Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

19 results

  • Assessing Antitrust Damages in Follow-On Actions Against Cartels

  • Wolfgang Wurmnest
  • Journal:
    Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies / Volume 25 / December 2023
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 November 2023, pp. 105-121
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Assessing damages in follow-on actions against cartels that have infringed EU or domestic antitrust law is still in its infancy in Europe. This Article highlights the reasons why this issue has only recently started reaching the courts and analyses the pitfalls and problems courts face when calculating or estimating the amount of loss caused by a cartel to individual plaintiffs. As this endeavour raises complex economic questions, the Article outlines the basic economic approaches to measure antitrust harm and derives general principles from EU law on how courts should deal with economic evidence in follow-on actions to ensure an effective enforcement of competition law.

European Private International Law and Member State Treaties with Third States
  • The Case of the European Succession Regulation
  • Edited by Anatol Dutta, Wolfgang Wurmnest
  • Published by:
    Intersentia
    Published online:
    12 November 2019
    Print publication:
    31 July 2019
  • Several Member States of the European Union have concluded treaties and conventions with Third States dealing with questions of succession law in cross-border matters. Some of these treaties originate from the beginning of the 20th century and are outdated. The European legislator, however, cannot supersede these treaties and conventions unilaterally with its regulations, in fact they enjoy priority over the European Succession Regulation. The harmonizing effect of European private international law is hence endangered, the more so, as these treaties and conventions often cover large groups of third State nationals in the respective Member State. This book analyzes the background, scope and practical impact of bilateral treaties and multilateral conventions concluded by selected Member States of the European Union with third States, both from the European and the third State perspective. It evaluates the impact of these treaties and conventions on the functioning of the European Succession Regulation and the possibilities to facilitate the interplay between these instruments and European private international law. Anatol Dutta holds a Chair of Private Law, Private International Law and Comparative Law at the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich. Wolfgang Wurmnest holds the Chair of Private Law, Commercial Law, Private International and Comparative Law at the University of Augsburg.

  • Introduction

    • By Anatol Dutta, Prof. Dr., M. Jur. (Oxford), Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Germany, Wolfgang Wurmnest, Prof. Dr., LL.M. (Berkeley), University of Augsburg, Germany
  • Edited by Anatol Dutta, Wolfgang Wurmnest
  • Book:
    European Private International Law and Member State Treaties with Third States
    Published by:
    Intersentia
    Published online:
    12 November 2019
    Print publication:
    31 July 2019, pp 1-4

  • Summary

    In the last decade, the European Union (EU) has unified large segments of private international law for its Member States. The enacted Regulations take precedence over national private international law rules and also over international treaties concluded between the Member States, as far as EU law does not provide otherwise. However, existing bilateral and multilateral treaties concluded by Member States with third States enjoy priority over European private international law rules. This priority rule, which can be found in most of the private international law Regulations adopted so far, has been described as the ‘Achilles heel’ of the European conflict-of-law system. It hampers the uniform application of EU law and creates friction with harmonized procedural rules. In addition, the legal relationships for a considerable number of third State citizens and – as far as the treaties are universally applicable – even all covered relationships are not governed by EU private international law but by rules laid down in international treaties, which in part date back to the beginning of the 20th century.

    The implications of this pluralism on the functioning of the rather new European private international law rules have not yet been explored in depth. The various international treaties or conventions concluded by the current Member States have neither been comprehensively collected nor has their content been analyzed in a systematic manner. This book, which is the fruit of an international working group set up by the Universities of Augsburg and Munich in 2017, aims to partly fill this gap by starting with a kind of ‘test drilling’ in the area of succession upon death. Reporters from various EU Member States loosely representing the ‘four corners of the EU’ analyze the scope and effect of treaties and conventions concluded by their countries with third States in the area of succession law and analyze their impact on the functioning of the European Succession Regulation (Regulation No. 650/2012, hereafter: SR). As in other EU instruments, Article 75(1)1 SR provides that its rules do not affect bilateral treaties concluded with third States before the Regulation was enacted. The reports contained in this book cover Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden. The comparative report at the end of this book also takes into account treaties concluded by Estonia and (without claiming completeness) by Greece.

  • Comparative Report and Policy Perspectives

  • from PART III - THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND A COMPARATIVE OUTLOOK
  • Edited by Anatol Dutta, Wolfgang Wurmnest
  • Book:
    European Private International Law and Member State Treaties with Third States
    Published by:
    Intersentia
    Published online:
    12 November 2019
    Print publication:
    31 July 2019, pp 329-356

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The final contribution of this book will first provide an overview of the treaty law and its historical background, topics discussed in great detail in the various country reports (section 2). It then analyzes the impact of the treaty law on the functioning of the Succession Regulation (section 3). As the treaty law affects the functioning of the Succession Regulation in various ways, this contribution will examine the question of whether there are any compelling reasons for those EU Member States that do not plan to terminate or adapt the treaties concluded with third States, to keep the rules on jurisdiction and/or applicable law as enshrined in the treaties (section 4). As these rules are – at least from the perspective of the European Union as opposed to that of (most) third States – based on outdated concepts of private international law which create frictions with the Succession Regulation, various policy options are discussed to improve the law and the working of this Regulation (section 5). A summary concludes this contribution (section 6).

    INSTRUMENTS TAKING PRECEDENCE OVER THE SUCCESSION REGULATION: A SURVEY

    MAPPING THE LAW

    The country reports have revealed that not all EU Member States scrutinized in this book have concluded bilateral agreements or multilateral conventions that take precedence over the EU Succession Regulation. As a rule of thumb, the further east one looks, the more agreements one finds between EU Member States and third States covering succession issues, at least partly.

