Cover of book: Enforcing European Competition Law through Leniency Programmes in the Light of Fundamental Rights
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

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

With an Overview of the US Leniency Programme
Authors:
Publisher:
 13.02.2019

Summary

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.

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2019
Publication date
13.02.2019
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-5634-6
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-9717-0
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Luxemburger Juristische Studien - Luxembourg Legal Studies
Volume
18
Language
English
Pages
438
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

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

Bibliography (267)

  1. Books Open Google Scholar
  2. American Bar Association. State Antitrust Enforcement Handbook. 2nd ed. ABA, 2003. Open Google Scholar
  3. Andreangeli, Arianna. EU Competition Enforcement and Human Rights. EE-Edward Elgar, 2008. Open Google Scholar
  4. Areeda, P., L. Kaplow, and A. Edlin. Antitrust Analysis - Problems, Text, and Cases. 7th edition. Wolters Kluwer, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, David, and Vivien Rose. Bellamy & Child -European Union Law of Competition. 7th Edition. 3 vols. Oxford University Press, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  6. Balasingham, Baskaran. The EU Leniency Policy - Reconciling Effectiveness and Fairness. Wolters Kluwer, 2017. Open Google Scholar
  7. Barnard, Catherine, and Steve Peers. European Union Law. Oxford University Press, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  8. Beaton-Wells, Caron, and Christopher Tran. Anti-Cartel Enforcement in a Contemporary Age - Leniency Religion. 1st ed. Caron Beaton-Wells, Christopher Tran, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  9. Bombois, Thomas. La Protection Des Droits Fondamentaux Des Entreprises En Droit Européen Répressif de La Concurrence. Larcier, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  10. Brammer, Silke. Co-Operation between National Competition Agencies in the Enforcement of EC Competition Law. Oxford and Portland, 2009. Open Google Scholar
  11. Buhart, Jacques. Leniency Regimes. 5th ed. Jacques Buhart, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  12. Clifford, Jones. Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the EU, UK and USA. Oxford University Press, 1999. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  14. Dashwood, Alan, Michael Dougan, Anthony Arnull, Eleanor Spaventa, Derrick Wyatt, and M. G. Ross. European Union Law. 5th ed. Hart Publishing, 2006. Open Google Scholar
  15. De VerLoren van Themaat W., and B. Reuder. European Competition Law: A Case Commentary. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  16. DG Competition. Antitrust Manual of Procedures, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  17. Furse, Mark. The Criminal Law of Competition in the UK and in the US - Failure and Success. EE-Edward Elgar, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  18. Gippini Fournier, and Castillo de la Torre. Evidence, Proof and Judicial Review in EU Competition Law. EE-Edward Elgar, 2017. Open Google Scholar
  19. Groussot, Xavier. General Principles of Community Law. 1st ed. Hardback, 2006. Open Google Scholar
  20. Hanschitz, Georg Christoph. Future of Leniency: A Comparative and Qualitative Analysis of Leniency Programmes. Akademiker Verlag, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  21. Harding, Christopher, and Julian Joshua. Regulating Cartels in Europe. 2nd ed. Oxford, 2010. Open Google Scholar
  22. Regulating Cartels in Europe: A Study of Legal Control of Corporate Delinquency. 2nd ed., 2010. Open Google Scholar
  23. Hovenkamp, Herbert. Federal Antitrust Policy the Law of Competition and Its Practice. 4th ed. West, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  24. Kessler, Jeffrey L., and Spencer Weber Waller. International Trade and U.S. Antitrust Law. 2nd ed. Spencer Weber Waller, 2006. Open Google Scholar
  25. Khan, Nicholas. EU Antitrust Procedure. 6th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  26. Kiran, Klaus Patel, and Heike Schweitzer. The Historical Foundations of EU Competition Law. Oxford University Press, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  27. Kronstein, H., and John T. Miller. Major American Antitrust Laws - A Guide to Their Domestic and Foreign Application, 1965. Open Google Scholar
  28. Langer, Howard. Competition Law of the United States. 2nd edition. W. Kluwer, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  29. Lenaerts, K., I. Maselis, and K. Gutman. Eu Procedural Law. Oxford University Press, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  30. Lenaerts Koen, Piet Van Nuffel, Robert Bray, and Nathan Cambien. European Union Law. Sweet & Maxwell, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  31. Lifland, William T. State Antitrust Law. Law Journal Press, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  33. Mobley, Samantha, and Ross Denton. Global Cartels Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  34. Peers, Steve, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary. 1st ed. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  35. Scordamaglia-Tousis, Andrea. EU Cartel Enforcement: Reconciling Effective Public Enforcement with Fundamental Rights. Wolters Kluwer, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  36. Shenefield, John H., and Irwin M. Stelzer. The Antitrust Laws. 4th ed. The AEI Press, 2001. Open Google Scholar
  37. Simonsson, Ingeborg. Legitimacy in EU Cartel Control. Oxford and Portland, Hart Publishing, 2010. Open Google Scholar
