1.Introduction&JURGEN BASEDOW, STEPHANIE FRANCQ AND LAURENCE IDOT 1
Ⅰ.Context 1
Ⅱ.Why Analyse Antitrust Disputes in the Light of Private International Law? 1
A.The International Aspect of Antitrust Litigation 1
B.The Characteristics of Antitrust Litigation 2
C.Examples and Issues 3
i.Example A 3
ii.Example B 4
iii.Example C 4
iv.Example D 4
D.The Normative Context 7
Ⅲ.Aims of the Research Project 8
Ⅳ.Content and Structure of the Book 9
Ⅴ.Working Method 10
A.Who is Who? 10
B.Working Method 11
C.Methodological Premises 12
PART Ⅰ.INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION CONFLICT-OF-LAWS ISSUES 15
Ⅰ.1.JURISDICTION IN EU CROSS-BORDER LITIGATION 15
2.How to apply Articles 5(1) and 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation to Private Enforcement of Competition Law: a Coherent Approach&BLANCA VILA COSTA 17
Ⅰ.Introduction 17
Ⅱ.Introductory Proposal: There Is No Need to Amend the Brussels I Regulation with a View to Facilitating Private Enforcement of Competition Law 19
Ⅲ.Interpretative Proposals Concerning Article 5(1) 23
Ⅳ.Interpretative Proposals Concerning Article 5(3) 26
3.International Cartels and the Place of Acting under Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation&Jurgen Basedow 31
Ⅰ.Introduction 31
Ⅱ.Article 5(3) Regulation 44/2001 32
Ⅲ.Multistate Effects and Limited Jurisdictional Competence 32
Ⅳ.Perspectives on the Place of Acting and Jurisdictional Competence 33
A.Place of Agreement or Concerted Action 33
B.Place of Implementation 34
C.Seat of the Defendant as Place of Acting 35
Ⅴ.Variety of Cartel Forms 35
A.(Quasi-)Incorporated Cartels 35
B.Cartel Agreements Made outside of (Quasi-)Corporate Structures 36
C.Single-Instance Cartel Agreements 37
D.Complex Cartel Agreements 37
E.Stable Place of Implementation 38
Ⅵ.Summary: A Multiplicity of Places of Acting 39
4.Jurisdiction Issues: Brussels I Regulation Articles 6(1), 23, 27 and 28 in Antitrust Litigation&MICHAEL WILDERSPIN 41
Ⅰ.Introduction 41
A.Purpose of this Paper 41
B.The Relevant Provisions of the Brussels I Regulation 42
i.Article 6(1) Brussels I Regulation 42
ii.Article 23 Brussels I Regulation 43
iii.The Provisions on Lis Pendens and Related Actions 43
Ⅱ.The Provimi Litigation 43
A.Factual Background 43
B.Applications to Strike Out the Actions 44
C.Other Issues Which Are Either Implicit in the Judgment or Were Common Ground between the Parties 45
Ⅲ.Analysis of the Judgment of the High Court in Provimi in the Light of the European Court's Case-Law 46
A.Article 6(1) 46
B.Article 23 50
Ⅳ.Recommendations to Be Made with Regard to Article 6( 1) and Articles 23, 27 and 28 Brussels I Regulation 51
A.Article 6(1) 51
B.Article 23 53
C.Article 27 56
D.Article 28 58
Ⅰ.2.APPLICABLE LAW IN THE EU - ROME I AND ROME II 61
5.Private Enforcement of Antitrust Provisions and the Rome I Regulation&MARC FALLON AND STEPHANIE FRANCQ 63
Ⅰ.Introduction 63
Ⅱ.How Do Antitrust Rules Apply in Contractual Litigation? 64
A.Basic Principles Governing the Designation of the Lex Contractus 64
i.The Rules Governing the Identification of the Applicable Law 64
ii.Exceptions 66
B.Basic Principles Governing the Applicability of Competition Law 67
i.Influence of Competition Law on the Substance and Validity of Contracts 68
a.General Remarks: the Influence of Competition Law is Incidental in regard to the Contractual Regime 68
b.Influence of EU Competition Law on Contractual Litigation 69
c.Influence of Article 101(3) TFEU and Block Exemption Regulations 70
ii.The Nature of Competition Law from the Point of View of Private International Law 73
C.The Intervention of Competition Law Rules in International Contractual Litigation 74
i.EU Competition Law 74
a.Primary Law 74
b.Secondary Law 76
ii.National Competition Law 77
a.The Interplay of Article 4 and Article 9 Rome I 77
b.Conflict of Competition Laws of Different Legal Systems 79
D.Conclusion 81
Ⅲ.Specific Issue: The Nullity of the Contract or Part Thereof and its Consequences 82
A.Nullity of the Contract or Part Thereof 83