    Starting in the west, Belgium is not party to a single agreement that could be in conflict with the Succession Regulation. There are only two general instruments on the recognition and enforcement of judgments with Switzerland and the United Kingdom. However, neither of these instruments affects the respective rules in the Succession Regulation as they concern the recognition and enforcement of Belgian judgments in Switzerland and in the United Kingdom and vice versa, an issue which is not covered by the Succession Regulation. This Regulation deals exclusively with the free movement of decisions in succession matters amongst the participating Member States.

  • Questionnaire

    • By Anatol Dutta, Prof. Dr., M. Jur. (Oxford), Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Germany, Wolfgang Wurmnest, Prof. Dr., LL.M. (Berkeley), University of Augsburg, Germany
  • Edited by Anatol Dutta, Wolfgang Wurmnest
  • Book:
    European Private International Law and Member State Treaties with Third States
    Published by:
    Intersentia
    Published online:
    12 November 2019
    Print publication:
    31 July 2019, pp 5-8

  • Summary

    The contributors were equipped with the following questionnaire in order to structure their reports.

    INTRODUCTION

    Each report should address the following points. The questionnaire should, however, not be regarded as exhaustive. If in a certain jurisdiction or region other problems or challenges arise, those issues should be discussed as well. The draft structure outlined below might be a possible framework, but variations might be necessary for some jurisdictions.

    TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS TAKING PRECEDENCE OVER THE EUROPEAN SUCCESSION REGULATION

    – Has your jurisdiction ratified one or more bilateral treaty/ies or multilateral convention(s) (hereafter: ‘treaty’ or ‘treaties’) that take precedence over the rules of the European Succession Regulation (hereafter: ‘SR’) pursuant to Article 75 SR?

    – If so, please provide a comprehensive list of those treaties, describe their (historical, social and/or economic) background and provide an official source (Official Journal or the like).

    – Describe for each treaty its scope of application (ratione materiae, ratione personae). The following issues might in particular be of interest:

  • • Which issues of succession law are covered by the treaties (intestate succession, succession by testamentary disposition, forced heirship, testamentary executors, administration, special succession regimes for certain assets)? Are areas of law connected to succession covered, e.g. matrimonial property rights of the surviving spouse, family status, etc.?

  • • Does the treaty cover assets located solely in the Contracting States or also assets located in other States? Which rules govern the localization of assets, notably intangible assets? If property located in other States is not covered, which rules of private international law would a judge apply to those assets? This latter issue should be discussed in the section on private international law.

  • • If the treaty applies only to nationals of the Contracting States, please explain how multiple nationalities are dealt with (i.e. instances where a person holds a passport from each of the Contracting States or where a person holds a passport from a Contracting State and also from another State).

    • PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE TREATY REGIMES

    – Describe the private international law rules contained in those treaties in more detail. What are the relevant connecting factors? Does the treaty distinguish between movable and immovable assets? If so, which rules define the movable or immovable nature of an asset, e.g. as to shares in a company which owns immovables?

  • Annex

  • Edited by Anatol Dutta, Wolfgang Wurmnest
  • Book:
    European Private International Law and Member State Treaties with Third States
    Published by:
    Intersentia
    Published online:
    12 November 2019
    Print publication:
    31 July 2019, pp 357-460

  • Summary

    The members of the working group have discovered various agreements between Member States and third States that touch upon the areas harmonized by the Succession Regulation. The treaties and conventions are listed below under the name of the EU Member State that has concluded it. As many countries have concluded more than one agreement, all agreements of one country are reproduced in alphabetical order following the common name (as opposed to the official name) of the contracting state and not in chronological order, even though some country reports analyze the respective instruments in the order of their conclusion. The texts are reprinted in (one of) the language(s) of the EU Member State that concluded it and in an (unofficial) English translation. If the authentic language is a language other than the language of the EU Member State that has concluded it, the text is reproduced in the agreement's authentic language together with an English translation. Treaties concluded by third States with EU Member States that are not covered by country reports in this book (‘other EU Member States’) are reproduced in the language of the third State together with an (unofficial) English translation. The treaties are referred to throughout the volume by their number.

  • A New Era for Private Antitrust Litigation in Germany? A Critical Appraisal of the Modernized Law against Restraints of Competition

  • Wolfgang Wurmnest
  • Journal:
    German Law Journal / Volume 6 / Issue 8 / 01 August 2005
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    06 March 2019, pp. 1173-1189
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • On July 1st, 2005, the 7th Amendment to the Law against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen – GWB) became effective. The modernization of the GWB was indispensable in bringing German law in line with Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003. Regulation 1/2003 decentralized the enforcement of EC competition rules and aimed to pave the way for effective private antitrust litigation in Europe. Thus far, private parties have invoked Art. 81 and 82 EC Treaty primarily as shield by arguing that certain agreements were void. Only in very few instances were those rules used as sword to sue infringers for injunctive relief or damages. To stimulate private enforcement, Regulation 1/2003 inter alia abolished the European Commission's exclusive power to exempt practices which are prohibited pursuant to Art. 81 (1) EC Treaty and entitled national competition authorities and courts to apply Art. 81 (3) EC Treaty. Moreover, it empowered the European Commission to make written submissions in antitrust cases pending before national courts. In line with the new European approach, the German legislature has overhauled the hitherto existing rules of German competition law considerably. This article will briefly describe the general changes brought by the reform and take a closer look at the amended rules relating to private antitrust litigation before German courts.