INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST LITIGATIONPDF|Epub|txt|kindle电子书版本网盘下载

INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST LITIGATIONPDF格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

1.Introduction&JURGEN BASEDOW, STEPHANIE FRANCQ AND LAURENCE IDOT1

Ⅰ.Context1

Ⅱ.Why Analyse Antitrust Disputes in the Light of Private International Law?1

A.The International Aspect of Antitrust Litigation1

B.The Characteristics of Antitrust Litigation2

C.Examples and Issues3

i.Example A3

ii.Example B4

iii.Example C4

iv.Example D4

D.The Normative Context7

Ⅲ.Aims of the Research Project8

Ⅳ.Content and Structure of the Book9

Ⅴ.Working Method10

A.Who is Who?10

B.Working Method11

C.Methodological Premises12

PART Ⅰ.INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION CONFLICT-OF-LAWS ISSUES15

Ⅰ.1.JURISDICTION IN EU CROSS-BORDER LITIGATION15

2.How to apply Articles 5(1) and 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation to Private Enforcement of Competition Law: a Coherent Approach&BLANCA VILA COSTA17

Ⅰ.Introduction17

Ⅱ.Introductory Proposal: There Is No Need to Amend the Brussels I Regulation with a View to Facilitating Private Enforcement of Competition Law19

Ⅲ.Interpretative Proposals Concerning Article 5(1)23

Ⅳ.Interpretative Proposals Concerning Article 5(3)26

3.International Cartels and the Place of Acting under Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation&Jurgen Basedow31

Ⅰ.Introduction31

Ⅱ.Article 5(3) Regulation 44/200132

Ⅲ.Multistate Effects and Limited Jurisdictional Competence32

Ⅳ.Perspectives on the Place of Acting and Jurisdictional Competence33

A.Place of Agreement or Concerted Action33

B.Place of Implementation34

C.Seat of the Defendant as Place of Acting35

Ⅴ.Variety of Cartel Forms35

A.(Quasi-)Incorporated Cartels35

B.Cartel Agreements Made outside of (Quasi-)Corporate Structures36

C.Single-Instance Cartel Agreements37

D.Complex Cartel Agreements37

E.Stable Place of Implementation38

Ⅵ.Summary: A Multiplicity of Places of Acting39

4.Jurisdiction Issues: Brussels I Regulation Articles 6(1), 23, 27 and 28 in Antitrust Litigation&MICHAEL WILDERSPIN41

Ⅰ.Introduction41

A.Purpose of this Paper41

B.The Relevant Provisions of the Brussels I Regulation42

i.Article 6(1) Brussels I Regulation42

ii.Article 23 Brussels I Regulation43

iii.The Provisions on Lis Pendens and Related Actions43

Ⅱ.The Provimi Litigation43

A.Factual Background43

B.Applications to Strike Out the Actions44

C.Other Issues Which Are Either Implicit in the Judgment or Were Common Ground between the Parties45

Ⅲ.Analysis of the Judgment of the High Court in Provimi in the Light of the European Court's Case-Law46

A.Article 6(1)46

B.Article 2350

Ⅳ.Recommendations to Be Made with Regard to Article 6( 1) and Articles 23, 27 and 28 Brussels I Regulation51

A.Article 6(1)51

B.Article 2353

C.Article 2756

D.Article 2858

Ⅰ.2.APPLICABLE LAW IN THE EU - ROME I AND ROME II61

5.Private Enforcement of Antitrust Provisions and the Rome I Regulation&MARC FALLON AND STEPHANIE FRANCQ63

Ⅰ.Introduction63

Ⅱ.How Do Antitrust Rules Apply in Contractual Litigation?64

A.Basic Principles Governing the Designation of the Lex Contractus64

i.The Rules Governing the Identification of the Applicable Law64

ii.Exceptions66

B.Basic Principles Governing the Applicability of Competition Law67

i.Influence of Competition Law on the Substance and Validity of Contracts68

a.General Remarks: the Influence of Competition Law is Incidental in regard to the Contractual Regime68

b.Influence of EU Competition Law on Contractual Litigation69

c.Influence of Article 101(3) TFEU and Block Exemption Regulations70

ii.The Nature of Competition Law from the Point of View of Private International Law73

