Abstract
The selected EU Member States (i.e. Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, and Luxembourg) have faced technical and linguistic intricacies in their attempts to align the Antitrust Damages Directive’s provisions with national rules. It seems that the copying/literal method combined with the minimalistic approach dominated in this transposition process, especially in newer small Member States. In the context of the elaboration and gold-plating methods, the paper also discovered some deviations or uncertainties which require to be settled in the future.
Highlights
On 26 November 2014, acting on a 2013 Commission proposal and after more than a decade of debate and negotiation, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted under the ordinary procedure[1] the Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions.[2]
While the Directive provides that an infringement of the competition law provisions established either by the NCA or the review court constitutes an irrefutable fact in the same Member State for a claim of damages, it is at least prima facie evidence of the fact that an infringement of competition law has occurred if this decision was concluded either by the NCA or review court of another Member State.[78]
A robust transposition mechanism took place in all Member States analysed in this paper causing some significant delays in some countries, such as Latvia
Summary
On 26 November 2014, acting on a 2013 Commission proposal and after more than a decade of debate and negotiation, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted under the ordinary procedure[1] the Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions (thereafter the Directive).[2]. The harmonisation is justified by the belief that ‘divergent’ national rules could practically ‘jeopardise the proper functioning of the internal market’.3. In other Member States private enforcement of competition law, especially in the form of damages actions, has been almost nonexistent.[4]. Given that the differences in the liability regimes applicable in the Member States may negatively affect both competition and the proper functioning of the internal market, the Directive was issued on the dual legal bases of Articles 103 and 114 TFEU. The Directive seeks to remove a number of obstacles to damages actions brought before national courts by
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