i.Material Scope of the Provision on Nullity 83
ii.The Law Applicable to Issues Related to the Nullity of the Contractual Agreement but Falling Outside the Scope of Article 101(2) TFEU 86
B.Assessment of Damages and Nemo Auditur 88
i.Taking into Account Substantive Overriding EU Requirements 88
ii.Ascertaining the Applicable Law 89
C.Conclusion 90
6.International Antitrust Claims under the Rome II Regulation&STEPHANIE FRANCO AND WOLFGANG WURMNEST 91
Ⅰ.Introduction 91
Ⅱ.Legislative History 93
Ⅲ.Foundations of Article 6 Rome II 96
A.Determining the Scope of the Rome II Regulation 96
i.General Remarks 96
ii.Non-Contractual Obligations 96
iii.Civil and Commercial Matters 97
B.Article 6 Rome II in the General System of the Regulation 98
i.Overview 98
ii.Is Article 6(3) Rome II a Universal Provision? 100
C.The Interplay between Articles 6(1) and 6(3) Rome II 103
i.Background 103
ii.No Need to Distinguish Articles 6(1) and (3) Rome II? 104
iii.The Dividing Line between Unfair Competition and Restriction of Competition 105
D.Necessary Legislative Amendments 107
Ⅳ.Nature of the Rules Designated by Article 6(3) Rome II 107
A.Problem Stated 107
i.Various Aspects of Competition Law 107
ii.Market Rules Determine their Own Scope of Application 109
B.Solution for Articles 101, 102 TFEU 110
C.Possible Solutions for Market Rules of National Origin 111
i.Article 6(3) Rome II as an 'Open Gate' 111
ii.Market Rules as Overriding Mandatory Rules (Article 16 Rome II) 114
iii.Market Rules as Rules of Safety and Conduct (Article 17 Rome II) 117
D.Necessary Legislative Amendments 119
Ⅴ.The Law of the Affected Market, Article 6(3)(a) Rome II 119
A.Defining the Relevant Market 120
B.Nature of the Link Required 122
C.Necessary Legislative Amendments 124
Ⅵ.The Right to Choose the Law of the Forum, Article 6(3)(b) Rome II 124
A.General Remarks 124
B.Unwritten Limitations of the Concentration Rule? 125
i.Problem Stated 125
ii.Limitations with Regard to the Application of National Competition Law 126
iii.Limitations with Regard to the Kind of Damage Sustained by the Plaintiff 127
C.Necessary Legislative Amendments 128
Ⅶ.Conclusion 128
7.Relevance of the Distinction between the Contractual and Non-Contractual Spheres (Jurisdiction and Applicable Law)&SYLVAINE POILLOT-PERUZZETTO AND DOMINIKA LAWNICKA 131
Ⅰ.Introduction 131
Ⅱ.Preliminary Question: Is the Debate Related to the Distinction between Contractual and Non-Contractual Spheres an Odd Issue in the Context of Actions for Damages Based on a Breach of EU Competition Law? 135
Ⅲ.Assessment of the Distinction between Contractual and Non-Contractual Claims Arising out of a Restriction of Competition 138
A.Distinction of the Texts 139
B.Distinctions as Far as the Reasoning and the Solutions are Concerned 139
i.The Distinctions and the Issue of Determining Jurisdiction 139
a.Tort 140
b.Contract 140
ii.The Distinction and the Issue of Applicable Law 140
a.Differences Based on the Assessment of a Specific Policy 141
b.Differences Based on the Specification of the Policy 141
c.Differences between Solutions on the Basis of Examples 141
d.Results of the Comparison 144
Ⅳ.How the Distinction Conflicts with European Principles 145
A.The European Principles Involved 145
i.Specificity of the European Legal Order and Its Directions 145
ii.Competition Policy as a Pillar of the Internal Market 146
a.The Importance of the Basis 146
b.The Effects of the Basis in Competition Law: the Specificity of Private Actions Based on Competition in the Member States 147
iii.The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice 147
a.Predictability, Legal Certainty and Justice 147
b.Fundamental Place of the European Citizen 148
c.Simplification of Litigation 148
d.No Distortion of Competition between Litigants 148
e.Consistency among the European Texts 148
B.The Elements of the Conflict 149
i.The Difficult Implementation of the Distinction between Contractual and Non-Contractual Obligations Conflicts with Certainty, Predictability, Necessity of Simplification and Effectiveness of Competition Policy 149
