Bibliography

Katarzyna Sadrak

doi:10.1017/9781108989794.010

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2022

Katarzyna Sadrak

Show author details

Katarzyna Sadrak: Affiliation:
Geradin Partners (Brussels)

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: Joint and Several Liability in EU Competition Law , pp. 233 - 256

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108989794.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aberle, Lukas, Sanktionsdurchgriff und wirtschaftliche Einheit im deutschen und europäischen Kartellrecht (Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2013)Google Scholar

Acton, Michael, ‘Pirelli Challenges Cable Cartel Liability at EU’s Top Court’ (6 November 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1140994&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

Ahrens, Börries, ‘Gemeinschaftsunternehmen als wirtschaftliche Einheit’ (2013) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 899, available at https://beck-online.beck.de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Feuzw%2F2013%2Fcont%2Feuzw.2013.899.1.htm&anchor=Y-300-Z-EUZW-B-2013-S-899-N-1 Google Scholar

Andreu, Lionel, La réforme du régime général des obligations (Paris: Dalloz, 2011)Google Scholar

Angland, Joseph, ‘Joint and Several Liability, Contribution, and Claim Reduction’ (2008), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1528007 Google Scholar

Antitrust Modernization Commission, ‘Report and Recommendations’ (2007), available at https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/report_recommendation/amc_final_report.pdf Google Scholar

Antoszek, Tomasz, ‘Art. 441’ in Gutowski, Maciej (ed.), Duże Komentarze Becka. Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 2 vols. (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2016), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Ashurst, ‘Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in Case of Infringement of EC Competition Rules’ (2004), available at https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/comparative_report_clean_en.pdf Google Scholar

Bailey, David, ‘United Kingdom’ in Këllezi, Pranvera, Kilpatrick, Bruce and Kobel, Pierre (eds.), Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-competitors (Berlin: Springer, 2014)Google Scholar

Bailey, David and John, Laura Elizabeth, Bellamy and Child: European Union Law of Competition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)Google Scholar

Baker, John, ‘The Use of Assumpsit for Restitutionary Money Claims 1600–1800’ in Schrage, Eltjo J. H. (ed.), Unjust Enrichment: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1999)Google Scholar

Baker, Lynn A., ‘Mass Torts and the Pursuit of Ethical Finality’ (2017) 85(5) Fordham Law Review, 2, 1943Google Scholar

von Bar, Christian and Clive, Eric M. (eds.), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) (München and Oxford: Sellier European Law Publishers and Oxford University Press, 2009/2010)Google Scholar

von Bar, Christian and Clive, Eric M. (eds.), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). Full Edition, 6 vols. (München: Sellier European Law Publishers, 2009), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Barbier de La Serre, Éric and Lagathu, Eileen, ‘The Law on Fines Imposed in EU Competition Proceedings: On the Road to Consistency’ (2014) 5 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 6, 400Google Scholar

Barennes, Marc, ‘The Role of the Settlement Procedure and Leniency Programme in the European Commission’s Fight against Cartels’ in Tomljenović, Vesna, Bodiroga-Vukobrat, Nada, Malnar, Vlatka Butorac and Kunda, Ivana (eds.), EU Competition and State Aid Rules. Europeanization and Globalization (Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, 2017)Google Scholar

Bargren, Paul, ‘Joint and Several Liability: Protection for Plaintiffs’ (1994) Wisconsin Law Review, 453Google Scholar

Barker, Kit and Steele, Jenny, ‘Drifting towards Proportionate Liability: Ethics and Pragmatics’ (2015) 74 Cambridge Law Journal, 1, 49Google Scholar

Barros, Pedro Pita, ‘The Simple Economics of Risk-Sharing Agreements between the NHS and the Pharmaceutical Industry’ (2011) 20 Health Economics, 4, 461CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bauer, Günter and Reisner, Nina, ‘Erweiterte Zurechnung des Verhaltens Dritter bei der Festsetzung von Geldbußen im EG-Kartellrecht?’ (2007) 8 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 737Google Scholar

Baxter, William F., ‘Antitrust Damage Allocation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1983), House of Representatives 118, available at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754077953184&view=1up&seq=3 Google Scholar

Baxter, William F., ‘The Antitrust Equal Enforcement Act. Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1982), House of Representatives J-97-15, available at: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/10/07/hear-3359-1959.pdf Google Scholar

Bentele, Florian, Gesamtschuld und Erlass (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006)Google Scholar

Bieber, Tobias, Die gesamtschuldnerische Haftung für die Zahlung von Kartellbußen im EU-Recht (Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2014)Google Scholar

Bien, Florian, ‘Überlegungen zu einer haftungsrechtlichen Privilegierung des Kartellkronzeugen’ (2011) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 889Google Scholar

Bieniek, Gerard, ‘Art. 415’ in Gerard, Bieniek, Helena, Ciepła, Stanisław, Dmowski, et al. (eds.), Komentarz do kodeksu cywilnego. Zobowiązania, 4 vols. (Warszawa: LexisNexis, 2011), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar

Bieniek, Gerard, ‘Art. 441’ in Gerard, Bieniek, Helena, Ciepła, Stanisław, Dmowski, et al. (eds.), Komentarz do kodeksu cywilnego. Zobowiązania, 4 vols. (Warszawa: LexisNexis, 2011), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar

Bieniek, Gerard, ‘Pojęcie regresu w prawie cywilnym’ (1972) 6 Nowe Prawo, 889Google Scholar

Bieniek, Gerard, ‘Solidarność; Regres’ in Gudowski, Jacek (ed.), Komentarz do art. 441 Kodeksu cywilnego (2013) LEXGoogle Scholar

Blair, Roger D. and Durrance, Christine Piette, ‘Umbrella Damages: Towards a Coherent Antitrust Policy’ (2018) 36 Contemporary Economic Policy, 2, 241Google Scholar

Blair, Roger D. and Sokol, D. Daniel (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Blöcker, Morten, Die tätige Reue (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2000)Google Scholar

Blum, Ulrich, Steinat, Nicole and Veltins, Michael, ‘On the Rationale of Leniency Programs: A Game-Theoretical Analysis’ (2008) 25 European Journal of Law and Economics, 209Google Scholar

Bodenstein, Ines, ‘Zurück zum bewährten Grundsatz: Wer handelt, haftet. Wegweisende Klärung zum Gesamtschuldnerausgleich bei Kartellgeldbußen durch den BGH in Sachen Calciumcarbid’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 141Google Scholar

Böhlke, Alexander, ‘Die gesamtschuldnerische Verantwortlichkeit im EU-Wettbewerbsrecht’ (2011) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 781Google Scholar

Bonnecase, Julien, La notion juridique de bonnes mœurs (Paris: Études Capitant, 1939)Google Scholar

Boré, Jacques, ‘La causalité partielle en noir et blanc ou les deux visages de l’obligation “in solidum”’ (1971) 1 La Semaine Juridique, 2369Google Scholar

Boré, Jacques, ‘Le recours entre coobligés in solidum’ (1967) 1 La Semaine Juridique, 2126Google Scholar

Born, Gary B., International Arbitration: Law and Practice (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2012)Google Scholar

Bosch, Wolfgang, ‘Haftung für kartellrechtswidriges Handeln der Tochtergesellschaft – Neue Rechtslage nach dem Urteil in der Rechtssache Elf Aquitaine/Kommission?’ (2012) 3 Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht, 368Google Scholar

Bosch, Wolfgang, ‘Verantwortung der Konzernobergesellschaft im Kartellrecht’ (2013) 277 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 454Google Scholar

Böttcher, Lars, ‘§ 421 BGB’ in Westermann, Harm-Peter, Grunewald, Barbara and Maier-Reimer, Georg (eds.), Erman Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Köln: OVS Verlag Dr. Otto Walter Schmidt, 2011)Google Scholar

Böttcher, Lars, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Westermann, Harm-Peter, Grunewald, Barbara and Maier-Reimer, Georg (eds.), Erman Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Köln: OVS Verlag Dr. Otto Walter Schmidt, 2011)Google Scholar

Boudou, Mathilde, Charvoz, Laurence, de la Laurencie, Jean-Patrice, Sautel, Olivier and Sélinsky, Véronique, ‘France’ in Këllezi, Pranvera, Kilpatrick, Bruce and Kobel, Pierre (eds.), Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors (Berlin: Springer, 2014)Google Scholar

Bougerol, Laetitia, ‘La réforme de la solidarité passive, illusions perdues et incertitudes’ (2016) 2 Revue de Droit bancaire et financier, 9Google Scholar

Bovis, Christopher H. and Clarke, Charles M., ‘Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law’ (2015) 36 Liverpool Law Review, 49CrossRef Google Scholar

Boyce, Andrew, ‘Truck Makers and AkzoNobel, Unilever, Others Dispute Damage Claim Time-frame in Dutch Court’ (13 March 2020), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1170341&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

Braun, Dominik, Das Konzept der gesamtschuldnerischen Verantwortlichkeit von Konzerngesellschaften im europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2018)Google Scholar

Braun, Dominik and Kellerbauer, Manuel, ‘Das Konzept der gesamtschuldnerischen Verantwortlichkeit von Konzerngesellschaften bei Zuwiderhandlungen gegen das EU-Wettbewerbsrecht – Teil 1’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 175Google Scholar

Braun, Dominik and Kellerbauer, Manuel, ‘Das Konzept der gesamtschuldnerischen Verantwortlichkeit von Konzerngesellschaften bei Zuwiderhandlungen gegen das EU-Wettbewerbsrecht – Teil 2’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 211Google Scholar

Bredenoord-Spoek, Marieke and Wesseling, Rein, ‘Forum Shopping on the Dutch High Street. Jurisdiction Issues in Follow-on Litigation Cases’, available at https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/7171252/Paper_Wesseling_Bredenoord_Spoek_IBA_Competition_Law_Conference_Floren…pdf Google Scholar

Breit, William and Elzinga, Kenneth G., ‘Antitrust Penalties and Attitudes towards Risk: An Economic Analysis’ (1973) 86 Harvard Law Review, 4, 693Google Scholar

Bréna, Stéphane, Les recours en contribution (Montpellier: Université Montpellier 1, 2005)Google Scholar

Brenner, Steffen, ‘An Empirical Study of the European Corporate Leniency Program’ (2009) 27 International Journal of Industrial Organization, 6, 639Google Scholar

Brettel, Hauke and Thomas, Stefan, ‘Unternehmensbußgeld, Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz und Schuldprinzip im novellierten deutschen Kartellrecht’ (2009) 1 Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht, 25CrossRef Google Scholar

Bronckers, Marco and Vallery, Anne, ‘No Longer Presumed Guilty? The Impact of Fundamental Rights on Certain Dogmas of EU Competition Law’ (2011) 34 World Competition, 4, 535Google Scholar