  38. Tridimas, Takis. The General Principles of EU Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2007. Open Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Department of Justice. Antitrust Division Manual, 2017. Open Google Scholar
  40. Whish, Richard, and David Bailey. Competition Law. 8th ed. Oxford University Press, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  41. Wils, Wouter P. J. Efficiency and Justice in European Antitrust Enforcement. Hart Publishing, 2008. Open Google Scholar
  42. Articles and Books Chapters Open Google Scholar
  43. Albers, Michael, and Karen Williams. “Oral Hearings—Neither a Trial Nor a State of Play Meeting.” CPI Antitrust Chronicle 3, no. 1 (2010). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  47. “Competition Law and Fundamental Rights.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 8, no. 8 (2017): 524–38. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  49. “Ne Bis in Idem and Administrative Sanctions: Bonda.” Common Market Law Review 50, no. 6 (2013): 1827–42. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  51. Bantekas, Ilias. “The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Criminal Law.” European Competition Law Review 32, no. 3 (2007): 365–85. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  53. Baratta, Roberto. “Sui Requisiti Applicativi Del Ne Bis in Idem in Materia Di Concorrenza.” Giustizia Civile 62, no. 3 (2012): 590–97. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  57. Beumer, Elsbeth. “The Cross-Examination of Leniency Applicants in EU Cartel Proceedings.” Concorrenza e Mercato, 2013, 5–26. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  62. Botteman, Y., and P. Hughes. “Access to File: Striking the Balance Between Leniency and Private Enforcement Tools.” The European Antitrust Review, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  65. Brokx, Lidwyn. “A Patchwork of Leniency Programmes.” European Competition Law Review 22, no. 2 (2001): 35–46. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  73. Cauffman, Caroline. “Access to Leniency Related Documents after Pfleiderer.” World Competition 34, no. 4 (2011): 597–615. Open Google Scholar
  74. ———. “The Interaction of Leniency Programmes and Actions for Damages.” The Competition Law Review 7, no. 2 (July 2011): 181–220. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  82. Frédéric, Louis, and Accardo Gabriele. “Ne Bis in Idem, Part ‘Bis.’” World Competition 34, no. 1 (2011): 97–112. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  90. Idot, Laurence. “Application Parallèle Du Droit National et Du Droit.” Europe, no. 4 (April 2012). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  94. Keith, Jones, and Farin Harrison. “Criminal Sanctions: An Overview of EU and National Case Law.” E-Competitions, no. 64713 (2014). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  97. Lemaire, Christophe. “La Clémence: Nouvelle Étape de La Convergence Des Droits de La Concurrence En Europe.” EUROPE, no. 12 (December 2006). Open Google Scholar
  98. Leslie, Christopher R. “Antitrust Amnesty, Game Theory, and Cartel Stability.” Journal of Corporation Law 31 (2006): 453–88. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  103. Monti, Mario. “Why Should We Be Concerned with Cartels and Collusive Behaviour?” In Fighting Cartels - Why and How?, by Swedish Competition Authority, 2001. Open Google Scholar
  104. Motta, Massimo, and Michele Polo. “Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution.” International Jornal of Industrial Organization, no. 21 (2003): 347–79. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  107. Murphy, F., and F. Liberatore. “Simplified Procedures for Multiple Leniency Applications across Europe.” European Competition Law Review 34, no. 8 (2013): 407–9. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  109. O’Brien, Ann. “Leadership of Leniency.” In Anti-Cartel Enforcement in a Contemporary Age -Leniency Religion. Caron Beaton-Wells, Christopher Tran, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  111. “Competition and Fundamental Rights.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 6, no. 8 (2015). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  113. Page, William H. “Ideological Conflict and the Origins of Antitrust Policy.” Tulane Law Review 66, no. 1 (1991). Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  118. Petr, Michael. “The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in Competition Law.” European Competition Law Review 29, no. 7 (2008): 392–400. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  120. Peyer, Sebastian. “Access to Competition Authorities’ Files in Private Antitrust Litigation.” Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 3, no. 1 (2015): 58–86. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  122. Pilar Canedo, Maria. “Ne Bis in Idem in Antitrust Enforcement.” In The Fight against Hard Core Cartels in Europe. Bruylant, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  125. Ramsden, Michael. “EC Dawn Raids: A Human Rights Violation?” The Competition Law Review 5, no. 1 (December 2008): 61–87. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  131. Ryan, Stephen. “Co-Operation between Competition Agencies in Cartel-Investigations.” Competition Policy Newsletter, no. 2 (2007). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  134. Salemme, Emma “L'autonomia dei programmi di clemenza in Europa: la sentenza DHL”, in "Mercato Concorrenza Regole" 2/2016, pp. 329-38. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  136. Sandhu, Jatinder S. “The European Commission’s Leniency Policy: A Success?” European Competition Law Review 28, no. 3 (March 2007): 148–57. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  139. Shimose, Takashi. “The System of Subsequent Applications for the EU Leniency Program.” European Competition Law Review 37, no. 2 (2016): 51–76. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  143. Smyrnova, Ksenya. “Competition Law & Human Rights Protection: Controversial New Dimensions.” Contemporary Legal Institutions - Romanian-American University 5, no. 1 (2013): 51–55. Open Google Scholar
