Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Who will Protect Competition in Europe? From central enforcement to authority networks and private litigation

  • Published:
European Business Organization Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Commission Programme No. 99/027, COM (1999) 101 fin.

  2. First Regulation Implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty Issued by the Council on 6.2.1962, OJ(EC) [English Special Edition 1959–1962] No. 204/62, p. 87.

  3. Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker, “Versuch einer kartellpolitischen Wende in der EU”, EuZW [1999] 523 — 529; id., “Begrenzt abschreckend”, WuW [2000] 683.

  4. See the critical evaluations by Monopolkommission, Kartellpolitische Wende in der Europäischen Union? (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1999); also published in English translation: Cartel Policy Change in the European Union? (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2000); Wissenschaftlicher Beirat beim Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie, Reform der europäischen Kartellpolitik, Gutachten vom 1.7.2000; Wernhard Möschel, “Effizienter Wettbewerbsschutz in einer erweiterten Gemeinschaft durch Einbeziehung der nationalen Wettbewerbsbehörden und nationalen Gerichte?”, WuW [2001] 147–148; Fritz Rittner, “Kartellpolitik und Gewaltenteilung in der EG”, EuZW [2000] 129; Jochen Gröning, “Die dezentrale Anwendung des EG-Kartellrechts gemäß dem Vorschlag der Kommission zur Ersetzung der VO 17/62”, WRP [2001] 83–89; Wolfgang Fikentscher, “Das Unrecht einer Wettbewerbsbeschränkung: Kritik an Weißbuch und VO-Entwurf zu Art. 81, 82 EG-Vertrag”, WuW [2001] 446–458; Hartmut Weyer, “Nach der Reform: Gestaltung der Wettbewerbspolitik durch die Kommission?” ZHR 164 (2000) 611–637, 634 et seq.; see also Florian Bien, “Systemwechsel im europäischen Kartellrecht”, DB [2000] 2309–2312; Rainer Bechtold, “Modernisierung des EG-Wettbewerbsrechts”, BB [2000] 2425–2431.

  5. Proposal for a Council Regulation on the 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”), COM (2000) 582 fin.

  6. Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker, “The EC Commission’s Modernisation of Competition Policy: a Challenge to the Community’s Constitutional Order”, 1 EBOR (2000) 401–444.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ever since Cases 56 and 58/64 Consten & Grundig v. Commission, [1966] ECR 299, at 347; a revision of that case law is recommended by Claus D. Ehlermann, “The Modernisation of EC Antitrust Policy: A Legal and Cultural Revolution”, 37 C.M.L.Rev. (2000) 537, 559.

  8. See supra n. 4.

  9. Claude Fourgoux, “La proposition de Règlement d’application des articles 81 et 82 du Traité CE — Réflexions provisoires pour un texte incomplet”, JCP éd. E 2000, 1973–1975; David Gerber, “Modernising European Competition Law: A Developmental Perspective”, Eur.Compet.L.Rev. [2001] 122–130; Katherine Holmes, “The EC White Paper on Modernisation”, 23 World Compet. (2000) 51–79; Laurence Idot, “Le futur ≪règlement d’application des articles 81 et 82 CE≫: chronique d’une révolution annoncée”, Dalloz [2001] Chr. 1370–1376; M.R. Mok, “De toekomst van het Europees Kartelrecht”, Ondernemingsrecht [2000] 448–453; Luca Nivarra, “Il ≪Libro Bianco sulla modernizzazione delle norme per l’applicazione degli articoli 85 e 86 del Trattato CE≫: Quale futuro per il diritto europeo della concorrenza?” Europa e diritto privato [2000] 1001–1016; Michael Paulweber, “The End of a Success Story? The European Commission’s White Paper on the Modernisation of the European Competition Law”, 23 World Compet. (2000) 3–48.

  10. See e.g. Mario Monti, “Perspectives of European Competition Law”, in: Zukunft der Wettbewerbsordnung und des Kartellrechts — Referate des XXXIII. FlW-Symposiums (Köln: Heymanns 2001) 9–13; id., “The application of Community competition law by the national courts in a directly applicable exception system”, in: ERA-Forum (scripta iuris europaei) [I- 2001] 3–6; see also “Monti beharrt auf grundlegender Reform des europäischen Kartellrechts”, Handelsblatt 10/11.11.2000.

  11. Alexander Schaub, Die Zunkunft des europäischen Kartellrechts. Zentrum für europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Vorträge und Berichte No. 112 (Bonn 2000); id., “EC Competition System — Proposals for Reform”, [1999] Fordham Int’l L. J. (2000) 853.

  12. Case 14/68 Walt Wilhelm v. Bundeskartellamt, [1969] ECR 1, paras. 4–5.

  13. ” Mestmäcker, supra n. 6, 1 EBOR (2000) 427 et seq.