C.The Intervention of Competition Law Rules in International Contractual Litigation74

i.EU Competition Law74

a.Primary Law74

b.Secondary Law76

ii.National Competition Law77

a.The Interplay of Article 4 and Article 9 Rome I77

b.Conflict of Competition Laws of Different Legal Systems79

D.Conclusion81

Ⅲ.Specific Issue: The Nullity of the Contract or Part Thereof and its Consequences82

A.Nullity of the Contract or Part Thereof83

i.Material Scope of the Provision on Nullity83

ii.The Law Applicable to Issues Related to the Nullity of the Contractual Agreement but Falling Outside the Scope of Article 101(2) TFEU86

B.Assessment of Damages and Nemo Auditur88

i.Taking into Account Substantive Overriding EU Requirements88

ii.Ascertaining the Applicable Law89

C.Conclusion90

6.International Antitrust Claims under the Rome II Regulation&STEPHANIE FRANCO AND WOLFGANG WURMNEST91

Ⅰ.Introduction91

Ⅱ.Legislative History93

Ⅲ.Foundations of Article 6 Rome II96

A.Determining the Scope of the Rome II Regulation96

i.General Remarks96

ii.Non-Contractual Obligations96

iii.Civil and Commercial Matters97

B.Article 6 Rome II in the General System of the Regulation98

i.Overview98

ii.Is Article 6(3) Rome II a Universal Provision?100

C.The Interplay between Articles 6(1) and 6(3) Rome II103

i.Background103

ii.No Need to Distinguish Articles 6(1) and (3) Rome II?104

iii.The Dividing Line between Unfair Competition and Restriction of Competition105

D.Necessary Legislative Amendments107

Ⅳ.Nature of the Rules Designated by Article 6(3) Rome II107

A.Problem Stated107

i.Various Aspects of Competition Law107

ii.Market Rules Determine their Own Scope of Application109

B.Solution for Articles 101, 102 TFEU110

C.Possible Solutions for Market Rules of National Origin111

i.Article 6(3) Rome II as an 'Open Gate'111

ii.Market Rules as Overriding Mandatory Rules (Article 16 Rome II)114

iii.Market Rules as Rules of Safety and Conduct (Article 17 Rome II)117

D.Necessary Legislative Amendments119

Ⅴ.The Law of the Affected Market, Article 6(3)(a) Rome II119

A.Defining the Relevant Market120

B.Nature of the Link Required122

C.Necessary Legislative Amendments124

Ⅵ.The Right to Choose the Law of the Forum, Article 6(3)(b) Rome II124

A.General Remarks124

B.Unwritten Limitations of the Concentration Rule?125

i.Problem Stated125

ii.Limitations with Regard to the Application of National Competition Law126

iii.Limitations with Regard to the Kind of Damage Sustained by the Plaintiff127

C.Necessary Legislative Amendments128

Ⅶ.Conclusion128

7.Relevance of the Distinction between the Contractual and Non-Contractual Spheres (Jurisdiction and Applicable Law)&SYLVAINE POILLOT-PERUZZETTO AND DOMINIKA LAWNICKA131

Ⅰ.Introduction131

Ⅱ.Preliminary Question: Is the Debate Related to the Distinction between Contractual and Non-Contractual Spheres an Odd Issue in the Context of Actions for Damages Based on a Breach of EU Competition Law?135

Ⅲ.Assessment of the Distinction between Contractual and Non-Contractual Claims Arising out of a Restriction of Competition138

A.Distinction of the Texts139

B.Distinctions as Far as the Reasoning and the Solutions are Concerned139

i.The Distinctions and the Issue of Determining Jurisdiction139

a.Tort140

b.Contract140

ii.The Distinction and the Issue of Applicable Law140

a.Differences Based on the Assessment of a Specific Policy141

b.Differences Based on the Specification of the Policy141

c.Differences between Solutions on the Basis of Examples141

d.Results of the Comparison144

Ⅳ.How the Distinction Conflicts with European Principles145

A.The European Principles Involved145

i.Specificity of the European Legal Order and Its Directions145

ii.Competition Policy as a Pillar of the Internal Market146

a.The Importance of the Basis146

b.The Effects of the Basis in Competition Law: the Specificity of Private Actions Based on Competition in the Member States147

