By Stavros Makris & Alexandre Ruiz Feases(European University Institute)
To what extent can a national competition authority or a national court find a competition law infringement in a case already subjected to commitments of the European Commission? This is one of the questions that lie at the heart of the controversy in Gasorba. This case provided the ECJ with the opportunity to clarify the legal nature and effects of commitments in EU competition law. In this case note, we analyse the preliminary ruling of the ECJ and we argue that, apart from clarifying the legal nature of commitments, the ECJ strikes a dynamic balance between public and private enforcement. Moreover, far from undermining the principle of legal certainty and generating coordination failures, we claim that Gasorba allows for ‘modest experimentalism’ in EU antitrust enforcement and ‘regulatory conversations’ between enforcers.
Featured News
FTC Pushes Review of CoStar’s Commercial Real Estate Antitrust Case
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
UK’s CMA Investigates Ardonagh’s Atlanta Group and Markerstudy Merger
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
Greenberg Traurig Grow Financial Regulatory and Compliance Practice
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
Dutch Regulator Fines Uber €10 Million for Privacy Violations
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
DOJ Investigates AI Competition, Eyes Microsoft’s OpenAI Deal: Bloomberg
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – The Rule(s) of Reason
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Evolving the Rule of Reason for Legacy Business Conduct
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
The Object Identity
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
In Praise of Rules-Based Antitrust
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
The Future of State AG Antitrust Enforcement and Federal-State Cooperation
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI