How substantive competition rules are enforced plays a crucial role in achieving their goals. This thoughtful book examines procedural issues that have arisen from the increased enforcement of competition law worldwide.

What constitutes a fair procedure when it comes to EU competition law? This innovative book seeks to understand the philosophical considerations at the core of conflicting procedural fairness arguments in EU competition law practice. The author argues for a conceptualisation of procedural fairness as a distributional issue that can be solved by a practical fairness theory and a comprehensive methodology. To illustrate the usefulness of the conceptualisation, three procedural fairness problems from recent EU competition law practice are analysed: - the KME–Chalkor cases; - the Groupe Gascogne cases; - the regulatory question about using a collective redress mechanism for private enforcement of EU competition law. This unique approach provides a robust philosophical and methodological foundation for arguing about a wide range of procedural fairness dilemmas. The book is a must-read for academics and practitioners seeking an imaginative perspective on the philosophical foundations of arguments about procedural fairness in EU competition law and beyond.

The right to equal participation in the proceedings - In the fourth chapter of the book it is concluded that the proceedings before the CCP President are characterised by lack of equal access to the process. The status of the party is limited only to the undertaking against which charges have been raised. Differently to the solutions existing in the European Union law, competitors or other entities possibly harmed by the activity of the undertaking that allegedly violated competition law may not participate in the proceedings. What is more, when it comes to antimonopoly proceedings in cases of concentration, the status of the party is limited only to the undertaking that notifies the concentration to the CCP President. In the predominant part of the decisions the agreement for the concentration is given. As a consequence, the judicial control over these proceedings is excluded as there is no-one that would be interested in appealing the decision. The right of defence - In the fifth chapter of the book it is shown that in the proceedings before the CCP President and to some extent before the Commission, the right of defence is not properly respected. In the proceedings before the CCP President the lack can be observed when it comes to the guarantees of the presumption of innocence and the privilege against self-incrimination. Due to the lack of a specific regulation in the Competition Act, it can happen that undertakings are forced to make a confession of violation of the competition law. The right of defence can in practice be significantly limited as there is no clear legal basis for the protection in Polish competition procedure of legal professional privilege. There is clearly a need for the confidential treatment of information exchanged in the course of the legal aid provided by lawyers to the undertakings that allegedly violated the competition rules. Several problems can be observed when it comes to the inspections run by the CCP President functionaries. The presumption that inspections are only effective when run surprisingly and during the explanatory proceedings is wrong. What is more, the inspection is incorrectly understood - if the Competition Act is interpreted literally - to be admissible just because the CCP President is analysing the market structure and despite him/her not having any information whatsoever about any violation of law. Thus it is possible that so called fishing expeditions take place. Under the Polish and EU procedure, there lingers an unresolved question of legality of inspection on premises possessed by natural persons. The procedural guarantees of the privacy are not sufficient and thus there is a potential for abuse of this institution in the future. The right to protection of business secrets and other confidential information - The sixth chapter of the book is based on the presumption that in the proceedings before the competition authority there is a need for the protection of the information that is economically important for the undertakings. This refers to any undertaking that provided the CCP President with the economically valuable confidential information. In this respect both Polish and EU procedure protects information than can be qualified as business secrets. Under the Competition Act the CCP President is entitled to limit, where this is indispensable, the right to access to evidence contained in the case file, when rendering such evidence accessible would entail a risk that the business secret may be revealed. Unfortunately Polish legislation and jurisprudence, unlike EU one, does not properly balance the protection of business secrets with the safeguards of the right to be heard. Polish competition law fails to stipulate clearly what the limits of the protection of confidential information are in situations when the right to be heard of other parties of antitrust proceedings is at stake. There is also no clear legal basis in Polish law for the protection of the anonymity of those entities who submit a written notification to the CCP President concerning a suspicion that competition-restricting practice has taken place. The right to judicial review and judicial control over competition proceedings - The seventh chapter of the book deals with the right to judicial review and judicial control over the proceedings before the competition authority. Under Article 6 of the ECHR the decisions taken by administrative authorities must be subjected to subsequent control by a "judicial body that has full jurisdiction" over questions of facts and law. Polish model of judicial control over the proceedings before the CCP President raises doubts from the point of view of the requirements of "full jurisdiction". In particular - contrary to the EU courts - the court specialised in dealing with the appeals from the CCP President decision - the Court of Competition and Consumers Protection (the CCP Court), despite the legal basis for that contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, does not exercise sufficient control with respect to procedural infringements over the proceedings before the CCP President. In jurisprudence it is accepted that the CCP Court as first instance court entitled to decide the case on merits is not obliged to refer in details to the procedural objections raised in the appeal especially, if the submitted irregularities are not likely to be of a kind that influences the CCP President decision on its merits. Furthermore the Supreme Court specified that procedural irregularities concerning evidence should not lead to the revocation of the CCP President decision provided, that it is in line with the provisions of substantial law. In consequence the analysed jurisprudence of Polish courts in competition cases suggests that the CCP Court does not exercise sufficient control over possible breach of procedural rules by the CCP President. The author argues that the CCP Court should revoke the decision of the CCP President if essential procedural requirements of procedural fairness were violated and the CCP Court is not able to rectify them during judicial proceedings (e.g. by introducing and hearing new evidence) or when these irregularities could have influenced the CCP President decision on its merits. When the procedural rules concerning evidence were violated by the CCP President, the CCP Court should disregard such evidence and, in cases where not enough evidence is left to prove a violation of the Competition Act, it should change the CCP President decision and find no infringement. Such an approach seems to be in accordance with the Supreme Court jurisprudence. It is also pointed out that the two-week time limit for appealing the final decision of the CCP President to the CCP Court must be extended. Taking into account the complicated character of the competition cases as well as often limited knowledge of the parties about the details of the proceedings instigated against them, the current regulations disproportionally limit the right to judicial review.