Bronett, Georg-Klaus de, ‘Gesamtschuldnerische Geldbußen nach EU-Kartellrecht für Personen, die wettbewerbswidrig handelnden “wirtschaftlichen Einheiten” angehören’ (2015) 3 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 123Google Scholar

Bronett, Georg-Klaus de, ‘“Unternehmen” als Wiederholungstäter im EU-Kartellrecht vor und nach der Akzo Nobel-Rechtsprechung des EuGH zum Unternehmensbegriff’ (2014) 6 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 313Google Scholar

Broulík, Jan, ‘Two Contexts for Economics in Competition Law. Deterrence Effects and Competitive Effects’ (2018) 17 TILEC Discussion Paper, 1Google Scholar

Brown, Adrian and Schonberg, Morris, ‘Widening the Net: The General Court Extends the Principle of Successor Liability in EU Competition Law’ (2013) 34(1) European Competition Law Review, 1Google Scholar

Buccirossi, Paolo, Ciari, Lorenzo, Duso, Tomaso, Spagnolo, Giancarlo and Vitale, Cristiana, ‘Deterrence in Competition Law’ (2009) 285 GESY Discussion Paper, 1Google Scholar

Buccirossi, Paolo, Marvão, Catarina M. P. and Spagnolo, Giancarlo, ‘Leniency and Damages’ (2015) 32 Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics Working Paper, 1Google Scholar

Buczkowski, Stefan, ‘Z zagadnień regresu’ (1952) 1 Przegląd Ustawodawstwa Gospodarczego, 43, 444Google Scholar

Bundeskartellamt, ‘Bericht über die Tätigkeit in den Jahren 2003/2004’, BT-Drs. 15/5790, 110Google Scholar

Buntscheck, Martin, ‘Die gesetzliche Kappungsgrenze für Kartellgeldbußen. Bedeutung und Auslegung im Lichte der neuen Bußgeld-Leitlinien von Kommission und Bundeskartellamt’ (2007) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 423Google Scholar

Bürger, Christian, ‘Die Haftung der Konzernmutter für Kartellrechtsverstöße ihrer Tochter nach deutschem Recht’ (2011) 1 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 130Google Scholar

Bürger, Christian, ‘Unternehmensinterne Aufteilung einer Geldbuße der Kommission’ (2015) Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 348Google Scholar

Buts, Caroline and Vanhaverbeke, Lynn, ‘A Quantitative Analysis of the Efficiency of the EU’s Leniency Policy’ (2020) 1 European Competition and Regulatory Law Review (CoRe), 12Google Scholar

Bydlinski, Peter, ‘§ 421 BGB’ in Krüger, Wolfgang (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil, 14 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2012), vol. IIGoogle Scholar

Bydlinski, Peter, ‘§ 423 BGB’ in Krüger, Wolfgang (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil, 14 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2012), vol. IIGoogle Scholar

Bydlinski, Peter, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Krüger, Wolfgang (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil, 14 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2012), vol. IIGoogle Scholar

Cabrillac, Rémy, Droit des obligations (Paris: Dalloz, 2016)Google Scholar

von Caemmerer, Ernst, (1968) 9 Zeitschrift für Europarecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung 81Google Scholar

Cain, Oliver, and Carr, Danielle, ‘Litigation and Enforcement in the UK (England and Wales): Overview’ (2018), available at https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-502-0631?transitionType=DefaultandcontextData=(sc.Default)Google Scholar

Canenbley, Cornelis and Steinvorth, Till, ‘Effective Enforcement of Competition Law: Is There a Solution to the Conflict between Leniency Programmes and Private Damages Actions?’ (2011) 2 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 4, 315Google Scholar

Canin, Patrick, Les actions récursoires entre coresponsables (Paris: Litec, 1996)Google Scholar

Cannon, W. Stephen, ‘The Administration’s Antitrust Remedies Reform Proposal: Its Derivation and Implications’ (1986) 55 Antitrust Law Journal, 1, 103Google Scholar

Carbonnier, Jean, Droit civil. Les obligations, 4 vols. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992), vol. IVGoogle Scholar

Cartel Damages Claims, ‘CDC’s Claims against Kemira Aren’t Time-barred, Dutch Court Rules’ (4 February 2020), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1160399&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar

Catala, Pierre, Avant-projet de réforme du droit des obligations et de la prescription (Paris: La Documentation française, 2006)Google Scholar

Cauffman, Caroline, ‘The Interaction of Leniency Programmes and Actions for Damages’ (2011) 34 Maastricht European Private Law Institute Working Paper, 181Google Scholar

Cavanagh, Edward D., ‘Contribution, Claim Reduction, and Individual Treble Damage Responsibility: Which Path to Reform of Antitrust Remedies?’ (1987) 40 Vanderbilt Law Review, 1277Google Scholar

Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), ‘Making Antitrust Damages Actions More Effective in the EU: Welfare Impact and Potential Scenarios’ (2007), available at https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/files_white_paper/impact_study.pdf Google Scholar

Chabas, François, L’influence de la pluralité de causes sur le droit à réparation (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1967)Google Scholar

Chabas, François, ‘Remarque sur l’obligation in solidum’ (1967) 1 Revue trimestrielle de droit civil, 310Google Scholar

Chang, Howard F. and Sigman, Hilary A., ‘Incentives to Settle under Joint and Several Liability: An Empirical Analysis of Superfund Litigation’ (2000) 29 The Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 205CrossRef Google Scholar

Chantepie, Gaël and Latina, Mathias, La réforme du droit des obligations. Commentaire théorique et pratique dans l’ordre du Code civil (Paris: Dalloz, 2016)Google Scholar

Chatterjee, Charles and Lefcovitch, Anna, Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Practical Guide (London and New York: Routledge, 2008)Google Scholar

Chen, Zhijun and Rey, Patrick, ‘On the Design of Leniency Programs’ (2013) 56 The Journal of Law and Economics, 4, 917Google Scholar

Chénedé, François, Le nouveau droit des contrats et des obligations (Paris: Dalloz, 2016)Google Scholar

Claudel, Emmanuelle, ‘L’essor des sanctions en droit de la concurrence. Quelle efficacité ? Quelles garanties ?’ (2014) 6 Contrats Concurrence Consommation, 13, 6Google Scholar

Cochet, Dorothée, ‘La contribution à la dette des coobligés in solidum’ (2004) 118 Petites affiches, 3Google Scholar

Competition Appeal Tribunal, ‘JPMorgan, UBS, Barclays, Others Face Fresh Forex-rigging Lawsuit in UK, Court Filing Confirms’ (20 December 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1152433&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

Competition Appeal Tribunal, ‘Prysmian Settles with Scottish Power, Other Suppliers in UK Cable-cartel Lawsuit’ (30 July 2020), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1213902&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

Corgas-Bernard, Cristina, ‘La pluralité de responsables en droit français et dans d’autres ordres juridiques nationaux’ in G.R.E.R.C.A. (ed.), Le droit français de la responsabilité civile confronté aux projets européens d’harmonisation (Paris: Irjs editions, 2012)Google Scholar

Craig, Paul P., EU Administrative Law (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Craig, Paul P., ‘Subsidiarity: A Political and Legal Analysis’ (2012) 50 Journal of Common Market Studies, 1, 72Google Scholar

Crane, Daniel A., ‘Optimizing Private Antitrust Enforcement’ (2010) 63 Vanderbilt Law Review, 2, 675Google Scholar

Curry, Raper Kellie, Love, H. Alan and Shumway, C. Richard, ‘Distinguishing the Source of Market Power’ (2007) 89 American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1, 78Google Scholar

Czachórski, Witold, ‘Uwagi o rażącym niedbalstwie’ in Błeszyński, Jan (ed.), Witold Czachórski. Wybór prac (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2015)Google Scholar

Dąbrowa, Janina, Wina jako przesłanka odpowiedzialności cywilnej (Wrocław: Wrocławskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1968)Google Scholar

Danov, Mihail and Becker, Florian, ‘Governance Aspects of Cross-Border EU Competition Actions: Theoretical and Practical Challenges’ (2014) 10 Journal of Private International Law, 3, 359Google Scholar

Danov, Mihail, Becker, Florian and Beaumont, Paul, Cross-border EU Competition Law Actions (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2013)Google Scholar

Davidow, Joel, ‘Recent Developments in US Antitrust’ (2005) 28 World Competition, 3, 299Google Scholar

Davis, William Bruce, ‘Multiple Defendant Settlement in 10b-5: Good Faith Contribution Bar’ (1989) 40 Hastings Law Journal, 1253Google Scholar

Debroux, Michel, ‘Sanctioning Cartels under EC Law: Definition and Consequences of Group Liability’ (2008) 1 Concurrences, 42Google Scholar

Decocq, Georges, ‘D’utiles précisions sur le régime de la solidarité pour le paiement d’une amende’ (2014) 7 Contrat Concurrence Consommation, 165Google Scholar

Deguergue, Maryse, ‘Causalité et imputabilité’ (2013) 370–360 JurisClasseur Responsabilité civile et AssurancesGoogle Scholar

Dejean de la Bâtie, Noël, ‘Responsabilité délictuelle. Tome VI-2’ in Ponsard, André and Fadlallah, Ibrahim (eds.), Aubry et Rau, Droit Civil Français (Paris: Librairies Techinques, 1989)Google Scholar

Dekeyser, Kris and Roques, Christian, ‘The European Commission’s Settlement Procedure in Cartel Cases’ (2010) 55 The Antitrust Bulletin, 4, 819Google Scholar

Department for Business Innovation and Skills, ‘Consultation: Implementing the EU Directive on Damages for Breaches of Competition Law’ (January, 2016), available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/495757/BIS-16-6-consultation-implementing-the-EU-directive-on-damages-for-breaches-of-competition-law.pdf Google Scholar

Deutsche, Bahn, ‘Deutsche Bahn Settles Damages Litigation with Lufthansa’ (26 August 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1123288&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

Diamond, Peter A., ‘Single Activity Accidents’ (1974) 3(1)The Journal of Legal Studies, 3Google Scholar

Dobbin, Robert F., ‘Settlement of Private Antitrust Litigation Including Class Type Actions and Multiple Defendant Lawsuits’ (1973) 34 Ohio State Law Journal, 513Google Scholar

Dohrn, Daniel, Die Bindungswirkung kartellrechtlicher Entscheidungen der Kommission sowie deutscher und mitgliedsstaatlicher Kartellbehörden und Gerichte im deutschen Zivilprozess (Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2010)Google Scholar

Domke, Martin, Domke on Commercial Arbitration (Eagan: West Group, 1984)Google Scholar

Dopuch, Nicholas, Ingberman, Daniel E. and King, Ronald R., ‘An Experimental Investigation of Multi-defendant Bargaining in “joint and several” and Proportionate Liability Regimes’ (1997) 23 Journal of Accounting and Economics, 189Google Scholar

