COPRICOMP

Improving coherence between private law and competition law

 Partecipanti

Mappa

 Word cloud

Esplora la "nuvola delle parole (Word Cloud) per avere un'idea di massima del progetto.

 Obiettivo del progetto (Objective)

'Insufficient coherence exists between the proposals to harmonize the law of contracts/obligations and EC competition law. Although the Commission has supported both the initiatives to create principles of contract law and a Common Frame of Reference on the one hand and rules concerning damages for antitrust infringements on the other hand, their mutual influences are limited. This led e.g. to the result that the Draft Common Frame of Reference contains rules that are difficult to reconcile with EC competition law and that the common frame of reference provides that trivial damages should not be compensated while the DGComp strives to enhance compensation for scattered damages resulting from antitrust infringements. Other issues on the cross-roads between the law of obligations and EC competition law include the possibility to use the tort of interference with contracts to obtain damages from a third party who infringed a selective distribution network, a matter which is far from uniformly regulated in the EC member states and remains unnoticed in highly regarded competition law courses. Up to now, most issues have been dealt with (almost) exclusively from either a competition law perspective, either a private law perspective. The proposed study aims to reconcile both perspectives by testing the private law initiatives on their compatibility with competition law and studying competition law initiatives from a private law perspective. This will provide new insights and increase coherence between the various initiatives for the creation of an efficient European legal system. The project fits into the programme of the Ius Commune Research School in which Maastricht University is a partner. The Ius Commune Research School offers facilities enabling post-doc researchers to continually develop their methodology, knowledge and presentational skills. In addition Maastricht University offers a number of high level courses to its staff.'

Introduzione (Teaser)

Bridging the gap between public and private law with respect to competition and liability of lawbreakers can help the EU create a smarter, more effective legal framework in the sector.

Descrizione progetto (Article)

In the legal world of competitiveness, coordination between private law and competition law in the EU may be lacking. Generally speaking, the bloc of nations today strives to enforce competition law and punitive actions with the help of specialised lawyers. At the same time it is elaborating a common European private law on the issue with the support of private lawyers.

The EU-funded project 'Improving coherence between private law and competition law' (Copricomp) highlighted this divergence in liability and aimed to enhance coherence between both sides. It compared the competition law approach to damages for infringements of competition rules vs. non-contractual liability rules developed by private lawyers. These differences include the duration of the limitation period, basic structure of non-contractual liability and the need to compensate dispersed losses.

Copricomp called for more consensus on the functions and methodological framework for an EU system of non-contractual liability. It hailed the EU's decision to open a new public consultation on collective redress and on the quantification of loss as a positive step in this direction.

In addition, the project highlighted how competition law focuses too much on pecuniary damages for infringements. It also found that rules of liability for infringements of competition law could deviate from general rules on non-contractual liability, particularly in leniency programmes used for detecting and punishing cartels.

In this light, Copricomp called for improving the procedural position of leniency applicants in civil proceedings for damages in order to increase the successful co-existence of leniency programmes and damages actions. The initiative challenges certain decisions of the European Court of Justice to address cartelised conditions. These recommendations and others are destined to help bring coherence to competition law, leading to an improvement of competitiveness and legal recourse within the EU.