iii.The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice147

a.Predictability, Legal Certainty and Justice147

b.Fundamental Place of the European Citizen148

c.Simplification of Litigation148

d.No Distortion of Competition between Litigants148

e.Consistency among the European Texts148

B.The Elements of the Conflict149

i.The Difficult Implementation of the Distinction between Contractual and Non-Contractual Obligations Conflicts with Certainty, Predictability, Necessity of Simplification and Effectiveness of Competition Policy149

a.Conflicts Resulting from the Existence of the Primary Distinction between Contractual and Non-Contractual Obligations149

b.Conflicts Resulting from the Difficulties of Implementation of the Distinction within the Categories151

ii.The Variety of the Solutions Induced by the Existence of the Distinction Conflicts with Principles of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice as well as with the Objective of Effectiveness of EU Competition Law153

a.Different Choice of Jurisdiction for the Plaintiff Conflicts with the Principle of Non-Distortion of Competition between the Litigants when they Sue for Damages on the Basis of a Breach of Competition Rules153

b.Possible Party Autonomy in Case of Contractual Obligations Conflicts with Competition Policy and with the Principles of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice153

c.Different Connecting Factors and Different Reasonings whether the Obligation Is Contractual or Non-Contractual for the Same Prohibited Behaviour Conflicts with the Principle of Consistency and with the Necessity not to Distort Competition between the Litigants154

d.Possible Use of Article 4(4) Rome I Regulation for a Contractual Obligation Conflicts with the Necessary Predictability of the Solutions for the Plaintiff154

e.The Impossibility of Adoption of a Single Applicable Law to an Action Brought against Several Defendants (Namely Distributors) on the Basis of Several and Similar Contractual Obligations May Be Considered in Conflict with at Least Three European Principles154

iii.The Lack of Specific Rules for Contract Conflicts with the Objective of Effectiveness of European Competition Policy and the Principle of Consistency154

Ⅴ.Proposals of Means of Convergence155

A.Formal Solution155

i.The Solution of Formal Unity of Competition Matters Through a Single Text155

ii.The Solution of Formal Diversity through Three Texts Containing Equivalent Provisions156

B.Substantive Common Solutions156

Ⅵ.Conclusion157

Ⅰ.3.ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF LITIGATION159

8.International Litigation and Competition Law: the Case of Collective Redress&DIMITRIOS-PANAGIOTIS L TZAKAS161

Ⅰ.Introduction161

Ⅱ.The Requirements Emanating from EU Competition Law162

Ⅲ.Current State of Collective Redress in the EU165

A.Collective Redress in the Legal Systems of the Member States165

i.Representative Actions165

ii.Collective Actions167

B.The Propositions of the European Commission168

Ⅳ.Specific Issues Raised by Collective Redress Instruments170

A.Representative Actions170

i.Recognition of the Representative Entity170

ii.Admissibility of the Type of Action172

iii.Defining the Eligible Representative Entities172

a.Conflict-of-Laws Issues172

b.Questions of Interchangeability or Substitution175

c.The Commission's Proposals176

iv.Represented Individuals178

v.Distribution of Damages180

B.Collective Actions182

Ⅴ.Jurisdictional Aspects183

Ⅵ.Applicable Law184

Ⅵ.Recognition and Enforcement of Collective Redress Rulings185

Ⅷ.Conclusion189

9.Arbitration and EU Competition Law&ASSIMAKIS P KOMN1NOS191

Ⅰ.Introduction191

Ⅱ.Modernised EU Competition Law and Arbitration192

A.From Distrust to Embrace192

B.How Competition Law Issues Arise in Arbitration194

C.Arbitrability of EU Competition Law194

D.Competences of Arbitrators in the Decentralised System of Enforcement196

Ⅲ.The Application of EU Competition Law by International Arbitration Tribunals198

A.EU Competition Law as Applicable Law in Trans-border Disputes in General198

B.The Specific Case of Arbitration200

Ⅳ.The Institutional Position of Arbitration in its Relationship with the European Commission202

A.Arbitration Is Not Covered by the Cooperation Duties of Regulation202

B.General Exclusion of Arbitration from the Courts Cooperation Notice204

C.A Notice on Cooperation with Arbitrators?206

Ⅴ.Conflicts of Resolution between Arbitration and Competition Authorities207

A.Arbitration and Article 16 Regulation 1/2003207

B.Arbitration and National Laws Conferring a Binding Effect on NCAs' Decisions210