  144. Taladay, John M. “Time for a Global ‘One-Stop Shop’ for Leniency Markers.” Antitrust 27, no. 1 (2012). Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  146. Vala Kristjánsdóttir, Margrét. “Good Administration as a Fundamental Right.” Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration 9, no. 1 (2013): 237–55. Open Google Scholar
  147. Van Barlingen, Bertus, and Marc Barennes. “The European Commission’s 2002 Leniency Notice in Practice.” Competition Policy Newsletter, no. 3 (2005). Open Google Scholar
  148. Veljanovski, Cento. “Cartel Fines in Europe - Law, Practice and Deterrence.” World Competition 29 (March 2007). Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  153. Walsh, Declan J. “Carrots and Sticks—Leniency and Fines in EC Cartel Cases.” European Competition Law Review 30, no. 1 (2009): 30–35. Open Google Scholar
  154. Wardhaugh, Bruce. “Cartel Leniency and Effective Compensation in Europe: The Aftermath of Pfleiderer.” Web Journal of Current Legal Issues 19, no. 3 (2013). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  157. “Human Rights and EU Antitrust Enforcement: News from Lisbon.” European Competition Law Review, no. 4 (2011): 186–95. Open Google Scholar
  158. Wils, Wouter P. J. “Discretion and Prioritisation in Public Antitrust Enforcement.” World Competition 34, no. 3 (September 2011). Open Google Scholar
  159. Is Criminalization of EU Competition Law the Answer?” World Competition 26, no. 2 (June 2005): 117–59. Open Google Scholar
  160. Leniency in Antitrust Enforcement: Theory and Practice.” World Competition 30, no. 1 (2007): 25–64. Open Google Scholar
  161. “Optimal Antitrust Fines: Theory and Practice.” World Competition 26, no. 2 (June 2006). Open Google Scholar
  162. “Self-Incrimination in EC Antitrust Enforcement: A Legal and Economic Analysis.” World Competition 26, no. 4 (2003): 567–88. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  167. “The Relationship between Pubic Antitrust Enforcement and Private Actions for Damages.” World Competition 32, no. 1 (March 2009): 3–26. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  170. “The Use of Leniency in EU Cartel Enforcement: An Assessment after Twenty Years.” World Competition 39, no. 3 (September 2016): 327-388. Open Google Scholar
  171. Zingales, Nicolo. “European and American Leniency Programmes: Two Models Towards Convergence?” The Competition Law Review 5, no. 1 (December 2008): 5–60. Open Google Scholar
  172. Theses Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  180. Putkonen, Lauri. “Privilege against Self-Incrimination in EU Competition Law - Undertaking’s Right to Remain Silent.” Master’s Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  182. Sorf, Jiri. “The Leniency Policy.” Master’s Thesis, Charles University in Prague, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  183. Working Papers Open Google Scholar
  184. Buccirossi, Marvao, and Spagnolo. “Leniency and Damages.” Working paper. Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, February 2015. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  188. Riley, Alan. “The Modernisation of EU Anti-Cartel Enforcement: Will the Commission Grasp the Opportunity?” CEPS, 2010. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  190. Trepka, Marcin, and Martyna Wurm. “Leniency Programs – The Devil Is In The Details.” CPI Europe Column, September 2016. Open Google Scholar
  191. EU Documents Open Google Scholar
  192. European Commission Open Google Scholar
  193. “White Paper on Modernization of the Rules Implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty.,” April 28, 1999. Open Google Scholar
  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"). Open Google Scholar
  195. “Commission Staff Working Paper Annex to the Green Paper Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules,” 2005. Open Google Scholar
  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). Open Google Scholar
  197. “Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules,” 2005. Open Google Scholar
  198. “Competition: the European Competition Network launches a Model Leniency Programme – frequently asked questions” (MEMO/06/356) (2006). Open Google Scholar
  199. White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules,” 2008. Open Google Scholar
  200. “Commission Staff Working Paper Accompanying the White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules,” 2008. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  202. “Guidance on Procedures of the Hearing Officers in Proceedings Relating to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (Ex- Articles 81 and 82 EC),” 2011. Open Google Scholar
  203. “Commission Staff Working Document: Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress,” 2011. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  208. “ECN Plus: Empowering the National Competition Authorities to Be More Effective Enforcers Consultation Strategy,” 2017. Open Google Scholar
  209. “Summary Report of the Replies to the Commission’s Public Consultation on Empowering the National Competition Authorities to Be More Effective Enforcers,” 2017. Open Google Scholar
