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.
185
Collective actions after the Consumer Rights Act 2015* On 30 March 2015 the Consumer Rights Act 2015 received Royal assent, introducing opt-out collective actions into UK competition law enforcement. The UK system of private enforcement has long being criticised for being ineffective in (...)
184
Why harmed consumers may be more satisfied in the future – the CMA’s new redress scheme* In an earlier blog post I wrote about the new opt-out collective action regime introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This is not the only measure that is to help consumers and other injured parties to (...)
562
This article has been nominated for the 2015 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. 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, (...)
254
Article published on Centre for Competition Policy Blog. Is the New EU Private Enforcement Draft Directive Too Little Too Late?* After a decade of debate, consultation and guidance papers, DG Competition has finally released its draft Directive on actions for damages. It has been driven by (...)
221
Article published on Centre for Competition Policy blog. Breaking the deadlock? Private antitrust enforcement in the UK* Private antitrust enforcement in the UK has never got off the ground, even after the Competition Act of 1998 introduced enforceable antitrust provisions. Plaintiffs have (...)
1385
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 (...)
1670
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 (...)
3464
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 (...)
4827
The German electricity market is dominated by four vertically integrated firms: E.ON, RWE, Vattenfalland EnBW exclusively able to cover both base load and peak load demand. Regional and local retailers, often municipality owned (Stadtwerke), sell electricity to final customers or other local (...)
2981
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 (...)
4032
Background Theo Müller GmbH & Co. KG (Müller), the market leader in diary products in Germany, intended - through its subsidiary Loose GmbH & Co. KG (Loose) - to purchase 100 per cent of the shares of Poelmeyer Holding GmbH (Poelmeyer). The main product of both Loose and Poelmeyer is (...)
3300
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 (...)
3303
I. Background On 09 February 2007 a claim for damages under section 47A Competition Act (follow-on action) was lodged with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (hereafter CAT). The defendant Morgan Crucible Company plc (“Morgan Crucible”) and the proposed defendants Schunk GmbH and Schunk (...)
19 avenue Jean Aicard
75011 Paris, France
106 West 32nd Street, Suite 149
New York, NY, 10001, USA
563 Chiswick High Road
W4 3AY London, UK