C.Direct Intervention by the Commission as an Exceptional Corrective Mechanism211

Ⅵ.The Ultimate Safeguard: the Public Policy Control of Arbitral Awards213

A.Eco Swiss213

B.The Extent of the Public Policy Control214

C.A Proposed Balanced Approach for Review of Arbitral Awards218

D.Conclusion221

Ⅰ.4.Beyond the EU223

10.Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in International Antitrust Law - A US Perspective&HANNAH L BUXBAUM AND RALF MICHAELS225

Ⅰ.Introduction225

A.The Value of a US Perspective225

B.Doctrinal Matters227

Ⅱ.Personal Jurisdiction228

A.Personal Jurisdiction228

i.Targeting228

ii.Conspiracy229

B.Forum non Conveniens230

Ⅲ.Applicable Law231

A.Actions for Monetary Damages231

i.Damages Claims as Part of Applicable Antitrust Law231

ii.Effects Doctrine232

iii.Concentration of Applicable Law233

iv.Application of Foreign Law235

B.Contract Validity237

i.Party Autonomy238

ii.Federal Antitrust Law and State Contract Law238

iii.US Antitrust Law and Foreign Contract Law239

iv.Foreign Antitrust Law and State Contract Law239

Ⅳ.Conflict-of-Laws Issues in Class Action Certification240

A.Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Class Members240

B.Applicable Law241

C.Recognition of Foreign Judgments: The Question of Preclusion243

Ⅴ.Conclusion244

11.Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments&CATHERINE KESSEDJIAN245

Ⅰ.Introduction245

Ⅱ.Which Model to Choose?246

A.The United States246

B.The European Union249

Ⅲ.Specific Issues in Competition Law251

A.Punitive Damages252

B.Administrative Penalties in Addition to Civil Damages254

C.Judgment Handed Down After a Collective Action255

Ⅳ.Conclusion256

PART Ⅱ.INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION-COORDINATION ISSUES257

Ⅱ.1.COORDINATION BETWEEN COMPETITION AUTHORITIES AND COURTS257

12.Access to Evidence and Files of Competition Authorities&LAURENCE IDOT259

Ⅰ.Introduction259

Ⅱ.Access to Evidence in the Context of the European Union263

A.Acknowledgement of a Right of Access263

i.Disclosure Inter Partes263

a.Situation in Positive Law (De Lege Lata)263

b.The Proposed Solutions (De Lege Ferenda)268

ii.Access to the Competition Authorities' Files270

a.Situation in Positive Law (De Lege Lata)270

b.Proposed Solutions (De Lege Ferenda)272

B.The Limits to the Right of Access273

i.Identification of the Limits Accepted in Competition Laws273

a.The Rights and Privileges Granted to Undertakings Involved in Administrative Proceedings273

b.The Restrictions on the Authorities' Right to Disclose275

ii.The Introduction of the International Dimension276

a.The Pre-Draft Solutions277

b.The Suggested Improvements278

Ⅲ.Access to Evidence in a Truly International Context279

A.The Current Situation280

i.Access for a Claimant in a Private Action to Evidence Located Abroad280

a.The Limits of International Cooperation281

b.The Development of Unilateral Application282

ii.The Use in Foreign Proceedings of Documents Located in the United States283

B.The Possible Means284

i.Experience Gained from International Cooperation in Competition Matters284

ii.The Lessons to Be Learned from International Cooperation in Matters of Mutual Legal Assistance286

13.Exchange of Information and Opinions between European Competition Authorities and Courts-From a Swedish Perspective&ROBERT MOLDEN289

Ⅰ.Introduction289

A.Introduction to the EU-Framework of Regulation 1/2003289

B.Introduction to Swedish Competition Law Procedure - The New Swedish Competition Act of 2008291

Ⅱ.The Right of National Courts to Request a Preliminary Ruling from the Court of Justice in Competition Law Cases293

A.General Observations on Preliminary Rulings by the Court of Justice293

B.Swedish Courts' Requests for a Preliminary Ruling from the European Court of Justice in Competition Law Cases294

i.The ST1M Case294

ii.The TeliaSonera ADSL Case295

Ⅲ.The Right of NCAs and the Commission to Submit Amicus Curiae Observations to National Courts in Competition Law Cases296

