Webinar

Antitrust Judicial review, standard of proof & Due process

Webinaire organisé par Concurrences, en partenariat avec White Case et Amazon, avec Douglas Ginsburg (Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit), Nicholas Forwood (Queen’s Counsel | Counsel, White & Case), Jérémie Jourdan (Partner, White & Case) et Liza Lovdhal-Gormsen (Senior Research Fellow, Director of the Competition Law Forum, British Institute of International & Comparative Law).

- Présentations PPT : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessus)

- Vidéo : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessous)

- Audio : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessus)

- Présentation : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessus)

- Synthèse : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (publiée ci-dessus)

- Retranscription : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (publiée ci-dessus)

- Articles Concurrences (Cliquez sur Voir plus ci-dessous)

Consultez la section "Prochaines Conferences" pour vous inscrire aux futurs webinaires.

SYNTHÈSE

Douglas Ginsburg moderated the discussion.

Nicholas Forwood underlined that how the General Court reviews competition decisions is continually evolving. Everyone needs to bear in mind that this process of evolution in the way the Court exercises judicial review has not stopped and will not stop. Until the beginning of the 2000s, the Courts’ review of competition decisions tended to be considered as a legality review. Economic assessments were protected from excessive scrutiny and this was considered as a spillover from the approach taken with Article 101(3) TFEU. In the context of this evolution, there were two major changes. The first one is related to Regulation 1/2003, which recognized for the first time that competition law under Articles 101 and 102 was something that essentially could be entrusted to national courts, which implied that all aspects of competition law were capable of judicial assessment. The second important change was the whole series of judgments of the Court of Justice that followed the Menarini judgment of the Strasbourg Court. In this context, the Court must proceed to an unlimited review of the law and facts based on the arguments raised by the parties (Chalkor) even if these arguments or evidence are presented for the first time on appeal (Galp). At the same time, the EU Courts also have unlimited jurisdiction on fines.

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Intervenants

  • British Institute of International and Comparative Law (London)
  • White & Case (Brussels)
  • White & Case (Brussels)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Washington DC)