Dougan, Michael, National Remedies Before the Court of Justice. Issues of Harmonisation and Differentiation (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar

Dreher, Meinrad, ‘Die Haftungsverteilung bei der gesamtschuldnerischen kartellrechtlichen Schadenersatzhaftung’ in Bechtold, Stefan, Jickeli, Joachim and Rohe, Mathias (eds.), Recht, Ordnung Und Wettbewerb: Festschrift Zum 70. Geburtstag Von Wernhard Möschel (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2011)Google Scholar

Dreher, Meinrad, ‘Zum Ausgleich zwischen den Gesamtschuldnern (innerhalb eines Konzerns) einer Kartell-Geldbuße (“Calciumcarbid-Kartell II”)’ (2015) 7 Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht, 231Google Scholar

Dreher, Meinrad and Körner, Julia, ‘Germany’ in Këllezi, Pranvera, Kilpatrick, Bruce and Kobel, Pierre (eds.), Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors (Berlin: Springer, 2014)Google Scholar

du Chambon, Patrick Maistre, ‘Régime de la réparation. Action en réparation. Parties à l’instance’ (2016) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 220Google Scholar

Dubis, Wojciech in Gniewek, Edward and Machnikowski, Piotr (eds.), Komentarze Kodeksowe. Kodeks Cywilny. Komentarz (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2014)Google Scholar

Dugdale, Anthony M., ‘The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978’ (1979) 42 The Modern Law Review, 2, 182Google Scholar

Dunleavy, Nathy, ‘Contribution among Antitrust Defendants in English Law’ (2009) 30 European Competition Law Review, 1, 22Google Scholar

Dunne, Niamh, ‘Competition Law and Policy after Brexit’ (2017) 24 LSE Law Policy Briefing Series, Brexit Special 4, 2Google Scholar

Dunne, Niamh, ‘The Role of Private Enforcement within EU Competition Law’ (2014) 16 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 143Google Scholar

Dunz, Walter, ‘Abwägungskriterien bei der Schadensausgleichung’ (1964) 46 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 2133Google Scholar

Durner, Wolfgang, ‘Die Unabhängigkeit nationaler Richter im Binnenmarkt – Zu den Loyalitätspflichten nationaler Gerichte gegenüber der EG-Kommission, insbesondere auf dem Gebiet des Kartellrechts’ (2004) 4 Zeitschrift Europarecht, 547Google Scholar

Dybowski, Tomasz in Radwański, Zbigniew (ed.), System Prawa Prywatnego. Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna, 21 vols. (Warszawa: C.H. Beck and Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2002), vol. IIGoogle Scholar

Dzikiewicz, Lech, ‘O pojęciu winy i jej trzech odmianach’ (1977) IV Państwo i Prawo, 87Google Scholar

Easterbrook, Frank H., ‘The Antitrust Equal Enforcement Act. Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1982), House of Representatives J-97-15, available at: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/10/07/hear-3359-1959.pdf Google Scholar

Easterbrook, Frank H., Landes, William M. and Richard, A. Posner, ‘Contribution among Antitrust Defendants: A Legal and Economic Analysis’ (1980) 23 The Journal of Law and Economics, 2, 331Google Scholar

Ebert, Ina, Pönale Elemente im deutschen Privatrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004)Google Scholar

Eckert, Jörn, ‘Sittenwidrigkeit und Wertungswandel’ (1999) 199 Archiv für die civilistische Praxis, 3, 337Google Scholar

Ehmann, Horst, Die Gesamtschuld (Heidelberg: Inaugural-Dissertation, 1971)Google Scholar

Eilmansberger, Thomas, ‘The Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules and Beyond: Reflections on the Utility and Feasibility of Stimulating Private Enforcement through Legislative Action’ (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review, 431Google Scholar

Elzinga, Kenneth G., ‘The Goals of Antitrust: Other than Competition and Efficiency, What Else?’ (1977) 125 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1191Google Scholar

Emiliou, Nicholas, The Principle of Proportionality in European Law: A Comparative Study (London and Cambridge, MA: Kluwer Law International, 1996)Google Scholar

Enneccerus, Ludwig and Lehmann, Heinrich, Recht der Schuldverhältnisse (Tübingen: Mohr, 1958)Google Scholar

European Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Fines Google €4.34 billion for Illegal Practices Regarding Android Mobile Devices to Strengthen Dominance of Google’s Search Engine’ (18 July 2018) IP/18/4581Google Scholar

European Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Fines Scania €880 million for Participating in Trucks Cartel’ (27 September 2017) IP/17/3502Google Scholar

European Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Fines Truck Producers € 2.93 billion for Participating in a Cartel’ (19 July 2016) IP/16/2582Google Scholar

European Group on Tort Law, Principles of European Tort Law: Text and Commentary (Wien and New York: Springer, 2005)Google Scholar

Fabian, Claus-Peter, Schädigermehrheit und Regreß im internationalen Umwelthaftungsrecht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des anglo-amerikanischen Rechts (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999)Google Scholar

Fasoula, Vasiliki, ‘Extending the Principle of Economic Continuity to Private Enforcement of Competition Law. What Lies Ahead for Corporate Restructuring and Civil Damages Proceedings after Skanska? Case Comment to the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 march 2019 Skanska Industrial Solutions and others (Case C-724/17)’ (2019) 20 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 259Google Scholar

Faure, Michael, ‘Economic Analysis of Fault’ in Widmer, Pierre (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar

Feltovich, Nick and Hamaguchi, Yasuyo, ‘The Effect of Whistle-Blowing Incentives on Collusion: An Experimental Study of Leniency Programs’ (2018) 84 Southern Economic Journal, 4, 1024Google Scholar

Feunten, Tristan, ‘Industry-wide Trucks Cartel Face Massive Legal Claim in UK Tribunal’ (30 July 2018), Weightmans, available at https://weightmans.com/media-centre/news/industry-wide-trucks-cartel-facing-massive-legal-claim-in-uk-tribunal/Google Scholar

Ford, Sarah, ‘Claims for Contribution in Competition Damages Actions: The Impact of the EU Damages Directive’ (2015) 36 European Competition Law Review, 8, 327Google Scholar

Frenz, Walter and Lülsdorf, Tanja, ‘Kontinuität und Zurechnung im Kartellrecht’ (2012) 12 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 504Google Scholar

Frese, Michael, Sanctions in EU Competition Law: Principles and Practice (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2014)Google Scholar

Fritzsche, Alexander, Klöpper, Carsten and Walter, Schmidt Miriam, ‘Die Praxis der privaten Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung in Deutschland – Teil 1: Aspekte des kartellrechtlichen Schadensersatzanspruchs’ (2016) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 412Google Scholar

Galand-Carval, Suzanne, ‘Fault under French Law’ in Widmer, Pierre (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar

Gamble, Rorger, ‘The Cartel Penumbra: Where Public and Private Enforcement Policies Intersect’ (2013) 42 Common Law World Review, 23Google Scholar

Gänswein, Olivier, ‘Gesamtschuldnerausgleich unter Kartellbeteiligten: Bestimmung des Haftungsanteils und Verjährung der Ausgleichsansprüche’ (2016) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 50Google Scholar

Garlicki, Stanisław, ‘Glosa do orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego z dn. 21.11.1967 r.’ (1969) 1 Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych, 342Google Scholar

Gebauer, Martin, ‘§ 423 BGB’ in Pfeiffer, Thomas (ed.), Soergel Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Schuldrecht, 3 vols. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar

Gebauer, Martin, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Pfeiffer, Thomas (ed.), Soergel Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Schuldrecht, 3 vols. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar

Gehrlein, Markus, ‘§ 421 BGB’ in Bamberger, Heinz Georg and Roth, Herbert (eds.), Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 3 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2012), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Gehrlein, Markus, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Bamberger, Heinz Georg and Roth, Herbert (eds.), Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 3 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2012), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Gelmini, Francesca, ‘Brexit: The Future of Private Antitrust Enforcement in the UK’ (20 December 2017), European Future, available at https://europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/brexit-the-future-of-private-antitrust-enforcement-in-the-uk/Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien, ‘Public Policy and Breach of Competition Law in International Arbitration: A Competition Law Practitioner’s Viewpoint’ (2016) 29 TILEC Discussion Paper, 1Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien and Grelier, Laurie-Anne, ‘Cartel Damages Claims in the European Union: Have We Only Seen the Tip of the Iceberg?’ in Charbit, Nicholas and Ramundo, Elisa (eds.), William E. Kovacic. An Antitrust Tribute. Liber Amicorum, 2 vols. (New York: Institute of Competition Law, 2014), vol. IIGoogle Scholar

Geradin, Damien and Sadrak, Katarzyna, ‘The EU Competition Law Fining System: A Quantitative Review of the Commission Decisions between 2000 and 2017’ in Charbit, Nicolas, Malhado, Carolina and Yang, Ellie (eds.), Douglas H. Ginsburg. An Antitrust Professor on the Bench. Liber Amicorum, 2 vols. (New York: Concurrences, 2018), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Geradin, Damien, Stephan, Andreas and Argenton, Cedric, EU Cartel Law and Economics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020)Google Scholar

Geulette, Alexandre, ‘La solidarité pour le paiement des amendes en droit de la concurrence de l’Union’ (2014) 2 Revues des Affaires européennes, 433Google Scholar

Ghodoosei, Farshad, ‘The Concept of Public Policy in Law: Revisiting the Role of the Public Policy Doctrine in the Enforcement of Private Legal Arrangements’ (2016) 94 Nebraska Law Review, 3, 685Google Scholar

Ginsburg, Douglas H., ‘Comparing Antitrust Enforcement in the United States and Europe’ (2005) 1 Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 3, 427Google Scholar

Ginsburg, Douglas H. and Wright, Joshua D., ‘Antitrust Sanctions’ (2010) 6 Competition Policy International, 2, 3Google Scholar

Glaßer, Heinrich, Der Gesamtschuldnerausgleich zwischen deliktisch haftenden Schuldnern (München: VVF, 1995)Google Scholar

Glöckner, Jochen, ‘Individualschutz und Funktionenschutz in der privaten Durchsetzung des Kartellrechts – Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel nicht; er bestimmt sie!’ (2007) 5 Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis, 490Google Scholar

Götte, Wulf, Gesamtschuldbegriff und Regressproblem (Bonn: Ludwig Rührscheid, 1974)Google Scholar

Gould, John P., ‘The Economics of Legal Conflicts’ (1973) 2 The Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 279Google Scholar

Grangeon, Julie, ‘La directive relative aux actions en réparation à la suite d’une pratique anticoncurrentielle: révolution ou évolution du private enforcement dans l’Union ?’ (2015) 101 Revue Lamy droit des affaires, 59Google Scholar

Grundmann, Stefan, ‘§ 276 BGB’ in Krüger, Wolfgang (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil I, 14 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2019), vol. IIGoogle Scholar

