Competition law enforcement from private undertakings’ perspective Risto Rüütel Glikman & Partnerid
Established 15 years ago as the Competition Board Since 1 Jan 2008 united with former regulators into single competition law enforcing authority Lately under constant attention from the press Competition Authority
Historical cartels Results of difficult economic situation Law is being changed (lately this Summer) in regards to persons liable for crimes (incl, competition-related crimes) Increase of criminal cases
Lawyers cannot do all the work, help from the Competition Authority is needed – information, training etc Competition Authority’s web-page needs more content: –Better document register to find information on the state of proceedings –Guidance letters and recommendations –Comments on competition law Lack of information on competition law
Increase of caseload calls for increase of efficiency –Problems with economy makes it harder to compete and survive on the market –Undertakings are more informed and willing to complain –End of parallel competences –More attention needed to effect on trade between member states Increase of caseload
Coming soon but with which results? Problems with transparency and certainty? Co-operation issues between the Prosecutor’s Office and the Competition Authority National leniency program
Quick solution Minimum harm Less risk of unrepairable damage to competition Risk of losing interest over proceedings Faster proceedings
Just as important as public enforcement Several means to achieve the same result Support needed (economic analyses etc) from the Competition Authority: –Establishing an abuse –Establishing a dominant position –Calculation of damages Private enforcement (actions for damages)
Private enforcement (actions for damages) Burden of proof on plaintiff Decision of the Competition Authority as an overwhelming evidence Participation in the proceedings Private enforcement (actions for damages)
Thank you! Risto Rüütel Attorney at law Advokaadibüroo Glikman & Partnerid P F