| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 600.63 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
O desenvolvimento da aplicação privada do Direito da Concorrência na União Europeia deu resultado a várias tensões com a aplicação pública, de onde se destaca a tensão entre o private enforcement e o Regime de Clemência. Ora, a proibição, ou por outro lado, a necessidade de divulgação das declarações de clemência aos lesados por comportamentos anticoncorrenciais tem sido uma matéria amplamente discutida ao longo dos anos da evolução do private enforcement, tanto na jurisprudência como na doutrina, tendo como último desenvolvimento a proibição de divulgação instaurada pela Diretiva 2014/104/UE. A presente dissertação ambiciona discorrer e esclarecer alguns dos pontos mais críticos desta tensão, recorrendo para isso a uma descrição sintetizada do Regime de Clemência e do private enforcement para depois contrapor as várias teorias apresentadas pela doutrina para a resolução deste problema, culminando com a apreciação da atual solução legislativa. Neste sentido, resulta desta investigação a convicção pessoal de que as medidas implementadas pela Diretiva são as que melhor se coadunam com o objetivo de um Direito de Concorrência com uma aplicação complementar dos dois braços de enforcement, em detrimento de outras soluções apresentadas que, pelo facto de prejudicarem em demasia a aplicação pública, de não se poderem efetivar na União Europeia, ou por serem contrárias a normas fundamentais, levariam a situações prejudiciais ou contrárias ao Direito da União Europeia.
The development of Private Enforcement in the European’s Competition Law resulted in numerous tensions with Public Enforcement, from which is highlighted the tension between Private Enforcement and Leniency. Thus, the prohibition, or in contrast the necessity of the divulgation of leniency statements to third parties that have suffered damages from anticompetitive behaviours has been a wildly discussed matter in European case law and by numerous authors over the years of the development of Private Enforcement, with its last development being the prohibition implemented by the Directive 2014/104/EU. The present thesis aims at analysing and clarifying some of the most critical points of this tension, by resorting to a synthetized discretion of Leniency and Private Enforcement, followed by an opposition of the various theories put forward to resolve this problem, culminating with an appreciation of the actual legislative solution. In this regard, it results from this investigation the personal conviction that the measures implemented by the Directive are the most capable in obtaining the objective of a Competition Law with a complementary application of the “both arms” of enforcement, to the detriment of the other solutions put forward that would lead to prejudicial or unlawful situations, because they either take a heavy toll on Public Enforcement, cannot be implemented in the EU, or are contrary to fundamental regulations of the European Law.
The development of Private Enforcement in the European’s Competition Law resulted in numerous tensions with Public Enforcement, from which is highlighted the tension between Private Enforcement and Leniency. Thus, the prohibition, or in contrast the necessity of the divulgation of leniency statements to third parties that have suffered damages from anticompetitive behaviours has been a wildly discussed matter in European case law and by numerous authors over the years of the development of Private Enforcement, with its last development being the prohibition implemented by the Directive 2014/104/EU. The present thesis aims at analysing and clarifying some of the most critical points of this tension, by resorting to a synthetized discretion of Leniency and Private Enforcement, followed by an opposition of the various theories put forward to resolve this problem, culminating with an appreciation of the actual legislative solution. In this regard, it results from this investigation the personal conviction that the measures implemented by the Directive are the most capable in obtaining the objective of a Competition Law with a complementary application of the “both arms” of enforcement, to the detriment of the other solutions put forward that would lead to prejudicial or unlawful situations, because they either take a heavy toll on Public Enforcement, cannot be implemented in the EU, or are contrary to fundamental regulations of the European Law.
Description
Keywords
Direito da concorrência Programa de clemência Acesso a documentos relativos a um programa de clemência Lesados Pfleiderer Diretiva 2014/104/UE ou diretiva dos danos Aplicação pública do direito da concorrência Aplicação privada do direito da concorrência Competition law Leniency Disclosure of leniency related documents Victims Directive 2014/104/EU Damages directive Public enforcement Private enforcement