The fiftieth shade of grey - Competition law, 'criministrative law' and 'fairly fair trials' (original) (raw)
Related papers
No Longer Presumed Guilty? The Impact of Fundamental Rights on Certain Dogmas of EU Competition Law
World Competition, 2012
That the penalties imposed under EU competition law amount to criminal sanctions within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been settled for some time. Yet whether the entry into force in December 2009 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights (as part of the Lisbon Treaty), and the EU’s intended accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, should bring about changes in the operation of EU competition law is a question frequently debated now. Most of that debate has focused on the institutional make-up of competition law enforcement in the EU, notably on whether the European Commission ought to adapt its multiple roles of being simultaneously investigator, prosecutor, adjudicator and policy maker; its practices relating to dawn raids, etc. This article takes a different tack and calls attention to the potential impact of fundamental rights on certain procedural or even substantive concepts in EU competition law. For many years now, the Commiss...
The first part of this article deals with the applicability of Article 6 (the fair trial procedure) to competition law enforcement in ECHR law and in domestic laws. The proceedings before competition authorities are clearly within the scope of Article 6(1) ECHR in its criminal aspect. However the jurisprudence of the ECt HR leaves countries a certain amount of discretion in the implementation of the fair trial requirement: They can apply it at the first stage or they can cure any possible defect of the first instance proceedings by providing a correct appeal to a tribunal with full jurisdiction. This discretion is used differently in the two countries under study, England and France. French Courts try to strike a balance between the requirements that have to be complied with at the first stage and those that can be cured by a correct appeal. English Courts appear to offer more flexibility on the crucial point of impartiality. Indeed the main problem in both countries seems to be the combination in one body of the prosecution, judge, and jury functions. Lastly the factors that could have an impact in both countries for the strengthening of procedural safeguards are considered in some detail. It is argued that human rights issues should not be construed as a burden but rather as part of a compliance strategy.
2012
YEARBOOK of ANTITRUST and REGULATORY STUDIES www.yars.wz.uw.edu.pl Centre for Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management www.cars.wz.uw.edu.pl Peer-reviewed scientific periodical, focusing on legal and economic issues of antitrust and regulation. Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Poland License. YEARBOOK OF ANTITRUST AND REGULATORY STUDIES 36 ANNA BŁACHNIO-PARZYCH the criminal character of the proceedings. Thus the guarantees of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be applicable to Polish antitrust proceedings. Résumé Le présent article a pour objectif de répondre à la question de savoir si dans une procédure de concurrence devant le Président de l'Office polonais de protection de la concurrence et des consommateurs, la responsabilité d'un entrepreneur est de nature à porter une « accusation dans une affaire pénale ». Cette notion a été créée par la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, dans laquelle sont énumérés les critères d'une telle évaluation de la responsabilité. À force de les considérer, l'auteur du présent article conclut que le lien entre la violation des règles du droit de la concurrence d'une part et les conséquences sous forme de peines pécuniaires de l'autre, parle en faveur de la nature pénale de cette responsabilité. Cela conduit à la nécessité de respecter, dans la procédure de concurrence, les garanties que requiert en matière pénale l'art. 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme.
2013
The ECJ's Notion of 'Equivalent Effect' [to custom duties] Commission of the European Economic Community v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Kingdom of Belgium Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium Questions Notes 2. The ECJ's Notion of "Discriminatory Effect" of a Charge "Having Equivalent Effect" Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v. S.A. Ch. Brachfeld & Sons and Chougol Diamond Co. Michel Humblot v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic Questions Section 2. The Prohibition of Quantitative Restrictions and All Measures Having Equivalent Effect A: Nature, Purpose and Scope of ECT Articles 28 and 29 (ex. Art. 30 and 34) Criminal proceedings against Arthur Mathot Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic Questions 1. Types of Measures Having Equivalent Effect Commission Directive 70/50/EEC of 22 December 1969 Criminal Proceedings against Jean-Pierre Guimont Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v. Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG and Eduard Bracharz GmbH Questions Note 2. The "Hard Cases": The ECJ Evolving Jurisprudence Établissements Delhaize frères et Compagnie Le Lion SA v. Promalvin SA and AGE Bodegas Unidas SA Procureur du Roi v. Benoît and Gustave Dassonville Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein Toarfen Borough Council v. B & Q plc Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard Criminal Proceedings against Jacques Pistre, Michèle Barthes, Yves Milhau and Didier Oberti vi CONTENTS
The EU courts have been criticized by competition law scholars for exercising insufficient review when it comes to the EU Commission’s determinations in factual and economic matters. It has also been claimed that the General Court gives the Commission too broad deference when it comes to the assessment of fine for violation of Article 101-102 of the TFEU. Against this background the EU courts judicial review is analyzed from the perspective of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in order to answer the question whether deferential standard of review is permissible under the full jurisdiction principle prescribed in Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The analysis of the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence leads to the conclusion that the way in which the EU Courts currently review the EU Commission’s decisions is not very likely to be found in violation of Article 6 of the ECHR after the EU accesses to the ECHR. However, further improvements of fairness of the administrative process before the Commission should be considered.
Protection of Human Rights in European Competion Law
Agora International Journal of Juridical Sciences
One of the most common defenses raised by businesses inspected by the Commissionrelates to violations of privacy, correspondence and home, protected by article 8 of theConvention, namely that the Commission's investigative powers, often regarded as excessiveor exorbitant discretionary do not meet the standard of "necessary measure in a democraticsociety", set out in article 8 paragr. 2 of the Convention to justify interference under paragr.
The law of the European Union. Vol. 2, Economic law and common policies : cases and materials
2006
The ECJ's Notion of 'Equivalent Effect' [to custom duties] Commission of the European Economic Community v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Kingdom of Belgium Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium Questions Notes 2. The ECJ's Notion of "Discriminatory Effect" of a Charge "Having Equivalent Effect" Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v. S.A. Ch. Brachfeld & Sons and Chougol Diamond Co. Michel Humblot v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic Questions Section 2. The Prohibition of Quantitative Restrictions and All Measures Having Equivalent Effect A: Nature, Purpose and Scope of ECT Articles 28 and 29 (ex. Art. 30 and 34) Criminal proceedings against Arthur Mathot Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic Questions 1. Types of Measures Having Equivalent Effect Commission Directive 70/50/EEC of 22 December 1969 Criminal Proceedings against Jean-Pierre Guimont Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v. Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG and Eduard Bracharz GmbH Questions Note 2. The "Hard Cases": The ECJ Evolving Jurisprudence Établissements Delhaize frères et Compagnie Le Lion SA v. Promalvin SA and AGE Bodegas Unidas SA Procureur du Roi v. Benoît and Gustave Dassonville Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein Toarfen Borough Council v. B & Q plc Criminal Proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard Criminal Proceedings against Jacques Pistre, Michèle Barthes, Yves Milhau and Didier Oberti vi CONTENTS