Private enforcement of EU competition law : the way forward

Abstract

Enforcement of competition law in the European Union is divided into two pillars, namely private and public enforcement. This study focuses on private enforcement and its struggle to survive in an environment which is primarily dominated by public enforcement. Indeed, this thesis first sets a general introduction to private enforcement and goes on to analyse the interaction between the two enforcement pillars. For a number of years private enforcement has been swept aside to make way for public enforcement. The European Union has particularly taken this approach in order to avoid having a private enforcement system which reflects the current enforcement system in the United States of America. Therefore, this thesis analyses the EU’s hesitant approach towards introducing concepts which are inconsistent with its own laws and policies. Indeed, a plethora of judgments are included in this analysis to illustrate the approach undertaken by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Moreover, this study is complemented with brief insight into the EU’s principles in relation to private enforcement. This thesis proceeds to examine Directive 2014/104/EU on Antitrust Damages Actions which came into force in December 2014 and is to be implemented by all the Member States by 27 December 2016. Briefly, this thesis provides an overview of the objectives of the Directive, as well as a critical examination of its provisions. Following a brief analysis of the shortcoming of the Directive, the author illustrates the process of the quantification of damages which arise from claims brought by victims of anticompetitive behaviour. Lastly, a study is conducted on the implementation of the Directive by comparing and contrasting three European jurisdictions, namely Germany, England and Malta. The latter jurisdictions cover the most eminent European systems of law which are the civil, common and mixed types of jurisdictions. To conclude, the author sets out an argument in favour of boosting private enforcement within the EU. Simultaneously the author proceeds to identify the Directive’s shortcomings and duly provides recommendations to further enhance this pillar of enforcement.