A.General Points on Amicus Curiae Observations in Competition Law Cases296

i.The Garage Gremeau Case297

ii.The Case on Tax Deductibility of Commission Fines in the Netherlands298

iii.The Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique Case299

B.Amicus Curiae Observations Issued by the SCA to Swedish Courts in Competition Law Cases300

i.The Soda-Club Case300

Ⅳ.The Right of National Courts to Request Opinions from the Commission in Competition Law Cases301

A.General Points on Requests of Opinions from the Commission by National Courts in Competition Law Cases301

B.Requests for Opinions from the Commission by Swedish Courts in Competition Law Cases302

i.The Ystad Harbour Case302

ii.The Ekfors Case303

C.The Right of Swedish Courts to Request Opinions from the Swedish Competition Authority in Competition Law Cases304

i.The SAS v Luftfartsverket Case305

Ⅴ.The Right of National Courts to Request Information from the Commission in Competition Law Cases306

Ⅵ.The Obligation of Member States to Forward National Judgments on EU Competition Law to the European Commission307

A.General Points307

B.The Swedish Example: Non-Transparent Provisions308

C.The German Example: Transparent Provisions309

Ⅶ.Why National Courts Are Not Entitled by Regulation 1/2003 to Request Information and Opinions from NCAs - Proposal to Consider Amending Regulation 1/2003 in this Respect310

A.A Puzzling Asymmetry between Articles 15(1) and 15(3)310

B.An Overview of the Legislative History of the Coordination Measures Embodied in Article 15 Regulation 1/2003311

i.The Obligation to Forward Copies of National Judgments on EU Competition Law to the Commission-Article 15(2)311

ii.The Right of NCAs and the Commission to Submit Amicus Curiae Observations to National Courts-Article 15(3)312

iii.The Right of National Courts to Request Information and Opinions from the Commission - Article 15(1)312

C.Analysis of the Legislative Process313

14.Discovery in a Global Economy&MAURICE E STUCKE315

Ⅰ.Introduction315

Ⅱ.Litigants Abroad Who Seek Discovery in the US315

A.When Does the US Court Have Statutory Authority to Order Discovery Under Section 1782(a)?316

i.Who Can Seek Discovery Under Section 1782?317

ii.What Foreign Proceedings Qualify Under Section 1782(a)?318

iii.When Can an Interested Person Seek Discovery under Section 1782?319

iv.What Kind of Discovery Is Available under Section 1782(a)?320

B.When Will the US Courts Exercise Their Discretion and Permit Discovery under Section 1782?321

i.Is the Person from Whom Discovery Is Sought a Participant in the Foreign Proceeding?322

ii.Comity Considerations323

iii.Is the Applicant's Discovery Request under Section 1782(a) an Attempt to Circumvent Foreign Proof-Gathering Restrictions or Other Policies of a Foreign Country or the United States?324

iv.Is the Discovery Request Unduly Intrusive or Burdensome?325

Ⅲ.When Can Private Litigants in the US Seek Discovery Abroad?326

A.Does the US Court Have the Statutory Authority to Order the Requested Discovery?326

i.Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Versus the Hague Convention327

ii.Personal Jurisdiction328

iii.US Court's Subpoena Power329

iv.Seeking Discovery from Multi-National Corporations Operating Through Subsidiaries in Various Countries329

B.Should the US Court Exercise Its Discretionary Authority to Compel Production?331

i.EC's Leniency Program331

ii.Blocking Statutes333

Ⅳ.Friction from US Discovery336

A.Criticisms about the United States' Liberal Discovery Mechanisms for Foreign Litigants338

B.Policy Proposals341

Ⅴ.Conclusion342

Ⅱ.2.COORDINATION WITHIN THE EUROPEAN COMPETITION NETWORK343

15.The ECN and Coordination of Public Enforcement of EU Law - Can Lessons Be Learned from International Private Law Jurisdiction Rules and Vice Versa?&BARRY J RODGER345