Grzybowski, Stefan, ‘Roszczenia zwrotne w prawie alimentacyjnym a problem nieprzenaszalności roszczeń alimentacyjnych’ (1956) 1 Nowe Prawo, 41Google Scholar

Guttso, Laura, ‘I’m an Immunity Applicant, Get Me Out of Here: Joint and Several Liability Revisited’ (2014) 7 Global Competition Litigation Review, 2, 94Google Scholar

Hamman, Hartmut, Das Unternehmen als Täter im europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht (Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus, 1992)Google Scholar

Harrington, Joseph E. Jr, ‘Optimal Corporate Leniency Programs’ (2008) 56 The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2, 215Google Scholar

Harrison, Farin, ‘The Practical Antitrust Implications of Tomorrow: Brexit Day’, (30 January 2020), Kluwer Competition Law, available at https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2020/01/30/the-practical-antitrust-implications-of-tomorrow-brexit-day/Google Scholar

Haus, Florian C., ‘Die Entscheidung des BGH im Fall Calciumcarbid – (nicht nur) Regeln für den Innenregress bei gesamtschuldnerischer Bußgeldhaftung’ (2015) Der Konzern, 114Google Scholar

Havu, Katri, ‘EU Law in Member State Courts: ‘Adequate Judicial Protection’ and Effective Application – Ambiguities and Nonsequiturs in Guidance by the Court of Justice?’ (2015) 8 Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 1, 158Google Scholar

Hawk, Barry E., Common Market and International Antitrust: A Comparative Guide (New York and Washington: Aspen Law and Business, 1990)Google Scholar

Hay, Bruce and Rosenberg, David, ‘“Sweetheart” and “Blackmail” Settlements in Class Actions: Reality and Remedy’ (2000) 75 Notre Dame Law Review, 1377Google Scholar

Hazelhorst, Monique, ‘Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: Why Punitive Damages Are a Step Too Far’ (2010) 4 European Review of Private Law, 757Google Scholar

Heck, Philipp, Grundriß des Schuldrechts (Tübingen: Mohr, 1929)Google Scholar

Heidel, Ulrich, Die Auswirkungen von Haftungsbeschränkungen auf die Entstehung von Gesamtschuldverhältnissen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung versicherungsrechtlicher Probleme (Heidelberg: Dissertation, 1975)Google Scholar

Heinichen, Christian, Unternehmensbegriff und Haftungsnachfolge im Europäischen Kartellrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010)Google Scholar

Heinrichs, Helmut, ‘§ 249 BGB’ in Peter Bassenge, Gerd Brudermüller, Uwe Diederichsen, Wolfgang Edenhofer, Helmut Heinrichs, Andreas Heldrich, Hans Putzo, Hartwig Sprau and Heinz Thomas Walter Weidenkaff, Palandt. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (München: C.H. Beck, 2004)Google Scholar

Hilgenfeld, Mario, ‘HeidelbergCement Settles German Cement-cartel Damages Claims with CDC’ (13 August 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1120911&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar

Hilgenfeld, Mario and Hirst, Nicholas, ‘Lufthansa, Deutsche Bahn settle air-cargo Damages Litigation’ (26 Autust 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1123289&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

Hinloopen, Jeroen, ‘An Economic Analysis of Leniency Programs in Antitrust Law’ (2003) 4 De Economist, 415Google Scholar

Hocquet-Berg, Sophie, ‘Affaire du « Distilbène » : une importante avancée en matière d’indemnisation des victimes’ (2009) 44 La Semaine Juridique Edition Generale, 381Google Scholar

Hofstetter, Karl and Ludescher, Melanie, ‘Fines against Parent Companies in EU Antitrust Law: Setting Incentives for “Best Practice Compliance”’ (2010) 33 World Competition, 1, 55Google Scholar

Hölzel, Norman, Kronzeugenregelungen im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht (Halle: Universitätsverlag Halle-Wittenberg, 2011)Google Scholar

Honoré, Anthony Maurice, International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law: Torts. Causation and Remoteness of Damage, 17 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971), vol. XIGoogle Scholar

Honsell, Heinrich, ‘Die zivilrechtliche Sanktion der Sittenwidrigkeit’ (1975) 30 Juristen Zeitung, 439Google Scholar

Hontebeyrie, Antoine, ‘Pluralité de sujets : altération et complications’ (2015) 249 Droit et Patrimoine. Dossier, 46Google Scholar

Hontebeyrie, Antoine, ‘Quelques incidences de la réforme du droit des obligations en matière de responsabilité civile’ (2015) 249 Droit et Patrimoine. Dossier, 54Google Scholar

Hontebeyrie, Antoine, ‘Régime général des obligations : l’essentiel d’une réforme substantielle’ (2015) 249 Droit et Patrimoine. Dossier, 33Google Scholar

Hösch, Antonia, Der schadensrechtliche Innenausgleich zwischen Kartellrechtsverletzern (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2015)Google Scholar

Howlett, Michael and Cashore, Ben, ‘Conceptualizing Public Policy’ (2004) Comparative Policy Studies, 17Google Scholar

Hubert, Patrick and Combet, Marie-Laure, ‘Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA: A Missed Opportunity to Shed More Light on Joint and Several Liability’ (2015) 6 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 9, 653Google Scholar

Hüffer, Uwe, Der Rückgriff gegen den deliktisch handelnden Schädiger bei Entschädigungsleistungen Dritter (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1970)Google Scholar

Hüschelrath, Kai and Laitenberger, Ulrich, ‘The Settlement Procedure in the European Commission’s Cartel Cases: An Early Evaluation’ (2017) 5 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 3, 458Google Scholar

Hviid, Morten and Medvedev, Andrei, ‘The Role of Contribution among Defendants in Private Antitrust Litigation’ (2008) 8 CCP Working Paper, 3, 1Google Scholar

Idot, Laurance, ‘Responsabilité des sociétés mères’ (2016) 8–9 Europe, 1Google Scholar

Inderst, Roman and Thomas, Stefan, Schadensersatz bei Kartellverstößen (Düsseldorf: Handerlsblatt Fachmedien, 2015)Google Scholar

Infantino, Marta and Zervogianni, Eleni, Causation in European Tort Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)Google Scholar

Janka, Sebastian Felix, ‘Parent Liability and Claims for Recovery between Joint and Several Debtors According to EU Antitrust Law’ (2014) 35 European Competition Law Review, 12, 594Google Scholar

Jędrejek, Grzegorz, ‘Polski Kodeks Zobowiązań z 1933 Roku. Powstanie, źródła, znaczenie dla Europejskiego prawa obligacyjnego’ (2001) XI Roczniki Nauk Prawnych, 1, 47Google Scholar

Jędrzejewska, Maria, Współuczestnictwo Procesowe (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, 1975)Google Scholar

Jolowicz, John Anthony, ‘Procedure and Substance – Apportionment of Damages’ (1988) 47(1)The Cambridge Law Journal, 32Google Scholar

Jones, Alison, ‘The Boundaries of an Undertaking in EU Competition Law’ (2012) 8 European Competition Journal, 2, 301Google Scholar

Jourdain, Patrice, ‘Droit à réparation. Lien de causalité. Détermination des causes du dommage’ (2013) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 160Google Scholar

Jourdain, Patrice, ‘Droit à réparation. Responsabilité fondée sur la faute. Notion de faute: fautes qualifiées’ (2017) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 120–220Google Scholar

Jourdain, Patrice, ‘Droit à réparation. Responsabilité fondée sur la faute. Applications de la notion de faute: imprudences et négligences ; fautes commises à l’occasion d’un contrat’ (2017) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 130–410Google Scholar

Jourdain, Patrice, ‘Les recours en contribution’ (2015) 9 Responsabilité civile et assurance, 16Google Scholar

Jourdain, Patrice, ‘Pour un réexamen du droit de recours en contribution’ (2009) 3 Responsabilité civile et assurances, 3Google Scholar

Jüchser, Alexander, ‘Gesamtschuldnerausgleich zwischen Mutter- und Tochtergesellschaft im Falles Schadensersatzes’ (2012) 10 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 1048Google Scholar

Jürgens, Robert and Seeliger, Daniela, ‘Die geplante Neufassung der Kronzeugenregelung der Europäischen Kommission’ (2006) 8 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 337Google Scholar

Jurkowska-Gomułka, Agata, Publiczne i prywatne egzekwowanie zakazów praktyk ograniczających konkurencje: w poszukiwaniu zrównoważonego modelu współistnienia (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2013)Google Scholar

Kahan, Marcel, ‘The Incentive Effects of Settlements under Joint and Several Liability’ (1996) 16 International Review of Law and Economics, 389Google Scholar

Jonas von, Kalben and Sekunde, Alexander, ‘Relative Responsibility of Joint and Severally Liable Units in Public and Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law – What Role for Economic Criteria?’ (2016) 37 European Competition Law Review, 1, 1Google Scholar

Kaliński, Maciej, Szkoda na mieniu i jej naprawienie (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2011)Google Scholar

Kaplan, Larry S., ‘From Contribution to Good Faith Settlements: Equity Where Are You?’ (1984) 49 Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 771Google Scholar

Karaszewski, Grzegorz, ‘Komentarz do art. 441 Kodeksu cywilnego’ (2014) LEXGoogle Scholar

Kasiński, Tadeusz, ‘Roszczenia regresowe z art. 441 para 3 kodeksu cywilnego’ (1972) 9 Nowe Prawo, 387Google Scholar

Katt, Mareen, Die Gesamtschuldnerische Haftung des Kronzeugen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019)Google Scholar

Kellerbauer, Manuel and Weber, Olaf, ‘Die gesamtschuldnerische Haftung für Kartellgeldbußen und ihre Grenzen: Das Urteil Siemens VA Tech’ (2011) 17 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrech, 666Google Scholar

Këllezi, Pranvera, Kilpatrick, Bruce and Kobel, Pierre (eds.), Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors (Berlin: Springer, 2014)Google Scholar

Kelly, Molly, ‘Settling for Settlement: The European Commission’s New Cartel Settlement Procedure’ (2010) 9 Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 699Google Scholar

Kern, Christoph, ‘Private Law Enforcement versus Public Law Enforcement’ (2007) 12 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International, 351Google Scholar

Kern, Christoph, ‘Restrukturierung als “private enforcement”’ in Boris Paal, Dörte Poelzig and Oliver Fehrenbacher (eds.), Festschrift für Werner F. Ebke (Münich: C.H. Beck 2021)Google Scholar

Kersting, Christian, ‘Die neue Richtlinie zur privaten Rechtsdurchsetzung im Kartellrecht’ (2014) 6 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 564Google Scholar

Kersting, Christian, ‘Die Rechtsprechung des EuGH zur Bußgeldhaftung in der wirtschaftlichen Einheit’ (2014) 12 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 64, 1156Google Scholar

