LEGAL PRACTICE: PROCEDURES - SANCTIONS - COMPENSATION - JURISDICTION - HARM - INQUIRIES - PRESCRIPTION

Private enforcement of antitrust law in France (March 2018 – July 2018)

The commented decisions indicate the recurrent nature of procedural questions, especially those pertinent to national and international competence. Other decisions confirm the ever-growing litigation about compensation applying to the administrative court as well as the importance of the harm updating before the judicial court. An interesting decision in principle by the German Supreme Court on the suspensive effect of the statute of limitations of competition authorities’ investigative acts should also be noted.

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Selection of relevant decisions rendered in the comment period. The decisions commented on in this column are marked with an asterisk; others are simply cited without being commented on in detail. CJEU, Ch. 2, 5 July 2018, FlyLal, aff. C-27/17, EU:C:2018:533*. Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court of Germany), 12 June 2018, Kemmler Beton GmbH v. HeidelbergCement AG, Case No. KZR 56/16, ECLI:DE:BGH:2018:120618UKZR56.16.0* Cass. com, 17 Jan. 2018, No. 17-10.360, Bull. civ. IV, No. 87; D. 2018, p. 116 Cass. com, 3 May 2018, No. 16-27.926, unpublished, ECLI:EN:CCASS:2018:CO00354 Cass. com, 16 May 2018, n° 16-18.174 , Bull. civ. IV, n°495,

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

  • Université Caen Normandie

Quotation

Rafael P. Amaro, Private enforcement of antitrust law in France (March 2018 – July 2018), November 2018, Concurrences N° 4-2018, Art. N° 88142, pp. 223-235

Visites 1272

All reviews