EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

Prague, Czechia

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

TEU (Pereira, Brueggemann, 2021, p. 392). In Whiteland , CJEU extended this line of reasoning from private enforcement into public enforcement. 2.1.3 Summary While the Kilpailu judgment provided important guidance on the starting point of the antitrust limitation period, the Whiteland judgment clarified certain aspects of the interruption of the limitation period. In Kilpailu the CJEU emphasised that the effective implementation of Article 101 TFEU cannot justify artificially extending the duration of the infringement period to allow its prosecution. In Whiteland the CJEU pointed out that national rules laying down limitation periods must be devised in such a way as to strike a balance between the objectives of providing legal certainty and ensuring that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time and the effective and efficient application of the competition rules. The CJEU in this case further concluded that national statutes of limitations must not constitute a systematic obstacle to the imposition of fines. Since according to the relevant abovementioned case law, Article 25 of Regulation 1/2003 does not lay down limitation rules relating to the national competition authorities’ powers to impose penalties, the Czech legislation (and legislation of any other member state) can provide for those limitation rules. In the Czech Republic, relevant limitation rules regarding the imposition of penalties are laid down by Section 23 of Act No. 143/2001 Sb., on Protection of Competition and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended (APC). First of all, under the APC there used to be two kinds of limitation periods with the first being subjective and the second being objective. Nowadays, however, the regulation of the limitation period has been unified and there is only one limitation period that can be considered objective in view of its characteristics, which will be discussed below. According to Section 23(1) of the APC, the basic limitation period with regard to administrative offences committed under the APC is generally 10 years, with the exception of certain minor violations (e.g., failure to provide the necessary cooperation in the on-site investigation), where the limitation period is only 3 years. According to Section 23(6) of the APC, the maximum limitation period is 14 years and applies only if the basic limitation period was previously interrupted. Since the previous legal regulation of the limitation period is still applicable to offences committed before 1 July 2017 (see Judgement of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) 7 Afs 14/2011 – 115, para 29), the issue of the subjective and objective limitation periods will 3. Limitation Periods for the Imposition of Penalties in the Czech Republic

299