Kersting, Christian, ‘Gesamtschuldnerausgleich bei Kartellgeldbußen’ (2016) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 147Google Scholar

Kersting, Christian, ‘Liability of Sister Companies and Subsidiaries in European Competition Law’ (2020) 41 European Competition Law Review, 125Google Scholar

Kersting, Christian, ‘Perspektiven der privaten Rechtsdurchsetzung im Kartellrecht’ (2008) 3 Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht, 252Google Scholar

Kersting, Christian, ‘Removing the Tension between Public and Private Enforcement: Disclosure and Privileges for Successful Leniency Applicants’ (2014) 5 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1, 2Google Scholar

Kersting, Christian and Preuß, Nicola, Umsetzung der Kartellschadensersatzrichtlinie (2014/104/EU). Ein Gesetzgebungsvorschlag aus der Wissenschaft (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2015)Google Scholar

Kessedjian, Catherine, ‘Public Order in European Law’ (2007) 1 Erasmus Law Review, 1, 25Google Scholar

Keuk, Brigitte, ‘BGB §§ 426, 633, 634, 635, 638, 242’ (1972) 17 Juristen Zeitung, 525Google Scholar

Kirgis, Paul F., ‘Apportioning Tort Damages in New York: A Method to the Madness’ (2001) 75 St. John’s Law Review, 427Google Scholar

Kirst, Philipp and Bergh, Roger Van den, ‘The European Directive on Damages Actions: A Missed Opportunity to Reconcile Compensation of Victims and Leniency Incentives’ (2016) 12 Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 1Google Scholar

Klein, Alfred, ‘Istota solidarności biernej a stosunki prawne odpowiedzialności’ in Radwański, Zbigniew (ed.), Studia z prawa zobowiązań (Warszawa and Poznań: Polskie Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1979)Google Scholar

Klerman, Daniel, ‘Settling Multidefendant Lawsuits: The Advantage of Conditional Setoff Rules’ (1996) 25 The Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 445Google Scholar

Knight, W. S. M., ‘Public Policy of the English Law’ (1922) 38 Law Quarterly Review, 379Google Scholar

Koch, Jens, ‘Der kartellrechtliche Sanktionsdurchgriff im Unternehmensverbund’ (2007) 171 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 554Google Scholar

Koch, Jens, ‘Rechtsdurchsetzung im Kartellrecht: Public vs. private enforcement: Auf dem Weg zu einem level playing field?’ (2013) 68 Juristen Zeitung, 390Google Scholar

Köhler, Helmut, ‘EU-Kartellgeldbußen gegen Mutter- und Tochtergesellschaft: Gesamtschuldnerische Haftung und Ausgleich im Innenverhältnis’ (2011) 3 Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis, 277Google Scholar

Köhler, Helmut, ‘Kartellverbot und Schadensersatz’ (2004) Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 99Google Scholar

Koenig, Carsten, ‘Making Contribution Work: The Liability of Privileged and Non-privileged Injurers in EU Competition Law’ (2018) 14 European Competition Journal, 110Google Scholar

Kohn, Harold E., ‘Antitrust Damage Allocation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1983) House of Representatives 118Google Scholar

Kokott, Juliane, ‘Zur Haftung von Muttergesellschaften, die Walter Selbst nicht wirtschaftlich tätig sind für Kartellverstöße von Tochtergesellschaften’ (2013) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 28Google Scholar

Kokott, Juliane and Dittert, Daniel, ‘Die Verantwortlichkeit von Muttergesellschaften für Kartellvergehen ihrer Tochtergesellschaften im Lichte der Rechtsprechung der Unionsgerichte’ (2012) 7–8 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 670Google Scholar

Komisja, Kodyfikacyjna and Podkomisja Prawa, o Zobowiązaniach, Uzasadnienie Projektu Kodeksu Zobowiązań. Zeszyt 4, 2 vols. (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Urzędowe Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej, 1934), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Komisja, Kodyfikacyjna and Podsekcja III, Prawa Cywilnego, Projekt prawa o zobowiązaniach. Zeszyt 4, 2 vols. (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Urzędowe Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej, 1932), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Komisja, Kodyfikacyjna, Uzasadnienie projektu kodeksu zobowiązań (Warszawa: Komisja Kodyfikacyjna Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, 1939)Google Scholar

Komninos, Assimakis P., EC Private Antitrust Enforcement. Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law by National Courts (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2008)Google Scholar

Koniak, Susan P. and Cohen, George M., ‘Under Cloak of Settlement’ (1996) 82 Vanderbilt Law Review, 1051Google Scholar

Kopaczyńska-Pieczniak, Katarzyna, ‘Dobre obyczaje i zasady współżycia społecznego w prawie spółek handlowych’ (2016) LXIII(2) Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, 93Google Scholar

Körner, Julia, Die Gesamtschuld im europäischen Kartellbußgeldrecht (Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2016)Google Scholar

Kornhauser, Lewis A. and Revesz, Richard L., ‘Settlements under Joint and Several Liability’ (1993) 68 New York University Law Review, 427Google Scholar

Kornhauser, Lewis A. and Revesz, Richard L., ‘Multidefendant Settlements: The Impact of Joint and Several Liability’ (1994) 23 The Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 41Google Scholar

Kornhauser, Lewis A. and Revesz, Richard L., ‘Sharing Damages among Multiple Tortfeasors’ (1989) 98 Yale Law Journal, 5, 831Google Scholar

Kornhauser, Lewis A. and Takeda, Keith T., ‘N-Defendant Litigation and Settlement: The Impact of Joint and Several Liability’ (2008) 109 New York University Law and Economics Working Papers, 1Google Scholar

Kosik, Jan, ‘Glosa do orzeczenia Sadu Najwyższego z dn. 14.03.1964 r.’ (1965) 5 Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych, 329Google Scholar

Krüger, Carsten, ‘Der Gesamtschuldnerausgleich im System der privaten Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung’ (2012) 1 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 6Google Scholar

Krüger, Carsten, ‘Die haftungsrechtliche Privilegierung des Kronzeugen im Außen- und Innenverhältnis gemäß dem Richtlinienvorschlag der Kommission’ (2013) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 483Google Scholar

Krüger, Carsten, ‘Überlegungen zur Gesamtschuld von Kartellmitgliedern im System der privaten Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung. Einer für alle, alle gegen einen?’ in Oberender, Peter (ed.), Private und öffentliche Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2012)Google Scholar

Krüger, Carsten, Kartellregress (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010)Google Scholar

Kuhlmann, Jens, Rückgriffsgrundlagen bei Gesamtschuld, Bürgschaft und Schadensversicherung in Deutschland, England und Schweden (Berlin: BMV Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2005)Google Scholar

Kühn, Kai-Uwe, Information Exchanges among Firms and Their Impact on Competition (Luxembourg: Official Publications of the European Communities, 1995)Google Scholar

Kuijpers, Matthijs, Tuinenga, Stefan, Wisking, Stephen, Dietzel, Kim, Campbell, Suzy, and Fritzsche, Alexander, ‘Actions for Damages in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany’ (2015) 6 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 2, 1Google Scholar

La Rocca, Laura, ‘The Controversial Issue of the Parent-company Liability for the Violation of EC Competition Rules by the Subsidiary’ (2011) 2 European Competition Law Review, 68Google Scholar

Laina, Flavio and Bogdanov, Aleko, ‘The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure: Latest Developments’ (2017) 8 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 5, 333Google Scholar

Laitinen, Klas, Multi-party and Multi-contract Arbitration Mechanisms in International Commercial Litigation. A study on Institutional Rules of Consolidation, Joinder, and Intervention from a Finnish Perspective (2013), available at https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/44922/klaslaitinenprogradu.pdf?sequence=2 Google Scholar

Lande, Robert H., ‘The Role of Private Enforcement within EU Competition Law’ in Foer, Albert A. and Cuneo, Jonathan W. (eds.), The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law (Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar

Landes, William M., ‘An Economic Analysis of the Courts’ (1971) 14 The Journal of Law and Economics, 1, 61Google Scholar

Christoph von, Laufenberg, Kartellrechtliche Konzernhaftung (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2018)Google Scholar

The Law Commission, Working Paper No 59 Contribution (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1975)Google Scholar

Le Tourneau, Philippe, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats (Paris: Dalloz, 2012)Google Scholar

Le Tourneau, Philippe and Julien, Jérôme, ‘Solidarité’ (2013) Répertoire de droit civil DallozGoogle Scholar

Leczykiewicz, Dorota, ‘Private Party Liability in EU Law: In Search of the General Regime’ in Barnard, Catherine and Odudu, Okeoghene (eds.), The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. Volume 12, 2009-2010 (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar

Leonardo, Armati, ‘Siemens Österreich, Areva and Alstom: Joint and Several Liability in the Gas-insulated Switchgear Cartel’ (2015) 6 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1, 26Google Scholar

Leslie, Christopher R., ‘Judgment-Sharing Agreements’ (2009) 58 Duke Law Journal, 747Google Scholar

Lettl, Tobias, ‘Der Schadensersatzanspruch gemäß § 823 Abs 2 BGB i. V. mit Art. 81 Abs. 1 EG’ (2003) 167 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 473Google Scholar

Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska, Biruta, ‘Wina jako podstawa odpowiedzialności z tytułu czynów niedozwolonych’ (1969) Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne, 87Google Scholar

Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska, Biruta, Wyrządzenie szkody przez kilka osób (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, 1978)Google Scholar

Lianos, Ioannis, ‘The Principle of Effectiveness, Competition Law Remedies and the Limits of Adjudication’ (2014) 6 CLES Research Paper Series, 3Google Scholar

Liu, Jing and Faure, Michael, ‘Risk-sharing Agreements to Cover Environmental Damage: Theory and Practice’ (2018) 18 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2, 255Google Scholar

Longchamps de Bérier, Roman, Polskie Prawo Cywilne. Zobowiązania, 5 vols. (Lviv: Księgarnia Wydawnictwa Gybrynowicz i Syn, 1938), vol. IIGoogle Scholar

Lopatka, John E., ‘Missed Opportunity: The Enforcement Recommendations of the Antitrust Modernization Commission’ (2008) 53 Antitrust Bulletin, 663Google Scholar

Lowe, Philip, Marquis, Mel and Monti, Giorgio (eds.), European Competition Law Annual 2013: Effective and Legitimate Enforcement of Competition Law (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2016)Google Scholar

Ludwichowska-Redo, Katarzyna, ‘Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Polish Perspective’ in Koziol, Helmut (ed.), Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Comparative Perspective (Wien: Jan Sramek Verlag, 2015)Google Scholar

Łopatka, Adam and Ziembiński, Zygmunt, ‘Treść i Funkcja Zasad Współżycia Społecznego’ (1957) 4( 5) Państwo i Prawo, 802Google Scholar

