Ro­man In­derst, Frank­furt a.M. / Ul­rich Schwal­be, Ho­hen­heim
This ar­ti­cle deals with the quan­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of car­tel da­mages. Da­mages that we­re in­flic­ted by a car­tel are cal­cu­la­ted with re­spect to a so-cal­led coun­ter­fac­tu­al. Ty­pi­cal­ly, this is do­ne by com­pa­ring the out­co­me un­der the car­tel with that in a mar­ket that is com­pa­ra­ble along key di­men­si­ons, but whe­re the mar­ket out­co­me was not di­s­tor­ted by...

Al­f­red Dittrich
The ar­ti­cle deals with questi­ons of ju­di­ci­al pro­tec­tion re­la­ting to the Eu­ro­pean Com­mis­si­on no­ti­ce on le­ni­en­cy, which plays an im­portant ro­le in un­co­ver­ing and fi­ning car­tels. The first part ex­plo­res ge­ne­ral questi­ons of ju­di­ci­al pro­tec­tion con­cerning the va­li­di­ty and the ap­p­li­ca­ti­on of the no­ti­ce on le­ni­en­cy. The se­cond part deals with le­gal questi­ons con­cerning the trans­fer or...

Ul­rich Soltész, Brus­sels
In re­cent ye­ars the con­for­mi­ty of the EU an­ti­trust fi­ning sy­stem with the prin­ciple of due pro­cess has be­en in­cre­a­sin­gly cal­led in­to questi­on. Even though the re­cent ECHR judgment in Me­na­ri­ni seems to lend so­me sup­port to the ad­vo­ca­tes of the pre­sent sy­stem, the ca­se law on due pro­cess con­ti­nue to dis­play in­con­si­sten­cies. In par­ti­cu­lar, the va­rious judgments on ru­le...

Alex­an­der Karst, München
The Eu­ro­pean Court of Ju­sti­ce (ECJ) poin­ted out in its de­ci­si­ons "Ak­zo No­bel" and "Ge­ne­ral Quími­ca" that a par­ent com­pa­ny is lia­ble for the an­ti-com­pe­ti­ti­ve be­ha­viour of its daugh­ter com­pa­ny pro­vi­ded that the daugh­ter com­pa­ny is a whol­ly-ow­ned sub­si­dia­ry of the par­ent com­pa­ny. In this spe­ci­fic ca­se of a 100% share­hol­ding in the daugh­ter com­pa­ny, the par­ent com­pa­ny can ex­er­cise a de­ci­si­ve in­flu­ence...