a.Conflicts Resulting from the Existence of the Primary Distinction between Contractual and Non-Contractual Obligations 149
b.Conflicts Resulting from the Difficulties of Implementation of the Distinction within the Categories 151
ii.The Variety of the Solutions Induced by the Existence of the Distinction Conflicts with Principles of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice as well as with the Objective of Effectiveness of EU Competition Law 153
a.Different Choice of Jurisdiction for the Plaintiff Conflicts with the Principle of Non-Distortion of Competition between the Litigants when they Sue for Damages on the Basis of a Breach of Competition Rules 153
b.Possible Party Autonomy in Case of Contractual Obligations Conflicts with Competition Policy and with the Principles of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice 153
c.Different Connecting Factors and Different Reasonings whether the Obligation Is Contractual or Non-Contractual for the Same Prohibited Behaviour Conflicts with the Principle of Consistency and with the Necessity not to Distort Competition between the Litigants 154
d.Possible Use of Article 4(4) Rome I Regulation for a Contractual Obligation Conflicts with the Necessary Predictability of the Solutions for the Plaintiff 154
e.The Impossibility of Adoption of a Single Applicable Law to an Action Brought against Several Defendants (Namely Distributors) on the Basis of Several and Similar Contractual Obligations May Be Considered in Conflict with at Least Three European Principles 154
iii.The Lack of Specific Rules for Contract Conflicts with the Objective of Effectiveness of European Competition Policy and the Principle of Consistency 154
Ⅴ.Proposals of Means of Convergence 155
A.Formal Solution 155
i.The Solution of Formal Unity of Competition Matters Through a Single Text 155
ii.The Solution of Formal Diversity through Three Texts Containing Equivalent Provisions 156
B.Substantive Common Solutions 156
Ⅵ.Conclusion 157
Ⅰ.3.ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF LITIGATION 159
8.International Litigation and Competition Law: the Case of Collective Redress&DIMITRIOS-PANAGIOTIS L TZAKAS 161
Ⅰ.Introduction 161
Ⅱ.The Requirements Emanating from EU Competition Law 162
Ⅲ.Current State of Collective Redress in the EU 165
A.Collective Redress in the Legal Systems of the Member States 165
i.Representative Actions 165
ii.Collective Actions 167
B.The Propositions of the European Commission 168
Ⅳ.Specific Issues Raised by Collective Redress Instruments 170
A.Representative Actions 170
i.Recognition of the Representative Entity 170
ii.Admissibility of the Type of Action 172
iii.Defining the Eligible Representative Entities 172
a.Conflict-of-Laws Issues 172
b.Questions of Interchangeability or Substitution 175
c.The Commission's Proposals 176
iv.Represented Individuals 178
v.Distribution of Damages 180
B.Collective Actions 182
Ⅴ.Jurisdictional Aspects 183
Ⅵ.Applicable Law 184
Ⅵ.Recognition and Enforcement of Collective Redress Rulings 185
Ⅷ.Conclusion 189
9.Arbitration and EU Competition Law&ASSIMAKIS P KOMN1NOS 191
Ⅰ.Introduction 191
Ⅱ.Modernised EU Competition Law and Arbitration 192
A.From Distrust to Embrace 192
B.How Competition Law Issues Arise in Arbitration 194
C.Arbitrability of EU Competition Law 194
D.Competences of Arbitrators in the Decentralised System of Enforcement 196
Ⅲ.The Application of EU Competition Law by International Arbitration Tribunals 198
A.EU Competition Law as Applicable Law in Trans-border Disputes in General 198
B.The Specific Case of Arbitration 200
Ⅳ.The Institutional Position of Arbitration in its Relationship with the European Commission 202
A.Arbitration Is Not Covered by the Cooperation Duties of Regulation 202
B.General Exclusion of Arbitration from the Courts Cooperation Notice 204
C.A Notice on Cooperation with Arbitrators? 206
Ⅴ.Conflicts of Resolution between Arbitration and Competition Authorities 207
