*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. 1. A reflection on the evidence of anti-competitive practices may at first glance seem superfluous. Admittedly, from a theoretical point of view, the importance of the subject is not to be demonstrated. Proof, according to Domat, is "that which persuades the mind of a truth" [1]. It is therefore the basis of any trial and the sine qua non for the proper administration of the judicial system. Competition law is no exception to this observation. As in all matters, questions of evidence play an essential role. Historically, difficulties have arisen in antitrust law, and one recalls the discussions surrounding the proof of concerted practices in the famous
Share on
|
|
ARTICLES: PROCEDURE - COMPETITION AUTHORITIES - BURDEN OF PROOF
Thoughts about the evolution of proof of anti-competitive practices before the competition authorities
The evidence of anti-competitive practices has been subject to fundamental changes over the last thirty years. The burden of proof on competition authorities is increasingly heavy and varied but, at the same time, the techniques for reducing this burden have become more diversified. The evolutions also concern the production of evidence, whether the admissibility of the types of proof or their probative force. The concept of a standard of proof has gradually emerged, which has consequences for judicial review.
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.
