Sebastian Peyer

University of East Anglia - CCP (Norwich)
Senior Lecturer

Sebastian Peyer joined the University of East Anglia Law School in September 2015. He has a German and English legal background, having graduated from the University of Potsdam (Germany) and obtaining an LLM and PhD from UEA. Previously, Sebastian worked as a post-doctoral researcher in the Centre for Competition Policy and as a lecturer at the University of Leicester.

He has widely published on the private enforcement of competition law and his work has been cited in the UK Government’s consultation on options for the reform of private antitrust actions. His research interests include competition law, tort law, law and economics and empirical legal studies. Sebastian is regularly invited to present his research at national and international conferences.

He has an interest in US antitrust law and he serves as the Vice-Chair on the American Bar Association (ABA) Scholar in Residence Selection Committee. He was a visiting scholar at Georgetown Law School with a grant from the ABA Section of Antitrust Law. Also, he has extensive teaching experience in tort law, competition law, law and economics and EU law.

Linked author

University of Bristol - Law School

Articles

24465 Bulletin

Albert Sánchez Graells, Sebastian Peyer The EU Court of Justice establishes that national provisions on civil liability for loss caused by a cartel shall include compensation for loss resulting from price setting above the level expected in competitive conditions by a non-party to the cartel (Kone / ÖBB-Infrastruktur)

218

When the CJEU opens the umbrella, lawyers and economists get ready for a warm shower of damages claims (C-557/12)* In its Judgment in Kone, C-557/12, EU:C:2014:917, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has followed the highly controversial proposal of AG Kokott (see my criticism (...)

Sebastian Peyer The German Federal Court of Justice holds in a private antitrust enforcement case that offering varying prices in the gas retail market by different subsidiaries of the same mother company may be anticompetitive price discrimination by one economic entity (Entega)

1190

In a private antitrust enforcement case the German Federal Court of Justice held that offering varying prices in the gas retail market by different subsidiaries of the same mother company may be anticompetitive price discrimination by one economic entity. Background German energy markets pose (...)

Sebastian Peyer The German Federal Court of Justice clarifies that defendants can invoke the abuse of dominance against an injunction claim of a patentee if the latter has refused a licence in an abusive manner (Orange-book-standard)

1555

Summary In its decision of 6 May 2009 the German Federal Court of Justice held that a defendant can invoke the abuse of dominance against an injunction claim of the patentee if the latter refused a licence in an abusive manner. The patentee acts in an abusive manner if he refuses an (...)

Sebastian Peyer The German Federal Cartel Office settles a number of proceedings against gas suppliers for alleged abuse of dominance and accepts commitments offering compensation to consumers worth € 127 M (Gas price procedures)

3205

Summary The German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) settled a number of proceedings against German gas suppliers for the alleged abuse of a dominant position under sections 19 and 29 of the Act Against Restraints of Competition (ARC) (gas price procedures). Until December 2008 the FCO had accepted (...)

Sebastian Peyer The German Federal Court of Justice finds that a recommendation of the Association of German lottery operators violates the prohibition of Art. 81 EC and s. 1 of the Act Against Restraints of Competition (Lottoblock)

2849

Background The regulatory power for lottery games and gambling in Germany falls within the competency of the 16 Federal States (Bundesländer). Lotteries that play a systematic jackpot or where the jackpot exceeds the amount of one Million Euro are organised and operated by the State-controlled (...)

Sebastian Peyer The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal refuses permission to initiate follow-on claims for damages while an appeal is pending in the public enforcement case (Emerson Electric / Morgan Crucible)

3195

Background The claimants (Emerson Electric Co, Valeo S.A., Robert Bosch GmbH, Visteon Corporation and Rockwell Automation) seek damages for the violation of Article 81(1) EC from the defendant (Morgan Crucible Company Plc) and the proposed defendants (Schunk GmbH, Schunk Kohlenstofftechnik (...)

Send a message