The ECJ Advocate General Kokott renders her opinion in the Czech gas insulated switchgear case holding that the principle ne bis in idem does not preclude NCAs from prosecuting the same cartel with respect to different territories or periods (Toshiba)

AG Kokott’s Opinion in Toshiba: framing the application of the ne bis in idem principle in EU competition law enforcement* One of the main concerns raised by the decentralization of EU competition law enforcement related to the risk of different competition authorities prosecuting and sanctioning the same cross-border anticompetitive practice, in breach of the ne bis in idem principle (protection against double jeopardy, as provided for by Art. 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Art. 4 of Protocol 7 to the ECHR). This is notably because Regulation 1/2003 does not contain clear rules allocating jurisdiction/competence horizontally among the various national competition authorities (“NCAs”). In contrast, the vertical allocation of jurisdiction between NCAs, on the one hand,

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

Quotation

Damien Gerard, The ECJ Advocate General Kokott renders her opinion in the Czech gas insulated switchgear case holding that the principle ne bis in idem does not preclude NCAs from prosecuting the same cartel with respect to different territories or periods (Toshiba), 8 September 2011, e-Competitions Bulletin September 2011, Art. N° 38779

Visites 483

All issues

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