What is it about?
The private enforcement of EU competition law has been in the center of scholarly discourse for almost two decades. Recently, the CJEU, with its ruling adopted in Vantaa v. Skanska and others, opened a new chapter in the history of EU competition law’s private enforcement. The Court held that the conditions of the existence of this right are questions of EU law and should be given an autonomous meaning. The judgment is revolutionary in terms of conceptualization and, as such, it is expected to have a considerable impact on substantive issues in the future. This signals the advent of a uniform regime of European “private competition law,” which limits the role of national rules to the exercise of the right to compensation.
Featured Image
Photo by Dayne Topkin on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The private enforcement of EU competition law has been in the center of scholarly discourse for almost two decades. Recently, the CJEU, with its ruling adopted in Vantaa v. Skanska and others, opened a new chapter in the history of EU competition law’s private enforcement.
Perspectives
The ruling in Vantaa v. Skanska signals the advent of a uniform regime of European “private competition law,” which limits the role of national rules to the exercise of the right to compensation.
Csongor Istvan Nagy
University of Szeged
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Has the time come to federalize private competition law? The autonomous concept of undertaking in the CJEU's ruling in Case C-724/17 Vantaa v. Skanska: Case C-724/17 Vantaan kaupunki v. Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy and Others, EU:C:2019:204, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, October 2019, SAGE Publications,
DOI: 10.1177/1023263x19875354.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
