*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article.
The project is based on the observation that competition law is undergoing a fundamental change, partly due to the significant increase in fines over the past two decades. The initial debate on the existence of an infringement is often superseded by the debate on the fine. At the heart of the debate on the fine is the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the decisions of the European Commission imposing a fine. It therefore appeared essential to carry out an in-depth study of the way in which the courts exercise their judicial review with regard to the powers of full jurisdiction.
All the more so since this main observation has been accompanied by an awareness of the lack of uniformity and stability of the case law on the subject of unlimited jurisdiction. The Court of First Instance initiated (and continues to initiate) a process of reflection following the antagonistic internal positions taken on the scope and content of the powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to fines, and the conditions and procedures for exercising them. On the one hand, the powers conferred on the court by the texts are broad and, on the other hand, while in Union law full jurisdiction refers to the court’s power to determine the amount of the fine, it corresponds to a standard of review in Council law.
It therefore appeared necessary to conduct a study outside the institution of the Court in order to advocate, at the very least, for a clarification of the judge’s judicial policy in the matter of full jurisdiction, in the light of the requirements of Strasbourg in particular, and to encourage the application of a broad full jurisdiction by the judge.