Florian Wagner-von Papp

University College London
Professor

Florian Wagner-von Papp is a Professor for Antitrust and Comparative Law & Economics at University College London (UCL) where he teaches US Antitrust Law and EU Competition Law, European Competition Law Enforcement, Economic Analysis of Law, and Comparative Contract Law. He holds degrees from the University of Tübingen/Germany (First State Examination 1998; Second State Examination 2000; PhD 2004) and Columbia Law School in New York (LL.M. 2002), and was a Visiting Researcher at Harvard Law School (2011/12). Some of his research can be accessed at http://ssrn.com/author=565620, and a list of publications is available at http://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=FWAGN21.

Distinctions

Linked authors

University Paris Nanterre
University Lille 2
University of Würzburg
University Paris V Descartes
Covington & Burling (Washington)
Covington & Burling (Brussels)
Cuatrecasas, Goncalves Pereira (Madrid)
Cuatrecasas, Goncalves Pereira (Madrid)

Articles

20743 Bulletin

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

505

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

424

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 concrete (...)

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”)

4086

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, France, (...)

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)

5130

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 the (...)

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 up- or downstream market in the electricity sector (Arealnetze)

5363

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 some (...)

7092 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)

280

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 access (...)

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)

304

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. While (...)

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)

183

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 adapted (...)

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)

335

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)

633

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)

450

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 and (...)

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

4195

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. Présentation Anne-Sophie Choné-Grimaldi Professeure (...)

Books

Send a message