A.Arbitration and Article 16 Regulation 1/2003 207
B.Arbitration and National Laws Conferring a Binding Effect on NCAs' Decisions 210
C.Direct Intervention by the Commission as an Exceptional Corrective Mechanism 211
Ⅵ.The Ultimate Safeguard: the Public Policy Control of Arbitral Awards 213
A.Eco Swiss 213
B.The Extent of the Public Policy Control 214
C.A Proposed Balanced Approach for Review of Arbitral Awards 218
D.Conclusion 221
Ⅰ.4.Beyond the EU 223
10.Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in International Antitrust Law - A US Perspective&HANNAH L BUXBAUM AND RALF MICHAELS 225
Ⅰ.Introduction 225
A.The Value of a US Perspective 225
B.Doctrinal Matters 227
Ⅱ.Personal Jurisdiction 228
A.Personal Jurisdiction 228
i.Targeting 228
ii.Conspiracy 229
B.Forum non Conveniens 230
Ⅲ.Applicable Law 231
A.Actions for Monetary Damages 231
i.Damages Claims as Part of Applicable Antitrust Law 231
ii.Effects Doctrine 232
iii.Concentration of Applicable Law 233
iv.Application of Foreign Law 235
B.Contract Validity 237
i.Party Autonomy 238
ii.Federal Antitrust Law and State Contract Law 238
iii.US Antitrust Law and Foreign Contract Law 239
iv.Foreign Antitrust Law and State Contract Law 239
Ⅳ.Conflict-of-Laws Issues in Class Action Certification 240
A.Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Class Members 240
B.Applicable Law 241
C.Recognition of Foreign Judgments: The Question of Preclusion 243
Ⅴ.Conclusion 244
11.Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments&CATHERINE KESSEDJIAN 245
Ⅰ.Introduction 245
Ⅱ.Which Model to Choose? 246
A.The United States 246
B.The European Union 249
Ⅲ.Specific Issues in Competition Law 251
A.Punitive Damages 252
B.Administrative Penalties in Addition to Civil Damages 254
C.Judgment Handed Down After a Collective Action 255
Ⅳ.Conclusion 256
PART Ⅱ.INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION-COORDINATION ISSUES 257
Ⅱ.1.COORDINATION BETWEEN COMPETITION AUTHORITIES AND COURTS 257
12.Access to Evidence and Files of Competition Authorities&LAURENCE IDOT 259
Ⅰ.Introduction 259
Ⅱ.Access to Evidence in the Context of the European Union 263
A.Acknowledgement of a Right of Access 263
i.Disclosure Inter Partes 263
a.Situation in Positive Law (De Lege Lata) 263
b.The Proposed Solutions (De Lege Ferenda) 268
ii.Access to the Competition Authorities' Files 270
a.Situation in Positive Law (De Lege Lata) 270
b.Proposed Solutions (De Lege Ferenda) 272
B.The Limits to the Right of Access 273
i.Identification of the Limits Accepted in Competition Laws 273
a.The Rights and Privileges Granted to Undertakings Involved in Administrative Proceedings 273
b.The Restrictions on the Authorities' Right to Disclose 275
ii.The Introduction of the International Dimension 276
a.The Pre-Draft Solutions 277
b.The Suggested Improvements 278
Ⅲ.Access to Evidence in a Truly International Context 279
A.The Current Situation 280
i.Access for a Claimant in a Private Action to Evidence Located Abroad 280
a.The Limits of International Cooperation 281
b.The Development of Unilateral Application 282
ii.The Use in Foreign Proceedings of Documents Located in the United States 283
B.The Possible Means 284
i.Experience Gained from International Cooperation in Competition Matters 284
ii.The Lessons to Be Learned from International Cooperation in Matters of Mutual Legal Assistance 286
13.Exchange of Information and Opinions between European Competition Authorities and Courts-From a Swedish Perspective&ROBERT MOLDEN 289
Ⅰ.Introduction 289
A.Introduction to the EU-Framework of Regulation 1/2003 289
B.Introduction to Swedish Competition Law Procedure - The New Swedish Competition Act of 2008 291
Ⅱ.The Right of National Courts to Request a Preliminary Ruling from the Court of Justice in Competition Law Cases 293
A.General Observations on Preliminary Rulings by the Court of Justice 293
B.Swedish Courts' Requests for a Preliminary Ruling from the European Court of Justice in Competition Law Cases 294