  14. Gröning, supra n. 4, WRP [2001] 87 et seq.

  15. Cf. “EU-Kommission kommt Kartellamt entgegen”, Handelsblatt 22.12.2000.

  16. See the Explanatory Memorandum of the draft Regulation, supra n. 5, section 2 C 2 (b).

  17. ” See Reiner Schmidt, Öffentliches Wirtschaftsrecht — Allgemeiner Teil (Heidelberg: Springer 1990) 214–216, with further references; Klaus Vogel, “Administrative Law, International Aspects”, in: Rudolf Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. I (Amsterdam: North Holland 1992) 22, 24.

  18. Abkommen zwischen der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Regierung der Französischen Republik über die Zusammenarbeit in bezug auf wettbewerbsbeschränkende Praktiken, BGBl. 1984-II, 758–762; see Peter Mozet, Internationale Zusammenarbeit der Kartellbehörden (Heidelberg: Müller 1991) 64–70.

  19. COM (94) 29 fin.

  20. For an excellent survey see Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, “Verwaltungskooperation und Verwaltungskooperationsrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft”, EuR [1996] 270–301.

  21. Case C-251/89 Athanasopoulou, [1991] ECR I-2848, para. 75.

  22. See art. 16 of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 27.9.1968, as amended, OJ(EC) [1998] C 27/1, recently transformed into Regulation 44/2001 of 22.12.2000, OJ(EC) [2001] L 12/1, see Art. 22.

  23. For a comprehensive explanation and survey see Ivo Schwartz/Jürgen Basedow, “Restraints on Competition”, in: Int. Encycl. Comp. L. vol. III, ch. 35 (1995) sec. 10 and 60 et seq.

  24. See Art. 3 of the Brussels Convention and of Regulation 44/2001, supra n. 22.

  25. Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 26.8.1998, BGBl. I, p. 2546.

  26. Joined cases 89/85 Ahlström — Wood pulp, [1988] ECR 5193, paras. 16–18.

  27. See art. 11 (6) of the draft regulation, supra n. 5.

  28. See infra 2.2.3 and 2.2.4.

  29. It emerges from an internal staff paper that the Commission is not unaware of the problem; it suggests to proceed on a case by case basis, but has no clear criteria for the decision.

  30. For a closer analysis and further references see Mozet, supra n. 18, in particular pp. 82 et seq.; Schwartz/Basedow, supra n. 23, sec. 91; Jürgen Basedow, Weltkartellrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1998) 33 et seq.

  31. See the Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, comment on Art. 11 para. 3.

  32. See art. II (1) of the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Commission of the European Communities regarding the application of their competition laws of 23.9.1991, OJ(EC) [1995] L 95/45, corn in OJ(EC) [1995] L 131/38.

  33. Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, comment on Art. 12.

  34. Ibid.

  35. See supra n. 21.

  36. See the Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, sec. 2 C 2 (b).

  37. See supra section 2.2.2.

  38. See Art. 13 sec. 1, second sentence.

  39. Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, comment on Art. 11 para. 6.

  40. Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, comment on Art. 13.

  41. Lennart Pålsson, “The Institute of lis pendens in International Civil Procedure”, 14 Scandinavian Studies in Law (1970) 59–108, e.g., p. 77 with regard to the Scandinavian legal systems.

  42. BGH 10.10.1985, NJW [1986] 2195 = IPRspr. [1985] Nr. 167 sub I 1; Haimo Schack, Internationales Zivilprozeßrecht, 2nd ed. (München: Beck 1996) no. 754, p. 295.

  43. See art. 7 Legge 31.5.1995 n. 218 — Riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato, Gazz. Uff. 3.6.1995 n. 128, Supplemento ordinario n. 68.

  44. Cass. 26.11.1974. Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. [1975] 491 (note: Dominique Holleaux); see also Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon, Les conventions de Bruxelles et de Lugano, 2nd ed. (Paris: Montchrestien 1996) 204 et seq., no. 281.

  45. Lawrence Collins in Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, vol. 1, 11th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell 1987) pp. 395 et seq.

  46. STS 19.12.1985 Aranzadi [1986] 6600; critical Miguel Virgös Soriano/Francisco Garcimartín Alferez, Derechoprocesal civil international (Madrid: Civitas 2000) p. 255 no. 385.

  47. H.R. 22.12.1989 Ned. Jur. [1990] No. 689 p. 2783 approved by J.C.S(chultsz) in his annotation which refers to Dutch writers who take a different view.

  48. This context is very ably elaborated by Virgós Soriano/Garcimartín Alferez, supra n. 46, p. 255 no. 386.

  49. See Werner Meng, “Recognition of Foreign Legislative and Administrative Acts”, in: Rudolf Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. IV (Amsterdam: North Holland 2000) pp. 50, 51 et seq.

  50. See Schmidt-Aßmann, supra n. 20, EuR [1996] 293, who refers to Art. 250 of the Community customs code and to the licenses granted, under the relevant Community regulation, for the export of cultural goods.

  51. Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28.5.2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, OJ(EC) [2001] L 149/34.

  52. Case 6/64 Costa v. Enel, [1964] ECR 585, 594.

  53. On that principle see Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty”, in: Rudolf Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. IV (Amsterdam: North Holland 2000) pp. 500, 511, 515.