What constitutes a fair procedure when it comes to EU competition law? This innovative book seeks to understand the philosophical considerations at the core of conflicting procedural fairness arguments in EU competition law practice. The author argues for a conceptualisation of procedural fairness as a distributional issue that can be solved by a practical fairness theory and a comprehensive methodology. To illustrate the usefulness of the conceptualisation, three procedural fairness problems from recent EU competition law practice are analysed: - the KME–Chalkor cases; - the Groupe Gascogne cases; - the regulatory question about using a collective redress mechanism for private enforcement of EU competition law. This unique approach provides a robust philosophical and methodological foundation for arguing about a wide range of procedural fairness dilemmas. The book is a must-read for academics and practitioners seeking an imaginative perspective on the philosophical foundations of arguments about procedural fairness in EU competition law and beyond.

The idea of fairness has recently re-entered the policy discourse underpinning competition law enforcement, in the EU and beyond. Of course, the term “unfair” can be found in the EU Treaty and the avoidance of consumers’ exploitation is the ultimate aim of competition principles. Still, the boundaries of fairness as a driver of competition enforcement appear unclear and, for some, dangerously flexible. At the same time, whilst the application of competition rules has over the years been focusing on restrictions to the competitive process with the effect of harming consumers, a wave of cases recently brought or decided at EU and national level appear to be inspired by wide and somewhat elusive fairness considerations, including non-discrimination, neutrality, equality of opportunities, natural justice or avoidance of abuse of law. Reference can be made to cases relating to product design, IP licensing, geo-blocking, network neutrality, privacy concerns or fiscal justice. This volume explores how fairness may guide competition enforcement, what its significance may be in explaining recent trends and actual outcomes, and what implications can be observed or expected by relying on a fairness standard in the design of substantive principles. Associating lawyers and economists, practitioners and academics, it discusses the boundaries of fairness in a world where the rationality of markets has been profoundly shaken by recent crises.

Offers a comparative and theoretical analysis of the new cross-sector competition law regime in Hong Kong.

The complete guide to EU competition law, combining key primary sources with expert author commentary.The most comprehensive resource for students on EU competition law; extracts from key cases, academic works, and legislation are paired with incisive critique and commentary from an expert author teamSelling Points--· Full, definitive coverage of every aspect of EU competition law - the complete guide tothe subject· Students are guided through the most important extracts from key cases, articles, and statutory material, all carefully selected and explained by this experienced authorteam· 'Central Issues' at the start of each chapter clearly identify key themes and principles discussed, to help readers navigate the material effectively· Extensive footnoting and further reading suggestions provide a thorough guide to the literature, giving students a starting point for their own research and readingNew to this edition--· Full analysis of important developments in competition law and policysince 2019, including relevant case-law, new EU legislation and notices and competition law goals;· A comprehensive discussion of the evolving law and policy governing market definition and vertical,horizontal cooperation and sustainability agreements;· A new chapter on competition law in the digital economy, incorporating a discussion of the Digital Markets Act.