i.The ST1M Case 294
ii.The TeliaSonera ADSL Case 295
Ⅲ.The Right of NCAs and the Commission to Submit Amicus Curiae Observations to National Courts in Competition Law Cases 296
A.General Points on Amicus Curiae Observations in Competition Law Cases 296
i.The Garage Gremeau Case 297
ii.The Case on Tax Deductibility of Commission Fines in the Netherlands 298
iii.The Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique Case 299
B.Amicus Curiae Observations Issued by the SCA to Swedish Courts in Competition Law Cases 300
i.The Soda-Club Case 300
Ⅳ.The Right of National Courts to Request Opinions from the Commission in Competition Law Cases 301
A.General Points on Requests of Opinions from the Commission by National Courts in Competition Law Cases 301
B.Requests for Opinions from the Commission by Swedish Courts in Competition Law Cases 302
i.The Ystad Harbour Case 302
ii.The Ekfors Case 303
C.The Right of Swedish Courts to Request Opinions from the Swedish Competition Authority in Competition Law Cases 304
i.The SAS v Luftfartsverket Case 305
Ⅴ.The Right of National Courts to Request Information from the Commission in Competition Law Cases 306
Ⅵ.The Obligation of Member States to Forward National Judgments on EU Competition Law to the European Commission 307
A.General Points 307
B.The Swedish Example: Non-Transparent Provisions 308
C.The German Example: Transparent Provisions 309
Ⅶ.Why National Courts Are Not Entitled by Regulation 1/2003 to Request Information and Opinions from NCAs - Proposal to Consider Amending Regulation 1/2003 in this Respect 310
A.A Puzzling Asymmetry between Articles 15(1) and 15(3) 310
B.An Overview of the Legislative History of the Coordination Measures Embodied in Article 15 Regulation 1/2003 311
i.The Obligation to Forward Copies of National Judgments on EU Competition Law to the Commission-Article 15(2) 311
ii.The Right of NCAs and the Commission to Submit Amicus Curiae Observations to National Courts-Article 15(3) 312
iii.The Right of National Courts to Request Information and Opinions from the Commission - Article 15(1) 312
C.Analysis of the Legislative Process 313
14.Discovery in a Global Economy&MAURICE E STUCKE 315
Ⅰ.Introduction 315
Ⅱ.Litigants Abroad Who Seek Discovery in the US 315
A.When Does the US Court Have Statutory Authority to Order Discovery Under Section 1782(a)? 316
i.Who Can Seek Discovery Under Section 1782? 317
ii.What Foreign Proceedings Qualify Under Section 1782(a)? 318
iii.When Can an Interested Person Seek Discovery under Section 1782? 319
iv.What Kind of Discovery Is Available under Section 1782(a)? 320
B.When Will the US Courts Exercise Their Discretion and Permit Discovery under Section 1782? 321
i.Is the Person from Whom Discovery Is Sought a Participant in the Foreign Proceeding? 322
ii.Comity Considerations 323
iii.Is the Applicant's Discovery Request under Section 1782(a) an Attempt to Circumvent Foreign Proof-Gathering Restrictions or Other Policies of a Foreign Country or the United States? 324
iv.Is the Discovery Request Unduly Intrusive or Burdensome? 325
Ⅲ.When Can Private Litigants in the US Seek Discovery Abroad? 326
A.Does the US Court Have the Statutory Authority to Order the Requested Discovery? 326
i.Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Versus the Hague Convention 327
ii.Personal Jurisdiction 328
iii.US Court's Subpoena Power 329
iv.Seeking Discovery from Multi-National Corporations Operating Through Subsidiaries in Various Countries 329
B.Should the US Court Exercise Its Discretionary Authority to Compel Production? 331
i.EC's Leniency Program 331
ii.Blocking Statutes 333
Ⅳ.Friction from US Discovery 336
A.Criticisms about the United States' Liberal Discovery Mechanisms for Foreign Litigants 338
B.Policy Proposals 341
Ⅴ.Conclusion 342
Ⅱ.2.COORDINATION WITHIN THE EUROPEAN COMPETITION NETWORK 343
15.The ECN and Coordination of Public Enforcement of EU Law - Can Lessons Be Learned from International Private Law Jurisdiction Rules and Vice Versa?&BARRY J RODGER 345
