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  260. https://www.justice.gov/atr/status-report-corporate-leniency-program. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  261. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/leniency/leniency.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  262. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/documents.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  263. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2015_effective_enforcers/Summary_report_of_replies.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  264. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2015_effective_enforcers/strategy_en.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  265. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/joint_statement_en.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  266. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/directive_en.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170
  267. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/network.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845297170

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus der Reihe "Luxemburger Juristische Studien - Luxembourg Legal Studies"
Cover des Buchs: Interfaces between National and EU Law
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Giovanni Chiapponi
Interfaces between National and EU Law
Cover des Buchs: Experimental Law
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Stefan Braum
Experimental Law
Cover des Buchs: Studies on Enforcement in Multilevel Regulatory Systems
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Katalin Ligeti, Kei Hannah Brodersen
Studies on Enforcement in Multilevel Regulatory Systems
Cover des Buchs: Implications of Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts on Contract Law
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Chantal Bomprezzi
Implications of Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts on Contract Law
Cover des Buchs: Data Protection by Design in the E-Health Care Sector
Monographie Vollzugriff
Giorgia Bincoletto
Data Protection by Design in the E-Health Care Sector

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login über Ihre Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex