In 2016, the European Union adopted the Directive on damages actions, which seeks to ensure full compensation for victims who have suffered harm caused by antitrust infringement. With regard to... Show moreIn 2016, the European Union adopted the Directive on damages actions, which seeks to ensure full compensation for victims who have suffered harm caused by antitrust infringement. With regard to mass harm situations, the Directive does not include provisions on collective actions, which may have significant impact on the achievement of full compensation. Instead, the non-binding Recommendation on collective redress was adopted, which has brought hardly any development in antitrust collective litigation. The aim of this dissertation has been to assist in the development of an appropriate approach of collective redress for better achievement of full compensation. Therefore, two private antitrust enforcement models were compared: the deterrence-based in the US and the compensation-oriented in the EU. It was found that collective redress actions would contribute to achieving full compensation only if US style deterrence-based measures were allowed in the EU. However, even if the best possible collective redress mechanism was introduced, the impact on full compensation would be limited, as the achievement of this objective requires fulfilling very high standards. Nevertheless, collective actions should not be denied, because they allow vulnerable victims to defend their rights in courts, as due to the low value harm, individual litigation becomes financially irrational. Show less
De Europese staatssteunregels stellen paal en perk aan de mogelijkheden voor lidstaten om ondernemingen financieel te steunen. Bij de handhaving van die regels komt een belangrijke taak toe aan de... Show moreDe Europese staatssteunregels stellen paal en perk aan de mogelijkheden voor lidstaten om ondernemingen financieel te steunen. Bij de handhaving van die regels komt een belangrijke taak toe aan de Europese Commissie en aan de nationale rechters. Deze rechters moeten de naleving van de besluiten van de Europese Commissie waarborgen, maar waar nodig ook zelf gevolgen verbinden aan een schending van de staatssteunregels. De Nederlandse rechter heeft zodoende bij de handhaving van de staatssteunregels op zijn minst op papier een belangrijke – en steeds belangrijker wordende – rol te vervullen. Daarbij moet hij niet alleen rekening houden met de relevante Europese regels, maar ook met de nationale (procedurele) context waarin hij opereert. Die kan nogal verschillen: zowel de burgerlijke rechter als de bestuurs- en belastingrechter kunnen namelijk met staatssteungeschillen worden geconfronteerd. In dit proefschrift wordt op basis van ruim tien jaar Nederlandse staatssteunrechtspraak geanalyseerd hoe deze rechters de hen toegewezen rol daadwerkelijk vervullen. Expliciete aandacht gaat uit naar de eisen die zij stellen aan het belang van de partijen, hoe zij beoordelen of van staatssteun sprake is, de gevolgen die zij daadwerkelijk aan schendingen van de staatssteunregels verbinden en de onderlinge verhouding tussen de Nederlandse rechter en de Europese Commissie. Show less
This PhD thesis is concerned with EU legislation facilitating the private enforcement of EU law, i.e. the enforcement of that law by private parties in legal proceedings before the courts of the... Show moreThis PhD thesis is concerned with EU legislation facilitating the private enforcement of EU law, i.e. the enforcement of that law by private parties in legal proceedings before the courts of the Member States. The relevant EU-level legislative developments in four fields of EU law are assessed in detail, namely those relating to public procurement law (in particular Procurement Remedies Directives 89/665 and 92/13), intellectual property law (in particular IPR Enforcement Directive 2004/48), consumer protection law (in particular Consumer Injunctions Directive 2009/22, Unfair Terms Directive 93/13 and Product Liability Directive 85/374) and competition law (in particular Article 101(2) TFEU and the recent Competition Damages Directive). These EU legal acts and related developments are analysed first separately and subsequently in a comparative and contextual manner. Specific attention is paid in this connection to the remedies and procedural provisions for private enforcement purposes that are to be made available to aggrieved private parties under the said legislation. In addition the concept of private enforcement generally and EU legislation on this subject-matter specifically are considered in a broader perspective. On this basis conclusions are drawn as to how, when and why the EU legislates to facilitate the private enforcement of EU law. Show less