Ⅰ.Introduction 345
Ⅱ.Regulation 1/2003 and the Functioning of the ECN 346
A.The nature of the ECN 346
B.ECN Functioning 346
Ⅲ.ECN 'Case Allocation' 348
A.The Network Notice 348
B.2009 Commission Report on Regulation 1/2003 350
C.Procedures, Sanctions and Inconsistent Outcomes: Divergence and Convergence 351
Ⅳ.Leniency and Concurrency 354
Ⅴ.International Private Law and Conflicts of Jurisdiction 356
A.Introduction 356
B.Lis Alibi Pendens - First Come First Served 357
C.Forum Non Conveniens 358
Ⅵ.Concluding Remarks 360
A.Lessons from the US? 360
B.The Private and Public Enforcement Context Compared 360
C.Case Allocation Methods Compared 361
D.Mutual Lessons? 362
E.Future Issues in Case Allocation 363
16.Regulation 1/2003 (and Beyond): Balancing Effective Enforcement and Due Process in Cross-Border Antitrust Investigations&DAMIEN MB GERARD 365
Ⅰ.Introduction 365
Ⅱ.Issues and Approaches 366
A.Coordination Issues: Dealing with Diversity and Uncertainty 367
i.Diversity 368
ii.Uncertainty 370
B.Approaches: Managing Diversity to Ensure Legal Certainty 373
i.Conflictualist Approach 373
ii.Cumulative Approach 376
a.The Position of Individuals in Cross-Border Investigations 376
b.The Kerosene Case 379
c.The European Courts and Evidence Obtained from Third Countries 380
iii.Recognition Approach 381
a.Recital 16 in the Broader Context of Enforcement Cooperation 382
b.Recital 16 in the Broader Context of the European Integration Process 386
Ⅲ.Solution and Recommendations 387
A.Solution: Successive Application of the Lex Fori Mitigated by the Convergence between National Procedural Enforcement Frameworks 387
i.Control of Legality 388
ii.Control of Admissibility 389
B.Recommendations: Enhance Legal Certainty to Ensure a Proper Balance between Effective Enforcement and Due Process 390
Ⅳ.Concluding Remarks 391
17.Recognition of Foreign Decisions within the European Competition Network&JURGEN BASEDOW 393
Ⅰ.Introduction: Integration Policy and Recognition 393
Ⅱ.The Recognition of an NCA Decision by the NCA of another Member State 395
Ⅲ.The Recognition of an NCA Decision in Civil Proceedings of another Member State 396
Ⅳ.The Recognition of Civil Judgments by a Civil Court of a Foreign Member State 398
Ⅴ.The Recognition of Civil Judgments by an NCA of a Foreign Member State 399
Ⅵ.The Effect of Recognition 400
Ⅶ.Conclusion 402
Policy Proposals 403
How to apply Articles 5(1) and 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation to Private Enforcement of Competition Law: a Coherent Approach&BLANCA VILA COSTA 405
International Cartels and the Place of Acting under Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation&JURGEN BASEDOW 407
Jurisdiction Issues: Brussels I Regulation Articles 6(1), 23, 27 and 28 in Antitrust Litigation&MICHAEL WILDERSPIN 409
Rome I and Antitrust Litigation&MARC FALLON ＆ STEPHANIE FRANCQ 413
Rome II and Antitrust Litigation&STEPHANIE FRANCQ ＆ WOLFGANG WURMNEST 415
Relevance of the Distinction between the Contractual and Non-Contractual Spheres (Jurisdiction and Applicable Law)&SYLVAINE POILLOT-PERUZZETTO ＆ DOMINIKA LAWNICKA 419
International Litigation and Competition Law: the Case of Collective Redress&DIMITRIOS-PANAGIOTIS L TZAKAS 421
Arbitration and EU Competition Law&ASSIMAKIS P KOMNINOS 425
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments&CATHERINE KESSEDJIAN 427
Access to Evidence and Files of Competition Authorities&LAURENCE I DOT 429
Exchange of Information and Opinions between European Competition Authorities and Courts - From a Swedish Perspective&ROBERT MOLDEN 433
The ECN and Coordination of Public Enforcement of EU Law - Can Lessons Be Learned from International Private Law Jurisdiction Rules and Vice-Versa?&BARRY J RODGER 435
Regulation 1/2003 (and Beyond): Balancing Effective Enforcement and Due Process in Cross-Border Antitrust Investigations&DAMIEN MB GERARD 437
Recognition of Foreign Decisions within the European Competition Network&JURGEN BASEDOW 439
Index 441