Magnus, Ulrich, ‘Multiple Tortfeasors under German Law’ in Horton Rogers, W. V. (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Multiple Tortfeasors (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2004)Google Scholar

Magnus, Ulrich and Seher, Gerhard, ‘Fault under German Law’ in Widmer, Pierre (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar

Maier-Rigaud, Frank and Schwalbe, Ulrich, ‘Quantification of Antitrust Damages’ in Ashton, David and Henry, David (eds.), Competition Damages Actions in the EU. Law and Practice (Chelentham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013)Google Scholar

Makatsch, Tilman and Sascha, Mir Arif, ‘Die neue EU-Richtlinie zu Kartellschadensersatzklagen – Angst vor der eigenen “Courage”?’ (2015) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 7Google Scholar

Malarewicz-Jakubów, Agnieszka, ‘Klauzule Generalne i Zasady Słuszności’ (2014) 17 Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 145Google Scholar

Malaurie, Philippe, Aynes, Laurent and Stoffel-Munck, Philippe, Droit civil. Les obligations (Paris: Defrénois, 2004)Google Scholar

Malaurie, Philippe, L’Ordre Public et Le Contrat (Reims: Editions Matot-Braine, 1953)Google Scholar

Mansdörfer, Marco, ‘Das Modell der Verbandshaftung im europäischen Kartellbußgeldrecht’ (2011) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 214Google Scholar

Marcus, Stanley, Koeltl, John G., Motz, J. Frederick, Rosenthal, Lee H., Sanders, Barefoot, Birnbaum, Sheila, Ray, Frank A. and Smith, Fern M. (eds.), Manual for Complex Litigation (Washington: Federal Judicial Center, 2004)Google Scholar

Marek, Wojciech, ‘Roszczenia regresowe z art. 441 k.c.’ (1974) 3 Nowe Prawo, 287Google Scholar

Marshall, Robert C., Marx, Leslie M. and Samkharadze, Lily, ‘Dominant-Firm Conduct by Cartels’ (15 February 2011), available at https://capcp.la.psu.edu/papers/2011/dominantfirm.pdf (last visited 09.12.2017)Google Scholar

Martin, Didier R., ‘Article 1310 : l’obligation solidaire’ (2015) 3 Revue de contrats, 799Google Scholar

Marx, Leslie M., Mezzetti, Claudio and Marshall, Robert C., ‘Antitrust Leniency with Mutliproduct Colluders’ (2015) 7 American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3, 205Google Scholar

Mäsch, Gerald, ‘Innenausgleich bei gesamtschuldnerisch festgesetzter Kartellbuße der EU-Kommission – „Calciumcarbid”’ (2012) Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Praxis im Immaterialgüter und Wettbewerbsrecht, 268Google Scholar

Mäsch, Gerald, ‘Private Ansprüche bei Verstößen gegen das europäische Kartellverbot – „Courage” und die Folgen’ (2003) 5 Zeitschrift Europarecht, 825Google Scholar

Mazeaud, Henri, Mazeaud, Léon, Mazeaud, Jean and Tunc, André, Traité théorique et pratique de la responsabilité civile délictuelle et contractuelle, 3 vols. (Paris: Montchrestien, 1958), vol. IIGoogle Scholar

Medicus, Dieter, Bürgerliches Recht (Köln, Berlin, Bonn, München: Vahlen, 2002)Google Scholar

Meier, Sonja, Gesamtschulden (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010)Google Scholar

Mestre, Jacques, ‘La pluralité d’obligés accessoires’ (1981) Revue trimestrielle de droit civil, 1Google Scholar

Meyer-Lindemann, Hans Jürgen, Clemens Graf York von, Wartenburg and Kafetzopoulos, Andreas, ‘Private Equity Investors Are Not Immune to Antitrust Risks in the European Union’ (2014) 35 European Competition Law Review, 8, 367Google Scholar

Meyring, Bernd, ‘Uferlose Haftung im Bußgeldverfahren?’ (2010) 2 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 157Google Scholar

Mignot, Marc, ‘Commentaire article par article de l’ordonnance du 10 fevrier 2016 portant réforme du droit des contrats, du régime general et de la preuve des obligations (VIII)’ (2016) 80 Petites affiches, 4Google Scholar

Mignot, Marc, ‘Plaidoyer pour l’abrogation de l’article 1216 du Code civil’ (2006) 27 Revue Lamy Droit civil, 27Google Scholar

Mignot, Marc, ‘Régime général des obligations. Pluralité de sujets de l’obligation. Principe de division’ (2017) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 10Google Scholar

Mignot, Marc, ‘Régime général des obligations. Pluralité de sujets d’obligation. Obligation solidaire’ (2017) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 20Google Scholar

Mignot, Marc, Les obligations solidaires et les obligations in solidum en droit privé français (Paris: Dalloz, 2002)Google Scholar

Milewska, Aleksandra, ‘Solidarna odpowiedzialność sprawców naruszenia prawa konkurencji przewidziana w projekcie ustawy o roszczeniach o naprawienie szkody wyrządzonej przez naruszenie prawa konkurencji z 7 lutego 2017 r. – aspekt podmiotowy’ (2017) 1 internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny, 6, 58Google Scholar

Miskolczi Bodnár, Péter and Szuchy, Robert, ‘Joint and Several Liability of Competition Law Infringers in the Legislation of Central and Eastern European Member States’ (2017) 15 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 85Google Scholar

Mitchell, Charles, The Law of Contribution and Reimbursement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar

Modzelewska de Raad, Małgorzata, ‘Consensual Dispute Resolution in the Damages Directive. Implementation in CEE Countries’ (2017) 15 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 49Google Scholar

Mojak, Jan, ‘Dobre Obyczaje w polskim prawie kontraktowym – wybrane zagadnienia’ (2016) XXV Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 2, 161Google Scholar

Montesa, Aitor and Givaja, Ángel, ‘When Parents Pay for Their Children’s Wrongs: Attribution of Liability for EC Antitrust Infringements in Parent-Subsidiary Scenarios’ (2006) 29 World Competition, 4, 555Google Scholar

Morrissey, Joseph F. and Graves, Jack M. (eds.), International Sales Law and Arbitration: Problems, Cases and Commentary (Austin, Boston, Chicago, New York, The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, 2008)Google Scholar

Motta, Massimo and Polo, Michele, ‘Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution’ (2003) 21 International Journal of Industrial Organization, 347Google Scholar

Müller-Graff, Peter-Christian, ‘Kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz in neuer Versuchsanordnung’ (2015) 179 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 691Google Scholar

Nagy Csongor, István, ‘The New Hungarian Rules on Damages Caused by Horizontal Hardcore Cartels: Presumed Price Increase and Limited Protection for Whistleblowers – An Analytical Introduction’ (2011) 32 European Competition Law Review, 2, 63Google Scholar

Napel, Stefan and Oldehaver, Gunnar, ‘Kartellschadensersatz und Gesamtschuldnerausgleich – Ökonomisch faire Schadensaufteilung mit dem Shapley-Wert’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 135Google Scholar

Nehl, Hanns Peter, ‘Anmerkung’ (2013) 14 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 554Google Scholar

Nelken, David, ‘Using the Concept of Legal Culture’ (2004) 29 Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 1Google Scholar

Nesterowicz, Mirosław and Bagińska, Ewa, ‘Multiple Tortfeasors under Polish Law’ in Rogers, W. V. Horton (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Multiple Tortfeasors (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2004)Google Scholar

Newman, Matthew, ‘EU Cartel Busters Start at Least Three own-initiative Probes as Leniency Candidates Dry up, Madero Says’ (12 July 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1111720&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

Odudu, Okeoghene and Bailey, David, ‘The Single Economic Entity Doctrine in EU Competition Law’ (2014) 51 Common Market Law Review, 1721Google Scholar

OECD, ‘Competition Policy: Promoting Efficiency and Sound Markets’ (2012), available at https://oecd.org/cleangovbiz/toolkit/50037123.pdf Google Scholar

OECD, ‘Roundtable on Information Exchanges between Competitors under Competition Law, Note by the Delegation of the European Union’ (27–28 October 2010), DAF/COMP/WD(2010)118Google Scholar

OECD, ‘SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook’ (2005), available at https://oecd.org/cfe/smes/oecdsmeandentrepreneurshipoutlook-2005edition.htm Google Scholar

OFT, ‘Private Actions in Competition Law: Effective Redress for Consumers and Business’ (April 2007) OFT 916Google Scholar

Ohanowicz, Alfred, ‘Glosa do orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego z dn. 23.01.2957 r.’ (1958) 2 Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych, 139Google Scholar

Olejniczak, Adam, ‘Art. 441’ in Kidyba, Andrzej (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Zobowiązania. Część ogólna, 4 vols. (Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2014), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar

Opper, Kai-Uwe, Die gesamtschuldnerische Bußgeldhaftung für Kartellverstöße innerhalb eines Konzerns (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2016)Google Scholar

Ota, Shozo, ‘The Fairness and the Efficiency of the Compensation System: An Economic Analysis of the Tort Theories’ (1987) 7 International Review of Law and Economics, 229Google Scholar

Pauer Nada, Ina, The Single Economic Entity Doctrine and Corporate Group Responsibility in European Antitrust Law (New York: Wolter Kluwer Law and Business, 2014)Google Scholar

Peter, Josefa F. and Wagener, Dominique S., ‘Anmerkung’ (2013) 7 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 268Google Scholar

Peyer, Sebastian, ‘Compensation and the Damages Directive’ (2015) 15 Centre for Competition Policy Working Paper, 10, 1Google Scholar

Peyer, Sebastian, ‘Myths and Untold Stories – Private Antitrust Enforcement in Germany’ (2010) Centre for Competition Policy Working Paper, 10–12, 1Google Scholar

Pimont, Sébastien and Roux-Sibillon, Eric, ‘Les dispositions du projet de réforme du droit des obligations relatives aux obligations plurales’ (2015) 47 La Semaine Juridique Notariale et Immobliere, 1218Google Scholar

Piszcz, Anna and Wolski, Dominik, Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press, 2017)Google Scholar

Pitsch, Johannes, ‘Kein Rückgriff der Muttergesellschaft gegen die Tochtergesellschaft wegen kartellrechtlicher Geldbuße (Calciumcarbid-Kartell)’ (2011) Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 192Google Scholar

Polden, Donald J. and Sullivan, E. Thomas, ‘Contribution and Claim Reduction in Antitrust Litigation: A Legislative Analysis’ (1983) 20(1) Harvard Journal on Legislation, 397Google Scholar

Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Shavell, Steven, ‘Contribution and Claim Reduction among Antitrust Defendants: An Economic Analysis’ (1981) 33 Stanford Law Review, 3, 447Google Scholar

Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Shavell, Steven, ‘The Optimal Trade-off between the Probability and Magnitude of Fines’ (1979) 69 American Economic Review, 880Google Scholar