Ⅰ.Introduction345

Ⅱ.Regulation 1/2003 and the Functioning of the ECN346

A.The nature of the ECN346

B.ECN Functioning346

Ⅲ.ECN 'Case Allocation'348

A.The Network Notice348

B.2009 Commission Report on Regulation 1/2003350

C.Procedures, Sanctions and Inconsistent Outcomes: Divergence and Convergence351

Ⅳ.Leniency and Concurrency354

Ⅴ.International Private Law and Conflicts of Jurisdiction356

A.Introduction356

B.Lis Alibi Pendens - First Come First Served357

C.Forum Non Conveniens358

Ⅵ.Concluding Remarks360

A.Lessons from the US?360

B.The Private and Public Enforcement Context Compared360

C.Case Allocation Methods Compared361

D.Mutual Lessons?362

E.Future Issues in Case Allocation363

16.Regulation 1/2003 (and Beyond): Balancing Effective Enforcement and Due Process in Cross-Border Antitrust Investigations&DAMIEN MB GERARD365

Ⅰ.Introduction365

Ⅱ.Issues and Approaches366

A.Coordination Issues: Dealing with Diversity and Uncertainty367

i.Diversity368

ii.Uncertainty370

B.Approaches: Managing Diversity to Ensure Legal Certainty373

i.Conflictualist Approach373

ii.Cumulative Approach376

a.The Position of Individuals in Cross-Border Investigations376

b.The Kerosene Case379

c.The European Courts and Evidence Obtained from Third Countries380

iii.Recognition Approach381

a.Recital 16 in the Broader Context of Enforcement Cooperation382

b.Recital 16 in the Broader Context of the European Integration Process386

Ⅲ.Solution and Recommendations387

A.Solution: Successive Application of the Lex Fori Mitigated by the Convergence between National Procedural Enforcement Frameworks387

i.Control of Legality388

ii.Control of Admissibility389

B.Recommendations: Enhance Legal Certainty to Ensure a Proper Balance between Effective Enforcement and Due Process390

Ⅳ.Concluding Remarks391

17.Recognition of Foreign Decisions within the European Competition Network&JURGEN BASEDOW393

Ⅰ.Introduction: Integration Policy and Recognition393

Ⅱ.The Recognition of an NCA Decision by the NCA of another Member State395

Ⅲ.The Recognition of an NCA Decision in Civil Proceedings of another Member State396

Ⅳ.The Recognition of Civil Judgments by a Civil Court of a Foreign Member State398

Ⅴ.The Recognition of Civil Judgments by an NCA of a Foreign Member State399

Ⅵ.The Effect of Recognition400

Ⅶ.Conclusion402

Policy Proposals403

How to apply Articles 5(1) and 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation to Private Enforcement of Competition Law: a Coherent Approach&BLANCA VILA COSTA405

International Cartels and the Place of Acting under Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation&JURGEN BASEDOW407

Jurisdiction Issues: Brussels I Regulation Articles 6(1), 23, 27 and 28 in Antitrust Litigation&MICHAEL WILDERSPIN409

Rome I and Antitrust Litigation&MARC FALLON ＆　STEPHANIE FRANCQ413

Rome II and Antitrust Litigation&STEPHANIE FRANCQ ＆ WOLFGANG WURMNEST415

Relevance of the Distinction between the Contractual and Non-Contractual Spheres　(Jurisdiction and Applicable Law)&SYLVAINE POILLOT-PERUZZETTO ＆ DOMINIKA LAWNICKA419

International Litigation and Competition Law: the Case of Collective Redress&DIMITRIOS-PANAGIOTIS L TZAKAS421

Arbitration and EU Competition Law&ASSIMAKIS P KOMNINOS425

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments&CATHERINE KESSEDJIAN427

Access to Evidence and Files of Competition Authorities&LAURENCE I DOT429

Exchange of Information and Opinions between European Competition Authorities and Courts - From a Swedish Perspective&ROBERT MOLDEN433

The ECN and Coordination of Public Enforcement of EU Law - Can Lessons Be Learned from International Private Law Jurisdiction Rules and Vice-Versa?&BARRY J RODGER435

Regulation 1/2003 (and Beyond): Balancing Effective Enforcement and Due Process in Cross-Border Antitrust Investigations&DAMIEN MB GERARD437

Recognition of Foreign Decisions within the European Competition Network&JURGEN BASEDOW439

Index441