The European Union (EU) leniency programme is a key weapon in the Commission’s fight against hard-core cartels. Much of the success of EU cartel enforcement depends on the continued effectiveness of the leniency policy and is especially critical in response to the growth of private enforcement. This book offers a comprehensive description of the development of the policy, along with a normative framework that promises to ensure the full legitimacy of the leniency programme: the Commission’s policy should pursue not only effectiveness but also fairness. It is the first work to extensively analyse the effectiveness and fairness in the EU leniency policy. Proceeding systematically from clarifying the concepts of ‘effectiveness’ and ‘fairness’ to addressing the tension between leniency and private actions for damages, the author discusses the nature of, and interrelations among, such aspects as the following: – the theoretical model of the EU fining policy; – the compatibility of the EU enforcement system with fundamental rights protection; – the gathering and evaluation of evidence at the preliminary investigation stage; – the severity and foreseeability of the EU cartel fines; – judicial review by the EU Courts in competition matters; – to what extent the current policy is effective and fair; and – reforms brought about by the 2002 and 2006 Leniency Notices and the leniency-related amendments by the 2014 Antitrust Damages Directive. A key feature is the author’s presentation of a normative framework to test the effectiveness (deterrence) and substantive fairness (retribution) of the EU leniency policy. As a clear demonstration of how to forestall the danger of focusing on effectiveness of leniency at the expense of fairness, both in a substantive and in a procedural sense, this book is a major contribution to the literature of competition law. It will prove to be of great value to competition authorities, antitrust practitioners and interested academics not only in Europe but also throughout the world.

This book presents a comprehensive assessment of anti-cartel enforcement and investigative procedures in India. It makes a case for enhanced sanctions for cartel conduct in India. Cartels are considered the most pernicious violation of competition law, referred to as "cancer to the free market economy". While competition laws in most jurisdictions prescribe strict sanctions against cartels, Indian Competition Law provides only civil penalties, with an upper ceiling for proven cartel conduct. This volume assesses the effectiveness of anti-cartel enforcement of the Competition Commission of India (CCI). It explores investigative procedures of the CCI through multiple qualitative and quantitative indicators and the extent to which enforcement of anti-cartel laws in India has led to cartel deterrence. Further, it also examines the priorities and processes of the CCI in terms of anti-cartel enforcement, their sanctioning mechanism and their dependency of computation of penalty on varied factors. Featuring detailed case law studies and engaging data, this book will be an essential read for students and researchers of law and legal studies, competition law, corporate law, intellectual property law, and business law.

Leniency has emerged as one of the main enforcement instruments used by competition authorities to combat cartels. Offering immunity from punishment is believed to destabilise already existing cartels and deter undertakings from entering into such arrangements. This book offers the first in-depth analysis of the scope of leniency in European Union (EU) competition law, considering three crucial ramifications – ensuring a leniency applicant can self-report with confidence, retaining the right to compensation of those who have suffered losses due to the cartel and furthering the objective of undistorted competition within the internal market. With thorough insight into the interaction between the Commission’s Leniency Notice and public and private enforcement, the author fully explains such aspects of the subject as the following: who is eligible for leniency; liability of an immunity recipient; the EU fining system; disclosure of leniency evidence; scope of public authorities reaching out to cartel infringers; the immunity recipient and follow-on damages claimants; the immunity recipient and subsequent leniency applicants; effect of the Damages Directive; and the European Economic Area dimension. The author offers cogent suggestions about how the shortcomings of the Commission’s leniency offer can be ameliorated and which regulatory steps should be taken to give the policy greater leverage. The author calls for increased harmonisation at national level in the EU and compares leniency practice in US antitrust law. As a comprehensive analysis of the practical application of current policy and procedure in EU cartel enforcement, the book clearly shows the ways in which the scope of leniency is manifest in the interaction between public and private enforcement, evaluating which interaction is most effective. Its practical character will be recognised and welcomed by competition law practitioners and policymakers, who will strengthen their grasp of leniency procedure and clearly discern implications for competition infringement cases.