The European Court of Justice rules on parallel enforcement under Regulation 1/2003 while declining to redefine ne bis in idem within the ECN (Toshiba)

I. Introduction 1.Against most expectations, the particularly awaited judgment of the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) in Toshiba, delivered in Grand Chamber on 14 February 2012 [1], did not provide a landmark ruling on the scope of the ne bis in idem principle (the European double jeopardy clause) in antitrust cases dealt within the European Competition Network of public enforcement authorities (ECN).Despite the ever growing concern with this fundamental procedural safeguard following the reform introduced by Regulation 1/2003 [2], evidenced inter alia by the significant number of observations submitted in the case, and in contrast to the novel solution that AG Kokott advanced in her Opinion [3], the Court preferred a fairly casuistic approach to the issues brought before it. As a result,

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • University Paris Dauphine

Quotation

Anton Dinev, The European Court of Justice rules on parallel enforcement under Regulation 1/2003 while declining to redefine ne bis in idem within the ECN (Toshiba), 14 February 2012, e-Competitions Bulletin February 2012, Art. N° 49475

Visites 2378

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues