Contact

Florian Wagner-von Papp

Helmut Schmidt University of the Armed Forces (Hamburg)

Professor

Florian is Professor of Private and Business Law at the Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg (HSU/UniBw), with a research focus on antitrust/competition law, procurement, and contract design. He joined the HSU/UniBw from University College London (UCL), where he had been Professor for Antitrust and Comparative Law & Economics before becoming a Brexit refugee in 2019, and where he had been teaching since 2005. He has degrees from the University of Tübingen (First State Examination 1998; Doctorate 2004) and Columbia Law School (LL.M. 2002), as well as the full German qualification to practice law (Second State Examination 2000). Florian had visiting positions at Harvard Law School (Visiting Researcher 2011), the University of Würzburg (Visiting Professor December 2017; January/December 2018) and Osaka University (May 2018 until end of March 2019); between 2008 and 2017, he taught tutorials in competition law at the University of Oxford. For contact details and publications, please refer to his webpages at https://www.hsu-hh.de/privatrecht3/.

Distinctions

Nominee, 2018 Antitrust Writing Awards: Academic, Cross-Border Issues

Nominee, 2017 Antitrust Writing Awards: Academic, Procedure

Nominee, 2013 Antitrust Writing Awards: Academic, General Antitrust

Contact

Articles

25746 Bulletin

Florian Wagner-von Papp Commitment decisions: An overview of EU and national case law

30 May 2019 4893

There has always been a practice of competition authorities to accept, on a discretionary basis, commitments by undertakings who promised to mend their ways in return for closing an investigation (vulgo: to “settle a case”). After all, the main goal of competition law enforcement should be to restore competitive conduct in the marketplace, and if this can be achieved at an early stage and without investing many of the competition authority’s resources, then all the better. For a long time, “settling cases” was handled informally by the European Commission and National Competition Authorities (NCAs), on the basis of their discretion to (de)prioritise cases for enforcement. [1] This informality under the old regime had the disadvantage that it was not entirely clear what the consequences would be if undertakings deviated from their commitments, if they had submitted incomplete, incorrect or misleading information, or if there was a material change of circumstances.

Florian Wagner-von Papp De minimis: An overview of EU and national case law

7 May 2015 574

1. De minimis in Article 101(1) TFEU The appreciability requirement has received renewed attention after the CJEU held in Expedia that ‘an agreement that may affect trade between Member States and that has an anti-competitive object constitutes, by its nature and independently of any (...)

Florian Wagner-von Papp The German Government intends to modify the merger notification thresholds (MEG III)

23 July 2008 2183

I. The status quo At present, mergers need to be notified to the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office, FCO) if : 1. The combined aggregate worldwide turnover of the undertakings in the preceding business year exceeded €500million; and 2. the domestic turnover of at least one of the (...)

Florian Wagner-von Papp The German Federal Cartel Office issues a revised notice on the immunity from and reduction of fines in cartel cases (Leniency Notice - “Bonusregelung”)

7 March 2006 3193

I. Overview The Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has issued a revised notice on the immunity from and reduction of fines in cartel cases. This notice has - effective from March 15, 2006 - replaced the preceding German leniency notice no. 68/2000 (cf.par. 25 of the new leniency notice). II. (...)

Florian Wagner-von Papp The German Federal Court declares settlement concerning royalties for shipments to countries outside the territorial scope of a patent to be void (Abgasreinigungsvorrichtung)

5 July 2005 4202

I. Facts of the case and case history The claimant/licensee produces devices for cleaning exhaust fumes. The defendant/licensor owns a European patent protecting a specified process for cleaning exhaust fumes, with territorial effect (seeEuropean Patent Convention, Art. 3) in Germany, (...)

Florian Wagner-von Papp The German Federal Court of Justice rules on the standard of proof for the existence of a revenue surplus from a cartel agreement (Transportbeton Berlin)

28 June 2005 5236

On June 28, 2005, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) clarified the standard of proof in cases in which the state seeks to disgorge the revenue surplus (“additional proceeds”) from a cartel. I. Facts of the case Between 1995 and 1998, nearly all producers of ready-mixed concrete in (...)

