Assistant professor . TUNJICA PETRAŠEVIĆ. , PhD. Jean Monnet professor. Faculty of Law, J.J. Strossmayer University of . Osijek. email@example.com. obligation to cover the damage caused to member states and individuals, on behalf of the institution that caused it .
Download - The PPT/PDF document "The liability of the EU in damage for de..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
The liability of the EU in damage for delayed EU courts proceedings in antitrust cases
Presentation on theme: "The liability of the EU in damage for delayed EU courts proceedings in antitrust cases"— Presentation transcript:
The liability of the EU in damage for delayed EU courts proceedings in antitrust cases
Assistant professor TUNJICA PETRAŠEVIĆ, PhDJean Monnet professorFaculty of Law, J.J. Strossmayer University of Osijektpetrase@pravos.hr
obligation to cover the damage caused to member states and individuals, on behalf of the institution that caused it
Contractual vs. non-contractualThe aim of this paper is to discuss the non-contractual liability of the EU in damage for delayed EU courts proceedings with the special reference to antitrust cases
Structure of paper:
IntroductionLiability of the EU in damage (in general)Liability of EU courts
Non-Contractual Liability for Damagecontractual v. non-contractualsubject of our interest is non-contractual liability, as stipulated under Article 340(2):
In the case of non-contractual liability, the Union shall, in accordance with the
general principles common to the laws of the member states
make good any damage
caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties
s to the following questions: who has active legal standing (locus standi) to bring an action? - member states and natural and legal persons
who is the action brought against
– EU i.e. Institution
within what time limit
(Art. 46 Statute)
what constitutes a claim
– damage (unlawful conduct or faulure to act)
which court is the action brought before
– GC for individuals and CJ for Ms
what are the conditions of liability for damage
lllegal conduct, damage, causal link)
interrelation of this action and actions for annulment and actions for failure to act
the key question is that of
discretion enjoyed by the respective/liable institutionreduced discretion or none at all = the very violation of the EU law can suffice for determining the existence of a sufficiently flagrant violation. Where the body did have discretion, the decisive factor is whether the EU institution
manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion
Key to determining liability of the Union, regardless of whether discretion was enjoyed or not, is the existence of the criterion of “
a sufficiently flagrant violation
3. Liability of the EU for damage made by EU courts
The question is: is it possible possibility to incur liability of the EU for the breaches made by EU judiciary? In order to answer that question we will refer to case Köbler where the CJEU ruled that a member states could be held liable for the acts of its judiciary. In case Köbler
the CJEU established certain criteria for liability of member states.
The question is: does the same criteria applies for the liability of the European courts?
An earlier prevalent understanding of the Court was that it was possible to ask for a damage in appellate procedure before Court of Justice against the judgment of a lower court
(i.e. general Court)The position adopted by the Court today is that it involves an independent action and now it is necessary to initiate an independent action in damage. In 2014 has been noticed an increase of actions in damages against EU because EU courts (mainly against General Court) did not conclude proceedings within a reasonable time.
According to Art. 256 TFEU the competent court for actions of individuals (natural and legal persons) is the General Court.
unusual situation that General Court decides the actions against ‘’himself’’
Kendrion, Gascogne, ASPLA…Ground? – art. 47 Charter and art. 6 ECHRArticle 52(3) of the Charter, since the rights guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention, their meaning and scope are to be construed in the light of Articles 6(1) Convention.‘’excessive length of time before reaching a decision’’
So called ‘’industrial bags cartel’’
Decision of CJ:
CJ held that the GC breached Article 47 of the Charter by failing to adjudicate these cases within a reasonable timeOn the basis of Der Grüne
found that where there are no indications that the excessive length of the proceedings before the
affected the cases’ outcome, failure to deliver judgment within a reasonable time cannot lead to the setting aside of the judgments under appeal
decisions raise a number of interesting
/open questions that the CJEU avoided for the moment: ‘’does it infringe upon Article 6 of the Convention to have the General Court adjudicate on actions for damages that are based on that court’s own previous breach of Article 6 of the Convention – in particular, will this case law survive scrutiny before ECtHR
when the EU finally accedes to the Convention?
Der Grüne Punkt approachBaustahlgewebe ( a reductio
n of fine
Reasons of procedural economy
But CJ has no legal basis to reduce the fine on account of procedural irregularity
Is applicable only when EC imposed the fine and GC upheld it
GC do not have any opportunity to explain it conduct before CJ
Grüne Punkt (a separate action for damages)
GC has to assess its own failure
Breach of right to a fair trail (independent and impartial)!?
Financial implication for the CJEU itsel
additional burden of GC will cause new actions in damage
Thank you for your attention!
The liability of the EU in damage for delayed EU courts proceedings in antitrust cases - Description
Assistant professor TUNJICA PETRAŠEVIĆ PhD Jean Monnet professor Faculty of Law JJ Strossmayer University of Osijek tpetrasepravoshr obligation to cover the damage caused to member states and individuals on behalf of the institution that caused it ID: 778093 Download
through International Arbitration. Phillip Landolt. p.landolt@. sunrise.ch. OECD Hearing on Arbitration and Competition Law, 26 October 2010. Overview. of . Presentation. (1 of 2). Prevalence of international arbitration in dispute settlement.
dr. MARCIN MYCZKOWSKI. JUDGE. PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN ŚRODA ŚLĄSKA. The judiciary in Poland. . The Constitutional principles of organization and functioning of the judiciary in Poland cover the legal and organizational status of court authorities, proceedings before courts and the legal status of the judge. .
It’s . Complex. The Framers created the national judiciary in Article III of the Constitution.. The Constitution created the Supreme Court and left Congress to establish the . inferior courts. —the lower federal courts. There are two types of federal courts: (1) constitutional courts and (2) “special” or legislative courts..
American Government. Standing. In order for a case to be heard in our legal system, the plaintiff must . have standing to sue. This means that the . plaintiff . generally must have sustained, or is in in immediate danger of sustaining, a direct and substantial injury from another person or an action of government.
Objective; Define the kinds of lower federal courts in the United States.. The Constitution created the Supreme Court.. Congress established the . lower . federal courts.. These courts are of two basic .
Module 4 – Negligence: Causation and Scope of Liability (Remoteness). Objectives. At the end of this. module you should . be able to. :. Understand the ways in which the Civil Liability Act has affected factual causation at common law;.
Ryan M. Osterholm. firstname.lastname@example.org . Twitter@ecolilawyer . 612-338-0202. Pritzker Hageman, . P.A. .. Minneapolis, . Minnesota. . Foodborne Illness Law. Pritzker Hageman, P.A., is one of the few law firms in the country with a practice devoted to Plaintiffs’ foodborne illness claims..
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS. MAY 2019. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT. BRIEF BACKGROUND . The project started in January 2017 in subordinate courts in Delhi.. 11 pilot courts with no backlog or arrears were chosen.
. Former Director, . International Oil . Pollution Compensation . Funds. The French Court of Cassation and the . Erika. Some civil liability . issues. Naples, 3 October 2013. Claims under the international compensation regime.