EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

Prague, Czechia

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

fulfil the requirement of legal certainty, inherent to the ne bis in idem principle, because the number of antitrust proceedings within the EU is dependent only on the willingness of competition authorities to open proceedings. We therefore put forward that the ECN system needs to be adapted to allow for only a single investigation of the same case in the EU. At first sight, such amendments would completely overhaul the system of competition law enforcement in the ECN. It is put forward that primarily, they would dramatically increase the legal certainty of undertakings concerned. At the same time, they would not endanger the effectiveness of EU competition law enforcement, as parallel proceedings are already rare in practice. Adoption of such changes presupposes a high level of mutual trust among the ECN members. After almost 20 years of creating and maintaining a common competition culture in Europe (ECN Notice, para 1), we may hope that such trust has been established and that the NCAs, now empowered by the ECN+ Directive, might be ready to support such changes. References [1] 2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European ar rest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, OJ L 190, 18 July 2002, pp. 1–20. [2] di Frederico, G. (2011). EU Competition Law and the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem. European Public Law , Vol. 17 No 2, pp. 241–260. [3] Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. OJ L 1, 4 January 2003, pp. 1–25. [4] Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities. OJ C 101 , pp. 43–53. [5] Commission staff working paper accompanying the Communication from the Com mission to the European Parliament and Council – Report on the functioning of Regulation 1/2003 {COM(2009)206 final} (CSWP Report). [6] Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 January 2004, Aalborg Portland and others v . Commission (C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P), EU:C:2004:6. [7] Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 March 2006, Van Esbroeck (C-436/04), EU:C:2006:165. [8] Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 November 2010, Mantello (C-261/09), EU:C:2010:501 [9] Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 February 2012, Toshiba Corporation and others (C-17/10), EU:C:2012:72 [10] Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20March 2018, Menci (C-524/15), EU:C:2018:197.

321