  210. European Commission – Memorandum – Information on the oral hearing, page 1, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/hearing_officers/info1.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  212. ECN Open Google Scholar
  213. Commission Report on the functioning of Regulation 1/2003, COM (2009) 206 final, 29 April 2009. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  215. ECN Model Leniency Programme: revision November 2012 available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/mlp_revised_2012_en.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  216. US Documents Open Google Scholar
  217. Department of justice. “Department of Justice - Corporate Leniency Policy (US),” August 10, 1993. Open Google Scholar
  218. U.S. Department of Justice. “Antitrust Enforcement and the Consumer,” n.d. Open Google Scholar
  219. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Documents Open Google Scholar
  220. Peer review of Competition Law and Policy (2005) available at: http://www.oecd.org/eu/35908641.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  221. European Union written contribution submitted for the OECD Competition Committee roundtable discussion on ‘Use of Markers in Leniency Programs’, 16 December 2014. Open Google Scholar
  222. “Relationship between Public and Private Antitrust Enforcement.” Working Party on Co-operation and Enforcement, June 15, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  224. International Competition Network Documents Open Google Scholar
  225. “Drafting and Implementing an Effective Leniency Policy.” In Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  226. Reports and studies Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  228. Erbach, Gregor. “Eu and US Competition Policies - Similar Objectives, Different Approaches.” European Parliamentary Research Activities. European Parliament, March 27, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  229. EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights. “Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,” June 2006. Open Google Scholar
  230. European Court of Human Rights. “Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,” April 30, 2017. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  233. Motchenkova, Evgenia, Effects of Leniency Programs on Cartel Stability (September 2004). Center Discussion Paper No. 2004-98. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  235. Speeches, Presentations and Statements Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  238. Italianer, Alexander. “Competition Law within a Framework of Rights and the Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on Antitrust Damage Actions.” Luxembourg, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  239. Jones, Alison. “Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: A Comparison with, and Lessons from, the US.” Uppsala University, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  240. Komninos, Assimakis. “The Relationship between Public and Private Enforcement: Quod Dei Deo, Quod Caesaris Caesari.” Hart Publishing, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  243. Neframi, Eleftheria. “Judicial Implementation of EU Law”, presented at Academy of European Public Law – 22 August -11September 2016 – Greece. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  247. Press Releases Open Google Scholar
  248. MEMO 02/23 FAQ on 1996 Leniency Notice available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-02-23_en.htm. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  251. Websites and Blogs Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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/. Open Google Scholar
  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 Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  256. https://www.ftc.gov/. Open Google Scholar
  257. https://www.justice.gov/atr. Open Google Scholar
  258. https://www.justice.gov/atr/leniency-program. Open Google Scholar
  259. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/statistics/statistics.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  260. https://www.justice.gov/atr/status-report-corporate-leniency-program. Open Google Scholar
  261. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/leniency/leniency.html. Open Google Scholar
  262. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/documents.html. Open Google Scholar
  263. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2015_effective_enforcers/Summary_report_of_replies.pdf Open Google Scholar
  264. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2015_effective_enforcers/strategy_en.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  265. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/joint_statement_en.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  266. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/directive_en.html. Open Google Scholar
  267. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/network.html. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law"
Cover of book: Der Volkseinwand
Book Titles No access
Florian Feigl
Der Volkseinwand
Cover of book: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Book Titles No access
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover of book: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Edited Book No access
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover of book: Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Book Titles No access
Justus Schmidt
Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Cover of book: From Outlaws to Equal Players – Rebel Courts in International Law
Book Titles No access
Isabella Poewe
From Outlaws to Equal Players – Rebel Courts in International Law

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex