A practical guide to national competition rules across Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last three years, the anti-trust environment in has undergone major changes, as the so called process of modernisation gathers pace. In May 2004, the European Commission lost its exclusive jurisdiction to deal with restrictive agreements and dominance. As a result EU Member States' national competition authorities acquired the power to implement European competition rules, as embodied in Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. This decentralisation of power means that companies operating in several Member States must be aware of each jurisdictions' relevant competition rules to ensure full compliance. Those wishing to complain about anti-competitive practices can now choose between different national competition authorities. Being able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different competition regimes is therefore important for both those who wish to ensure compliance and those who want to complain about anti-competitive activities. However by outsourcing the burden of implementing the anti-trust rules, some wonder whether the EU's competition regime has taken a step closer to the US regime. Since 1 May 2004 we have been waiting for an explosion of cases in the national courts based on breaches of the competition rules. To date this has not happened. Is this because of obstacles such as the lack of treble damages, class actions and contingency fees? As a result of the above changes, advising on competition issues in requires not only an understanding of the competition rules in each jurisdiction, but also an understanding of how the national courts deal with competition cases. The second edition of A Practical Guide to National Competition Rules across Europe aims to address these issues. Firstly it provides practical information on the competition regimes (including merger control) in each of the EU member states as well as Norway and Switzerland. Secondly it analyses the civil procedure rules in each jurisdiction and considers the extent to which competition litigation is likely to increase in the future. Each country chapter has been prepared by experienced competition lawyers. The second edition of the guide also includes a comparable analysis of the competition rules in with those in other jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United States. Marjorie Holmes is an experienced competition lawyer and litigator and Lesley Davey, a competition lawyer, both from Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP, draw on the information provided in each of the country chapters to reach interesting and important conclusions and recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.072 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".