Now also available as
Article 340 TFEU, which provides a method of compensation for victims of the
Commission’s errors, is invoked as the basis for actions against Commission
decisions under the Merger Control Regulation. Accordingly, the rules of
procedure of the Community Courts come into play. This probing analysis asks
the important questions: What limits can be imposed on the discretion of the
Community Courts acting within their own rules of procedure? Is the manner in
which the Court of Justice interprets those rules sufficient? Focusing on the
crucial Court responsibilities of investigating facts and assessing economic
damage in relation to the type of non-contractual liability apparent in
antitrust cases, the author convincingly demonstrates that the scope for ‘case
management’ by the Courts is strictly limited, and may engender information or
evidentiary deficits that contravene ECHR Art 6.1 as well as the principles of
effective judicial protection and rectitude of decision. A claim for
compensation pursuant to Art 340 TFEU may be struck merely because the basic
elements of the cause of action cannot be established to a minimal level.
As a penetrating analysis of the restricted discretion which the Community
Courts exercise as distinct from the statutory context in which they operate,
this book clears new ground in EU law. Showing that Commission decisions in
antitrust cases – which consider hypothetical future situations in the event
of a proposed merger being carried out – are not easily reconcilable with the
judicial review function of the Courts, particularly when such decisions have
financial and other adverse consequences, the author provides lawyers,
policymakers, and academics in EU competition law with a new and challenging
perspective on their field.
Chapter 1 Summary of Objectives of the Analysis.
Chapter 2 Civil Procedure Rules of the ECJ and the GC.
Chapter 3 Lack of Obligation for Active Case Management.
Chapter 4 Analysis of Cases.
Chapter 5 Conclusion .