Ponsoldt, James F. and Terry, Benjamin H., ‘Contribution in Civil Antitrust Litigation: The Emerging Consensus in Legal Literature’ (1981) 38 Washington and Lee Law Review, 2, 315Google Scholar

Prediger, Bernhard, Zur Auslegung und Anwendung der Regelungen im BGB über die Gesamtschuld (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, Europäische Hochschulschriften, 1988)Google Scholar

Pree, Jolling K. de and Molin, Stefan C. H., ‘Shareholder Liability for Joint Venture Infringements in the European Union’ (2011) 34 Fordham International Law Journal, 3, 431Google Scholar

Radwański, Zbigniew and Olejniczak, Adam, Zobowiązania – część ogólna (Warszawa, C.H. Beck, 2016)Google Scholar

Ranouil, Marine, Les recours entre coobligés (Paris: Bilbliothèque de l’IRJS – André Tunc, 2014)Google Scholar

Raynaud, Pierre, ‘La nature de l’obligation des coauteurs d’un dommage : obligation “in solidum” ou solidarité ?’ in Mélanges dédiés à Jean Vincent (Paris: Dalloz, 1981)Google Scholar

Reasoner, Harry M., ‘Prepared Statement of Harry M. Reasoner’ (14 July 2005), available at https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/commission_hearings/pdf/Reasoner.pdf Google Scholar

Regnier, Lukas, ‘Cartel Damages Actions in German Courts: What the Statistics Tell Us’ (2020) 11 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 1–2, 72Google Scholar

Reich, Norbert, ‘Horizontal Liability in EC Law: Hybridization of Remedies for Compensation in Case of Breaches of EC Rights’ (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review, 705Google Scholar

Riemer, Yosef J., ‘Sharing Agreements among Defendants in Antitrust Cases’ (1984) 52 The George Washington Law Review, 289Google Scholar

Riley, Alan, ‘Beyond Leniency: Enhancing Enforcement in EC Antitrust Law’ (2005) 28 World Competition, 3, 377Google Scholar

Ripert, Georges, ‘L’ordre public économique et la liberté contractuelle’ in Recueil d’études sur les sources du droit en l’honneur de François Gény (Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1934)Google Scholar

Ritter, Jan-Stephan, ‘Private Durchsetzung des Kartellrechts – Vorschläge des Weißbuchs der Europäischen Kommission’ (2008) 7 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 773Google Scholar

Rogers, W. V. Horton, ‘Causation under English Law’ in Spier, Jaap (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Causation (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2000)Google Scholar

Rogers, W. V. Horton, ‘Comparative Report on Multiple Tortfeasors’ in Horton Rogers, W. V. (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Multiple Tortfeasors (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2004)Google Scholar

Rogers, W. V. Horton, ‘Fault under English Law’ in Widmer, Pierre (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar

Rogers, W. V. Horton, ‘Multiple Tortfeasors under English Law’ in Horton Rogers, W. V. (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Multiple Tortfeasors (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2004)Google Scholar

Rossi, Lucia Serena and Casolari, Federico, The Principle of Equality in EU Law (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017)Google Scholar

Rostron, Allen, ‘Beyond Market Share Liability: A Theory of Proportional Share Liability for Nonfungible Products’ (2003) 52 UCLA Law Review, 151Google Scholar

Roth, Hans-Peter, ‘Für 10% Gesamtumsatzgrenze einer Geldbuße ist jeweilige Konzernzugehörigkeit maßgeblich’ (2014) Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 439Google Scholar

Roth, Wulf-Henning, ‘Effet utile im europäischen Kartellrecht’ (2013) 3 Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis, 257Google Scholar

Rother, Werner, ‘Die “vorwiegende Verursachung”’ (1983) 33 Versicherungsrecht, 793Google Scholar

Rüßmann, Helmut, ‘§ 421 BGB’ in Junker, Markus (ed.), Juris Praxis Kommentar – BGB. Schuldrecht, 6 vols. (Saarbrücken: juris, 2010), vol. II(1)Google Scholar

Rüßmann, Helmut, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Junker, Markus (ed.), Juris Praxis Kommentar – BGB. Schuldrecht, 6 vols. (Saarbrücken: juris, 2010), vol. II(1)Google Scholar

Rüßmann, Helmut, ‘Die Abgrenzung der Gesamtschuld von anderen Schuldnermehrheiten – BGHZ 59, 97’ (1974) Juristische Schulung, 292Google Scholar

Rust, Ulrich, ‘Kartellverstoß und Gesamtschuld – Bestandsaufnahme und Ausblick’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 502Google Scholar

Rzetecka-Gil, Agnieszka, ‘Warunki odpowiedzialności solidarnej za szkodę. Komentarz do art. 441 Kodeksu cywilnego’ (2011) LEXGoogle Scholar

Safjan, Marek, ‘Art. 441’ in Pietrzykowski, Krzysztof (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 2 vols. (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2011), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Savey-Casard, Paul, ‘Le repentir actif en droit pénal français’ (1972) 3 Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé, 515Google Scholar

Karl von, Savigny Friedrich, Das Obligationenrecht als Theil des heutigen Römischen Rechts, 2 vols. (Berlin: Bei Zeit und Comp., 1851), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Schaper, Hanno and Stauber, Peter, ‘Ausgewählte Themen des neuen Kartellschadensersatzrechts – Schadensersatz, Abwälzung, Gesamtschuld und Innenausgleich’ (2017) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 279Google Scholar

Schmidt, Walter, Gesamtschuld und Gesamtschuldregress (Köln: Inaugural-Dissertation, 1973)Google Scholar

Schneider, Hans-Helmut, ‘Art. 16 VO 1/2003’ in Hirsch, Günter, Montag, Frank and Säcker, Franz Jürgen (eds.), Münchener Kommentar. Europäisches und Deutsches Wettbewerbsrecht. Kartellrecht, Missbrauchs- und Fusionskontrolle, 2 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2007), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Schnelle, Ulrich, ‘Die Aufteilung von Bußgeldern im Konzern’ (2015) 4 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 332Google Scholar

Schreiber, Till and Savov, Vasil, ‘Kone v. Commission: Umbrella Damages Claims’ (2014) 5 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 8, 548Google Scholar

Schricker, Gerhard, Gesetzesverletzung und Sittenverstoß (München: Beck, 1970)Google Scholar

Schwalbe, Ulrich and Höft, Jan, ‘Ausgestaltung von Kronzeugenprogrammen und private Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung’ in Bechtold, Stefan, Jickeli, Joachim, Rohe, Mathias (eds.), Recht, Ordnung und Wettbewerb – Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Wernhard Möschel (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2012)Google Scholar

Schweitzer, Heike, ‘Die neue Richtlinie für wettbewerbsrechtliche Schadensersatzklagen’ (2014) 9 Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 335Google Scholar

Schwenke, Hendrik, ‘Die Richtlinie für private Kartellschadensersatzklagen und der Gesamtschuldnerausgleich: Wie kann Art. 11 v. ins deutsche Recht umgesetzt werden?’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 383Google Scholar

Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar Association, ‘Report on Contribution and Claim Reduction’ (14 December 2005), available at https://americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/at-comments/2005/12-05/contribution_claim_comm.pdf Google Scholar

Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar Association, Antitrust Evidence Handbook (Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing, 2016)Google Scholar

Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar Association, Contribution and Claim Reduction in Antitrust Litigation (Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing, 1986)Google Scholar

Seegers, Martin, ‘Interaction of the Rules on Joint and Several Liability and Settlements under the EU Directive on Damage Actions’ (2014) 7 Global Competition Litigation Review, 3, 140Google Scholar

Selb, Walter, Schadensbegriff und Regreßmethoden (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1963)Google Scholar

Siakka, Tatiana, ‘Case C-724/17 Vantaan kaupunki v. Skanska Industrial Solutions: Transposition of the Concept of an “Undertaking” into Civil Damages Actions’ (2019) 10 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 8, 479Google Scholar

Silbye, Frederik, ‘A Note on Antitrust Damages and Leniency Programs’ (2012) 33 European Journal of Law and Economics, 691Google Scholar

Silver, Charles and Baker, Lynn Anne, ‘Mass Lawsuits and the Aggregate Settlement Rule’ (1997) 32 Wake Forest Law Review, 733Google Scholar

Singer, Linda R., Settling Disputes: Conflict Resolution in Business, Families, and the Legal System (Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford: Westview Press, 1994)Google Scholar

Sitarz, Olga, ‘Active Repentance as an Instrument of Criminal and Penal Policy’ (2009) 31 Archiwum Kryminologii, 159Google Scholar

Slim, Hadi, ‘Approche comparative de la faute dans la responsabilité civile extra-contractuelle’ (2003) 6 Responsabilité civile et assurance, 18Google Scholar

Śmieja, Andrzej, ‘Art. 441’ in Olejniczak, Adam (ed.), Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna. System Prawa Prywatnego, 21 vols. (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2014), vol. VIGoogle Scholar

Sośniak, Małgorzata, ‘Elementy winy nieumyślnej w prawie cywilnym’ (1975) 68 Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 151Google Scholar

Sousa, Ferro Miguel, ‘Antitrust Private Enforcement and the Binding Effect of Public Enforcement Decisions’ (2019) 2 Market and Competition Law Review, 3, 51Google Scholar

Spagnolo, Giancarlo, ‘Divide et impera: Opimal leniency programs’ (2004) 4840 CEPR Discussion Paper, 1Google Scholar

Spier, Kathryn E., ‘A Note on Joint and Several Liability: Insolvency, Settlement, and Incentives’ (1994) 23 Journal of Legal Studies, 55Google Scholar

Stamm, Jürgen, Regreßfiguren im Zivilrecht. Eine Rückbesinnung auf die Gesamtschuld unter Neubewertung des Zessionsregresses gemäß § 255 BGB und der Drittschadensliquidation (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2000)Google Scholar

Stanevičius, Mantas, ‘Portielje: Bar Remains High for Rebutting Parental Liability Presumption’ (2014) 5 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1, 24Google Scholar

Stanley, Timothy James, ‘An Analysis of the Rules of Contribution and No Contribution for Joint and Several Liability in Conspiracy Cases’ (1994) 35 Santa Clara Law Review, 1, 1Google Scholar

Steel, Sandy, Proof of Causation in Tort Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar

Stefanicki, Robert, ‘Civil Law Remedies for Violation of Competition Law’ (2012) 4 European Review of Contract Law, 400Google Scholar

Gianni de, Stefano, ‘General Court Rules on Successor Liability and Apportionment of Group Liability in the Gas Insulated Switchgear Cartel’ (2011) 2 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 4, 344Google Scholar

Steinle, Christian, ‘Kartellschadensersatzrichtlinie – Auf dem Weg zum Sanktions-Overkill? (Gastkommentar)’ (2014) 13 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 481Google Scholar

