APR-10(1)

In this issue:

We welcome Spring with two collections. The first, sponsored by Senior Editor Kyriakos Fountoukakos, focuses on comments by inspired by DG Comp’s Draft Paper on Best Practices in Antitrust Proceedings–how to define due process? Our first two authors compare current practices to those in the United States and Sweden, to which we add a paper by Bo Vesterdorf, former judge and president of the EU General Court.

Next is a series of reactions to previous issues. Yves Botteman introduces a new approach to the parent liability issue we discussed in November while Coate & Simons continue their debate with Farell & Shapiro over Critical Loss. Maureen Olhausen introduces a consumer protection angle into the Intel debate and Janusz Ordover & colleagues take issue with Einer Elhauge on loyalty discounts.

 

EU Best Practices on Due Process

Marcus Glader, Apr 19, 2010

Best Practices in Article 101 and 102 Proceedings: Some Suggestions for Improved Transparency

The Swedish system involves an institutional structure with a division between the investigator (the SCA) and the adjudicator (the Stockholm City Court) and far-reaching transparency (under the principle of public access)”two aspects that have often been criticized as missing in the current Commission procedure. Marcus Glader (Vinge)

Nikolaos Peristerakis, Ingrid Vandenborre, Apr 19, 2010

Best Practices for the Conduct of Antitrust Procedures: Further Thoughts

The

ACCESS TO THIS ARTICLE IS RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS

Please sign in or join us
to access premium content!