Friday, August 18, 2017

Competition Law and Fundamental Rights

Arianna Andreangeli, University of Edinburgh describes Competition Law and Fundamental Rights .


  • This survey covers the following rights: right to a fair hearing and to an effective judicial remedy (Article 47, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—hereinafter referred to as CFR); right to good administration (Article 41 CFR); tight to equal treatment, (Article 20 CFR); the presumption of innocence (Article 48 CFR); the principle of nulla poena sine lege (Article 49 CFR); the right to privacy (Article 7 CFR).

  • In the Evonik Degussa appeal judgment the Court of Justice rules on the remit of the expectation of confidentiality concerning leniency documents and on the interplay between the right to privacy and the demands of transparency of the EU Commission’s action.

  • In the FSL judgment the Court of Justice ruled that the EU Commission is entitled to rely on information received by national tax authorities for the purpose of investigating a competition infringement, provided that the information was obtained in accordance with the applicable domestic procedural laws.

  • In the Janssen Cilag judgment the European Court of Human Rights examined the compatibility of the search-and-seizure powers, enjoyed by the French Competition Authority, with Article 8 ECHR (right to privacy and to the inviolability of the ‘home’), including the power to seize documents prima facie covered by legal professional privilege.

  • The issues arising from parent/subsidiary liability and the more general question of whether and in which cases antitrust liability should extend to non-cartel participants were addressed once again in E-Turas and in the Toshiba and AKZO Nobel appeals.

  • Roca Sanitario and Timab addressed issues of fairness and equal treatment in the assessment of fines, both in the context of infringement proceedings and in relation to settlement negotiations.

  • The scope of the right to be heard in merger cases was brought to the attention of the General Court in the UPS appeal.

| Permalink


Post a comment