The evaluation of evidence and its judicial review in competition cases
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction - Rules That Govern Rules: Evidence, Proof and Judicial Control in Competition Cases Mel Marquis Introduction to the Workshop - Competition enforcement and judicial review in Europe Presentations Written contributions Bruno Lasserre, The European Competition System in Context: Matching Old Constitutional Principles and New Policy Challenges Heike Schweitzer, The European Competition Law Enforcement System and the Evolution of Judicial Panel I The European Commission: Standard of Proof, burden of proof and evaluation of evidence in antitrust and merger cases Panel II The European Courts: Standard of proof, burden of proof, standards of review and evaluation of evidence antitrust and merger cases Written contributions to Panels I and II I Per Hellstroem, A Uniform Standard of Proof in EU Competition Proceedings II Philip Lowe, Taking Sound Decisions on the Basis of Available Evidence III Luis Ortiz Blanco, Standards of Proof and Personal Conviction in EU Antitrust and Merger Control Procedures IV James Venit, Human All Too Human: The Gathering and Assessment of Evidence and the Appropriate Standard of Proof and Judicial in Commission Enforcement Proceedings Applying Articles 81 and 82 V Nicholas Forwood, The Commission's More Economic Approach - Implications for the Role of the EU Courts, the Treatment of Economic Evidence and the Scope of Judicial VI Aindrias O Caoimh, Standard of Proof, Burden of Proof, Standards of and Evaluation of Evidence in Antitrust and Merger Cases: Perspective of Court of Justice of the European Union VII Nils Wahl, Standard of - Comprehensive or Limited? VIII Eric Gippini-Fournier, The Elusive Standard of Proof in EU Competition Cases IX Fernando Castillo de la Torre, Evidence, Proof and Judicial in Cartel Cases X Ian Forrester, A Bush in Need of Pruning: the Luxuriant Growth of Light Judicial Review XI John Ratliff, Judicial in EC competition cases before the European Courts: Avoiding double renvoi XII Justin Coombs and Jorge Padilla, The Use of Economic Evidence before the Courts of the European Union Panel III National competition authorities: standard of proof, burden of proof and evaluation of evidence in antitrust and merger cases Written contributions to Panel III I Alberto Heimler, The Legal Significance of Economic Evidence in Antitrust Cases: Some Comments Based on the Italian Experience II Pieter Kalbfleisch, Standard of Proof, Burden of Proof and Evaluation of Evidence in Antitrust and Merger Cases: A Perspective of the Netherlands Competition Authority III Jacques Steenbergen, Rules of Evidence in Competition Cases: An NCA Perspective IV J. Thomas Rosch, Observations on Evidentiary Issues in Antitrust Cases V Rafael Allendesalazar and Paloma Martinez Lage Evidence Gathered through Leniency: From the Prisoner's Dilemma to a Race to the Bottom VI Mario Siragusa, Antitrust and Merger Cases in Italy: Standard of Proof, Burden of Proof and Evaluation of Evidence VII James Rill and Jaimee Lederman, Evidence in Judicial of U.S. Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice Merger Cases VIII Dennis Carlton, How Should Economic Evidence be Presented and Evaluated? Panel IV National courts in major jurisdictions: Standard of proof, burden of proof, standards of review and evaluation of evidence in antitrust and merger cases Written contributions to Panel IV I Vaughn Walker, Evidence in Competition Cases: An American Trial Judge's Perspective II Michael Boudin, Evidence and the Formulation of U.S. Antitrust Law III Kelyn Bacon, Standard of Proof, Standards of and Evaluation of Evidence in UK Antitrust and Merger Cases IV Jochen Burrichter and Hans Logemann, Evaluation of Evidence in National Courts: Reflections from the German Perspective V Calvin Goldman, Robert Kwinter, Navin Joneja and Chad Leddy, A Canadian Perspective on the Evaluation of Evidence in Antitrust and Merger Cases in the Context of Recent Changes to Canada's Competition Law VI Barry Hawk and James Keyte, Separating the Wheat from the Chaff: How the U.S. Courts Analyze Antitrust Evidence
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».