Florian Wagner-von Papp The German Federal Court of Justice clarifies that access to an essential facility does not require a dominant position in the upstream or downstream market in the electricity sector (Arealnetze)

28 June 2005 5465

On June 28, 2005, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) clarified that the so called “essential facility clause” of Sec. 19(4) n° 4 of the German Act against Restraints of Competition (ARC) requires dominance only in the market for the essential facility itself. Contrary to the view of (...)

10722 Review

Alex Petrasincu, Cristoforo Osti, Florian Wagner-von Papp, Frank Kroes, Laurence Idot Disclosure of evidence included in the file of a competition authority (Implementation of the EU Damages Directive into Member State law - Würzburg, May 5, 2017)

September 2017 449

The disclosure provisions of the EU Damages Directive allow national courts to order competition authorities to disclose certain documents and information in damages proceedings. In addition, private parties can also be ordered to disclose certain evidence that they have obtained through (...)

Catherine Prieto, Florian Wagner-von Papp, Frank Kroes, Jens-Uwe Franck, Marcella Negri Binding effect of decisions of national authorities (Implementation of the EU Damages Directive into Member State law - Würzburg, May 5, 2017)

September 2017 700

Article 9 of the Damages Directive requires Member States to ensure that an infringement of competition law found by a final decision of a national competition authority is deemed to be irrefutably established for the purposes of an action for damages brought before their national courts. (...)

Catherine Prieto, Florian Wagner-von Papp, Frank Kroes, Marcella Negri, Oliver Remien Limitation periods (Implementation of the EU Damages Directive into Member State law - Würzburg, May 5, 2017)

September 2017 305

Limitation periods could imperil the enforcement of competition damage claims and in the footsteps of the Manfredi case of the ECJ artt. 10, 11 and 18 of the Damages Directive therefore give complex rules on this issue. France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have (...)

Catherine Prieto, Cristoforo Osti, Florian Wagner-von Papp, Frank Kroes, Thomas B. Paul Effect of consensual settlements on subsequent damages actions (Implementation of the EU Damages Directive into Member State law - Würzburg, May 5, 2017)

September 2017 512

Hand in hand with an ever-growing amount of cartel damage litigation all across Europe, settlements have become an increasingly important tool for resolving private competition law disputes. However, while the majority of disputes concern infringements committed jointly by more than one party, (...)

Cristoforo Osti, Florian Bien, Florian Wagner-von Papp, Frank Kroes, Laurence Idot Private damages actions before and after the implementation of the Directive (Implementation of the EU Damages Directive into Member State law - Würzburg, May 5, 2017)

September 2017 2113

The majority of Member States have implemented the European Directive on Private Damages Actions for Breach of Competition Law, into their respective law, albeit with some delay. In particular, England, Germany, and the Netherlands, but also France and Italy have faced a certain number of (...)

Florian Wagner-von Papp, Frank Kroes, Jochen Bernhard, Laurence Idot, Marcella Negri Disclosure of documents that lie in the control of the parties (Implementation of the EU Damages Directive into Member State law - Würzburg, May 5, 2017)

September 2017 603

Article 5 of the Damages Directive requires Member States to enable courts to order disclosure of evidence under certain qualifying conditions, while protecting the rights of parties and third parties, in particular confidential information. This is an area in which common law jurisdictions (...)

Andreas Stephan, Daniel Zimmer, David Viros, Florian Wagner-von Papp, William E. Kovacic Individual sanctions for competition law infringements: Pros, cons and challenges

May 2016 1336

Following the substantive harmonisation in Regulation (EC) no. 1/2003, the Commission has started more recently to focus on procedure and sanctions, and in January 2016, the European Parliament called for penalties against natural persons. This ‘On Topic’ issue looks at the current state of (...)

Anne-Sophie Choné-Grimaldi, Ashley E. Bass, Florian Bien, Florian Wagner-von Papp, Luis Loras, Miguel Angel Malo, Paul Hitchings, Peter Camesasca, Rafael P. Amaro, Silvia Pietrini Implementation of EU Directive 2014/104 on actions for damages for infringements of competition law

May 2015 4704

The directive on actions for damages for infringements of the competition law has been published on 26 november 2014. This On Topic aims to show the principal issues that arise from the expected implementation of the directive on national laws. Presentation ---- Anne-Sophie Choné-Grimaldi (...)