  54. Explanatory Memorandum of the draft regulation, supra n. 5, sec. 2 C 1 (a).

  55. Case C-234/89 Delimitis v. Henninger Bräu AG, [1991] ECR I-935, paras. 51–54.

  56. See Leo Rosenberg/Karl-Heinz Schwab/Peter Gottwald, Zivilprozeβrecht, 15th ed. (München: Beck 1993) pp. 424 seq.

  57. See Delimitis, supra n. 55, para. 53; Case C-2/88 Imm. (Zwartveld), [1990] ECR I-4405, para. 10.

  58. Preliminary consideration no. 7 of the draft regulation, supra n. 5.

  59. See e.g. Karsten Schmidt in: Immenga/Mestmäcker (ed.), EG-Wettbewerbsrecht, vol. I (München: Beck 1997) p. 318 no. 71 with further references.

  60. See Stephen Kon, “The Commission’s White Paper on Modernisation: The Need for Procedural Harmonization”, in: Barry Hawk (ed.), 1999 Fordham Corp. L. Inst. (2000) 233, 247 citing in turn a Commission paper prepared by A. J. Braakman, cf. Kon at p. 240 n. 30.

  61. BGH 10.11.1987,NJW [1988] 2175, 2177; BGH 23.10.1979, NJW [1980] 1224, 1225; see Hartmut Weyer, “Gemeinschaftsrechtliches Verbot und nationale Zivilrechtsfolgen — Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Artikel 81, 82 EG-Vertrag”, ZEuP [1999] 424, 439 and 447 with further references.

  62. Karsten Schmidt, supra n. 59, pp. 320 et seq. at no. 79.

  63. Case C-177/88 Dekker, [1990] ECR I-3941, paras. 23–25; Case C-180/95 Draehmpaehl v. Urania, [1997] ECR I-2195, para. 21; see also Joint Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, [1996] ECR I-1029, paras. 76, 78.

  64. See Volker Emmerich in: Immenga/Mestmäcker, supra n. 59, vol. I, p. 152 no. 103, who describes both agreements and concerted practices as two forms of an “intentional coordination of behaviour”.

  65. BGH 23.10.1979, NJW [1980] 1224, 1225; Karsten Schmidt, supra n. 59, p. 322 no. 85.

  66. See the opinion of Advocate General van Gerven in case C-128/92 Banks, [1994] ECR I-1209, paras. 36 et seq.; contra Weyer, supra n. 61, ZEuP [1999] 437–439.

  67. Under section 33 of the German Statute against Restrictions of Competition, industry associations have standing to apply for injunctions, but not for damages; consumer associations are not mentioned.

  68. Rosenberg/Schwab/Gottwald, supra n. 56, pp. 670 et seq.

  69. See Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 USCA 26.

  70. A limited legislative competence is laid down in Art. 65 (c) EC.

  71. BGH 19.6.1986, VersR [1986] 1019, 1020 et seq.; OLG Nürnberg 10.12.1992, TranspR [1993] 138, 139; see also Jürgen Basedow in: Münchener Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch, vol. VII (München: Beck 1997) p. 1189; Art. 29 CMR no. 38.

  72. RG 8.6.1895, RGZ 35, 63 (67 ff); RG 31.12.1898, RGZ 43, 56(58 f.); BGH 6.3.1980, NJW [1980] 2522, 2524; Wolfgang Bernhardt/Rudolf Kraßer, Lehrbuch des Patentrechts, 4th ed. (München: Beck 1986) 629; Heinrich Hubmann/Heinz-Peter Götting, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, 6th ed. (München: Beck 1998) p. 213.

  73. Dagmar Coester-Waltjen, Internationales Beweisrecht (Ebelsbach: Gremer 1983) pp. 276 et seq.

  74. See the White Paper, supra n. 1, p. 29 no. 78.

  75. Cf. Jürgen Basedow, “Rechtssicherheit im europäischen Wirtschaftsrecht. Ein allgemeiner Rechtsgrundsatz im Lichte der wettbewerbsrechtlichen Rechtsprechung”, ZEuP [1996] 570, 571–574.

  76. OJ(EC) [2000] C 118/3.

  77. Mestmäcker, supra n. 6, 1 EBOR (2000) 425.

  78. Section 4 Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730 (1914), codified as amended, 15 USCA § 15, grants the plaintiff treble damages for violation of the “antitrust statutes” which include the Sherman Act, see the definition in section 1 Clayton Act.

  79. Directive of 29.6.2000, OJ(EC) [2000] L 200/35.

  80. Ibid., preliminary consideration no. 16.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max-Planck-Institute of Foreign Private and Private International Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Jürgen Basedow (Director, Professor of Law, Member)

  2. University of Hamburg, Germany

    Jürgen Basedow (Director, Professor of Law, Member)

  3. German Monopolies Commission, Germany

    Jürgen Basedow (Director, Professor of Law, Member)

Authors
  1. Jürgen Basedow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basedow, J. Who will Protect Competition in Europe? From central enforcement to authority networks and private litigation. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 2, 443–468 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752900000549

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752900000549

Keywords

Search

Navigation