ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES: PROOF OF REMOVING FROM ANTICOMPETITIVE AGREEMENT – RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION – EFFECTS ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES

Removing from an agreement: The General Court of the European Union judges that the mere existence of a doubt concerning the future participation of the company to an agreement does not allow to conclude to a definitive distancing from the agreement (Toshiba)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. The administration of proof in EU competition law is constantly oscillating between a quest for objectivity, based on the concept of the burden of proof (see our commentary on the Reagens decision in this issue of the Review), and a more subjective logic, inherited from the common law countries, based on the conviction of the judge and illustrating the concept of standard of proof (cf. A.-L. Sibony and E. Barbier de La Serre, "Charge de la preuve et théorie du contrôle en droit communautaire de la concurrence: pour un changement de perspective français", RTDE, 2007, pp. 205 et seq.). The Toshiba judgment is clearly in line with this second trend in case law,

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

Quotation

Jean-Philippe Christienne, Removing from an agreement: The General Court of the European Union judges that the mere existence of a doubt concerning the future participation of the company to an agreement does not allow to conclude to a definitive distancing from the agreement (Toshiba), 21 May 2014, Concurrences N° 3-2014, Art. N° 68058, pp. 85-87

Visites 176

All reviews