Simon Holmes
UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (London)
Professor
Simon Holmes is a member of the Competition Appeal Tribunal based in London. He is also a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of European and Comparative Law and the Centre for Competition Law and Policy, Oxford University. He has recently been appointed by the European Commission as a Non Governmental Advisor for the International Competition Network. Before joining the Tribunal, he worked as a lawyer at King & Wood Mallesons of London between 1994 and 2016, firstly as a Partner but more latterly as Head of UK department, European Head and Global Head of Competition. He is a regular writer, speaker and chair on competition law and regulatory matters at conferences and seminars around the world. He has lectured at various academic and business institutions including at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Mr. Holmes is also a counsel for the NGO ClientEarth.
Linked authors
Chantal Arens
French Cour de cassation (Paris)
Muriel Chagny
Université Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines
Marina Tavassi
Milan Court of Appeal
Enrico Camilleri
University of Palermo
Pascale Mesnil
Tribunal de commerce de Paris
Fayrouze Masmi-Dazi
Frieh Associés (Paris)
Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto
Université Toulouse 1 Capitole
Mercedes Pedraz Calvo
Audiencia Nacional (Madrid)
1804 | Conferences
Videos
Articles
830 Bulletin
830
Decisions of the Commission are reviewable for their legality under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”). It is not necessary to set out the full range of decisions that are capable of challenge under Article 263 TFEU, but they include (purely by way of example) decisions concerning infringements of Article 101 TFEU (anti-competitive agreements) and 102 TFEU (abuse of dominance) and decisions regarding mergers. One of the more important bases for the challenge of Commission decisions is the failure to respect the “rights of the defence”.This foreword seeks to explore the recent EU case-law in this area. It does so in a comparative law fashion, comparing the EU approach with the (in formal terms different, but in substantive terms, similar) approach in the UK.
