This poster, showcased and introduced at the Lear Competition Festival 2023, addresses the following subject. In the event of violation of EU competition law, doubts may arise as to which is the legal entity liable within the single economic unit. The notion of undertaking may generate controversy where it leads to the attribution of liability to a company for the anticompetitive practices committed by another company on the basis they form part of the same undertaking, understood as single economic unit. And particularly in private enforcement, after the Skanska and Sumal cases, and amidst debates surrounding theories of parental, subsidiary, and sister liability, this complexity may result in the possibility of having additional fora where to file the dispute. In EU private international law, the special jurisdictional grounds outlined in Arts. 8(1) and 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation play a crucial role in the intricate dynamics of corporate groups, both from the perspective of defendant and claimant. This raises the challenge of striking a balance between ensuring the full effectiveness of EU competition law rules while guarding against procedural manoeuvres that exploit these provisions excessively. Essentially, it entails achieving a delicate equilibrium that optimizes the application of EU substantive provisions (Articles 101-102 TFEU) while preventing forum shopping and upholding the principles of EU private international law. This is an internal assessment within the realm of EU law, encompassing both EU primary and secondary law. Currently, the Court of Justice of the European Union is called to rule on several preliminary rulings, including cases C-425/22 and C-673/23, which respectively address issues related to jurisdiction in torts and the anchor defendant rationale within the context of the single economic unit in the EU competition law. While the Advocate General's opinions, where available, tend towards a conservative stance, the CJEU, known for its courage and insight, will undoubtedly provide clarity through its interpretation.
Pasqua, M., The Single Economic Unit’s Doctrine and Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to Anti-Competitive Practices, 2024 [Esposizione] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/269714]
The Single Economic Unit’s Doctrine and Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to Anti-Competitive Practices
Pasqua, Marco
2024
Abstract
This poster, showcased and introduced at the Lear Competition Festival 2023, addresses the following subject. In the event of violation of EU competition law, doubts may arise as to which is the legal entity liable within the single economic unit. The notion of undertaking may generate controversy where it leads to the attribution of liability to a company for the anticompetitive practices committed by another company on the basis they form part of the same undertaking, understood as single economic unit. And particularly in private enforcement, after the Skanska and Sumal cases, and amidst debates surrounding theories of parental, subsidiary, and sister liability, this complexity may result in the possibility of having additional fora where to file the dispute. In EU private international law, the special jurisdictional grounds outlined in Arts. 8(1) and 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation play a crucial role in the intricate dynamics of corporate groups, both from the perspective of defendant and claimant. This raises the challenge of striking a balance between ensuring the full effectiveness of EU competition law rules while guarding against procedural manoeuvres that exploit these provisions excessively. Essentially, it entails achieving a delicate equilibrium that optimizes the application of EU substantive provisions (Articles 101-102 TFEU) while preventing forum shopping and upholding the principles of EU private international law. This is an internal assessment within the realm of EU law, encompassing both EU primary and secondary law. Currently, the Court of Justice of the European Union is called to rule on several preliminary rulings, including cases C-425/22 and C-673/23, which respectively address issues related to jurisdiction in torts and the anchor defendant rationale within the context of the single economic unit in the EU competition law. While the Advocate General's opinions, where available, tend towards a conservative stance, the CJEU, known for its courage and insight, will undoubtedly provide clarity through its interpretation.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.