1. Competition law enforcement from private undertakings’ perspective Risto Rüütel Glikman & Partnerid

2. Competition Authority
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

3. Increase of criminal cases
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)

4. Lack of information on competition law
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

5. 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

6. National leniency program
Coming soon but with which results?
Problems with transparency and certainty?
Co-operation issues between the Prosecutor’s Office and the Competition Authority

7. Faster proceedings Quick solution Minimum harm
Less risk of unrepairable damage to competition
Risk of losing interest over proceedings

8. Private enforcement (actions for damages)
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

9. Private enforcement (actions for damages)
Burden of proof on plaintiff
Decision of the Competition Authority as an overwhelming evidence
Participation in the proceedings

10. Advokaadibüroo Glikman & Partnerid
Thank you!
Risto Rüütel
Attorney at law
Advokaadibüroo Glikman & Partnerid P F