Stephan, Andreas, ‘An Empirical Assessment of the European Leniency Notice’ (2008) 5 Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 3, 537Google Scholar

Stephens, Clay A., ‘Antitrust Damage Allocation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1983), House of Representatives 118Google Scholar

Stockmann, Kurt, ‘Ziele und Zielkonflikte bei Kartellsanktionen’ in Brinker, Ingo, Scheuing, Dieter H. and Stockmann, Kurt (eds.), Recht und Wettbewerb. Festschrift für Rainer Bechtold zum 65. Geburtstag (München: C. H. Beck, 2006)Google Scholar

Švirinas, Daivis, ‘The Assessment of Information Exchange Agreements Between Competitors from the Perspective of Competition Law of the EU and of the Republic of Lithuania’ (2012) 19 Jurisprudencija, 1, 87Google Scholar

Sychowicz, Marek ‘Art. 441’ in Bieniek, Gerard, Ciepła, Helena, Dmowski, Stanisław, Gudowski, Jacek, Kołakowski, Krzysztof, Sychowicz, Marek, Wiśniewski, Tadeusz and Żuławska, Czesława (eds.), Komentarz do kodeksu cywilnego. Zobowiązania, 6 vols. (Warszawa, LexisNexis, 2010), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar

Synovate, ‘Competition Act and Consumer Rights’ (April 2005) OFT 799Google Scholar

Szpunar, Adam, ‘Glosa do orzeczenia Sądu Najważniejszego z dn. 16.10.1958 r.’ (1960) 1 Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych, 6Google Scholar

Szpunar, Adam, ‘Glosa do orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego z dn. 21.11.1967 r.’ (1968) 11 Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych, 486Google Scholar

Szpunar, Adam, ‘The Law of Tort in the Polish Civil Code’ (1967) 16 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1, 86Google Scholar

Szpunar, Adam, ‘Roszczenia regresowe Zakładu Ubezpieczeń’ (1974) XII Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne, 29Google Scholar

Tangdham, Krisadhikhun, The Potential Civil Liability of Innocent Subsidiaries as a Consequence of the Notion of undertaking in EU Competition Law an Implication from the Recent Case Skanska (Lund: Lund University, 2020)Google Scholar

Teff, Harvey, ‘“Market Share” Liability: A Novel Approach to Causation’ (1982) (31) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 4, 840Google Scholar

Temple, Lang John, ‘How Can the Problem of the Liability of a Parent Company for Price Fixing by a Wholly-owned Subsidiary Be Resolved?’ (2014) 37 Fordham International Law Journal, 5, 1481Google Scholar

Tereszkiewicz, Piotr, ‘Solidarność dłużników w świetle europeizacji prawa obligacyjnego’ in Haberko, Joanna, Olejniczak, Adam, Pyrzyńska, Agnieszka and Sokołowska, Dorota (eds.), Współczesne problemy prawa zobowiązań (Poznań: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2014)Google Scholar

Terré, François, Pour une réforme du droit de la responsabilité civile (Paris: Dalloz, 2011)Google Scholar

Teubner, Gunther, Standards und Direktiven in Generalklauseln (Tübingen: Athenäum, 1971)Google Scholar

Thiede, Thomas, ‘Fine to Follow-on? Private Anti-trust Actions in European Law’ (2017) 5 China-EU Law Journal, 233Google Scholar

Thiede, Thomas, ‘Private Enforcement of Anti-trust Damages in Europe. A Germanic Perspective on Directive 2014/104/EU’ (2016) ELTE Law Journal, 147, available at: https://eltelawjournal.hu/private-enforcement-anti-trust-damages-europe-germanic-perspective-directive-2014104eu/Google Scholar

Thoma, Kerstin, Der internationale Regress. Formen und Gerichtszuständigkeit – unter Berücksichtigung des deutschen, österreichischen, schweizerischen und französischen materiellen Regressrechts (Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač, 2007)Google Scholar

Thomas, Stefan, ‘Die Gesamtschuld im EU-Kartellbußgeldrecht – die Kommission als “juristischer Pascha”?’ in Bechtold, Stefan, Jickeli, Joachim, Rohe, Mathias (eds.), Recht, Ordnung und Wettbewerb – Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Wernhard Möschel (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2012)Google Scholar

Thomas, Stefan, ‘Guilty of a Fault That One Has Not Committed. The Limits of the Group-Based Sanction Policy Carried out by the Commission and the European Courts in EU-Antitrust Law’ (2012) 3 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1, 11Google Scholar

Thomas, Stefan, ‘Konzernprivileg und Gemeinschaftsunternehmen – Die kartellrechtliche Beurteilung konzerninterner Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen mit Gemeinschaftsunternehmen’ (2005) 3 Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht, 236Google Scholar

Till, Ernest, Polskie prawo zobowiązań. Część ogólna. Projekt wstępny z motywami (Lviv: Komisja Kodyfikacyjna Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, 1923)Google Scholar

Vecchio, Karoline Del, ‘German Sugar Cartelists Fail to Settle with Food Makers, Will Face Court Ruling’ (12 July 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1111634&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, ‘Appropriate Sanctions and Remedies, Sixth United Nations Conference to Review All Aspects of the Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices’ (8–12 November 2010), TD/RBP/CONF.7/5, available at https://unctad.org/en/Docs/tdrbpconf7d5_en.pdfGoogle Scholar

United States Congress, ‘Antitrust Damage Allocation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1983 House of Representatives 118)Google Scholar

United States Congress, ‘The Antitrust Equal Enforcement Act. Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1982), House of Representatives J-97-15Google Scholar

United States Government Accountability Office, ‘Criminal Cartel Enforcement. Stakeholder Views on Impact of 2004 Antitrust Reform Are Mixed, but Support Whistleblower Protection’ (2011), GAO-11-619Google Scholar

United States Department of Justice, ‘The Modern Leniency Program after Ten Years – A Summary Overview of the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Enforcement’ (12 August 2003), Justice News, available at https://justice.gov/atr/speech/modern-leniency-program-after-ten-years-summary-overview-antitrust-divisions-criminal Google Scholar

United States Department of Justice, ‘Public and Private Antitrust Enforcement in the United States’ (11 February 2004), Justice News, available at https://justice.gov/atr/file/517756/download Google Scholar

Vetu, F., ‘Application de la responsabilité civile pour faute à la violation du droit des pratiques anticoncurrentielles’ (2003) 48(II) La Semaine Juridique Edition Génerale, 10183Google Scholar

Vincent, Jean, ‘L’extension en jurisprudence de la notion de solidarité passive’ (1939) 38 Revue trimestrielle de droit civil, 601Google Scholar

Viney, Geneviève, ‘Apres la réforme du contrat, la nécessaire réforme des textes du Code civil relatifs à la responsabilité’ (2016) 4 La Semaine Juridique Edition Generale, 99Google Scholar

Virgo, Graham, ‘Contribution Revisited’ (2008) 67 The Cambridge Law Journal, 2, 254Google Scholar

Vogenauer, Stefan and Weatherill, Stephen (eds.), General Principles of Law: European and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2017)Google Scholar

Vormizeele, Philipp Voet van, ‘Die EG-kartellrechtliche Haftungszurechnung im Konzern im Widerstreit zu den nationalen Gesellschaftsrechtsordnungen’ (2010) 9 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 1008Google Scholar

Völzmann-Stickelbrock, Barbara, ‘§ 421 BGB’ in Dauner-Lieb, Barbara, Heidel, Thomas and Ring, Gerhard (eds.), Nomos Kommentar. BGB Schuldrecht, 8 vols. (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2014), vol. II(1)Google Scholar

Völzmann-Stickelbrock, Barbara, ‘§ 423 BGB’ in Dauner-Lieb, Barbara, Heidel, Thomas and Ring, Gerhard (eds.), Nomos Kommentar. BGB Schuldrecht, 8 vols. (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2014), vol. II(1)Google Scholar

Völzmann-Stickelbrock, Barbara, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Dauner-Lieb, Barbara, Heidel, Thomas and Ring, Gerhard (eds.), Nomos Kommentar. BGB Schuldrecht, 8 vols. (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2014), vol. II(1)Google Scholar

Wagener, Hans-Markus, ‘Follow-up to Skanska – The “Implementation” by National Courts So Far’ (2019) 10 Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 535Google Scholar

Wagner, Gerhard ‘§ 823 BGB’ in Habersack, Mathias (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Schuldrecht. Besonderer Teil III, 14 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2013), vol. VGoogle Scholar

Wagner-von Papp, Florian, ‘Der Richtlinienentwurf zu kartellrechtlichen Schadensersatzklagen’ (2009) 11 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 445Google Scholar

Weinhold, Janine, Der Gesamtschuldnerausgleich zwischen den Kartellmitgliedern (Frankfurt am Main: PL Academic Research, Europäische Hochschulschriften, 2015)Google Scholar

Widmer, Pierre, ‘Comparative Report on Fault as a Basis of Liability and Criterion of Imputation’ in Widmer, Pierre (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar

Williams, Glanville Llewelyn, Joint Torts and Contributory Negligence (London: Stevens and Sons Limited, 1951)Google Scholar

Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘Leniency in Antitrust Enforcement: Theory and Practice’ (2007) 30 World Competition, 1, 25Google Scholar

Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘Optimal Antitrust Fines: Theory and Practice’ (2006) 29 World Competition, 2, 183Google Scholar

Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘Private Enforcement of EU Antitrust Law and Its Relationship with Public Enforcement: Past, Present and Future’ (2017) 40 World Competition, 1, 3Google Scholar

Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘The Relationship between Public Antitrust Enforcement and Private Actions for Damages’ (2009) 32 World Competition, 1, 3Google Scholar

Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘The Undertaking as Subject of E.C. Competition Law and the Imputation of Infringements to Natural or Legal persons’ (2000) 25 European Law Review, 99Google Scholar

Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘The Use of Leniency in EU Cartel Enforcement: An Assessment After Twenty Years’ (2016) 39 World Competition, 327Google Scholar

Wish, Rirchard and Bailey, David, Competition Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Wolski, Dominik, ‘Solidarna odpowiedzialność naruszycieli’ in Skoczny, Tadeusz (ed.), Prawo konkurencji. 25 lat (Warszawa: Wolter Kluwers Polska, 2015)Google Scholar

Wright, Richard W., ‘Allocating Liability among Multiple Responsible Causes: A Principled Defense of Joint and Several Liability for Actual Harm and Risk Exposure’ (1988) 21 UC Davis Law Review, 1141Google Scholar

Wurmnest, Wolfgang, ‘Schadensersatz wegen Verletzung des EU-Kartellrechts. Grundfragen und Entwicklungslinien’ in Remien, Oliver (ed.), Schadensersatz im europäischen Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012)Google Scholar

Wurmnest, Wolfgang, ‘Zivilrechtliche Ausgleichsansprüche von Kartellbeteiligten bei Verstößen gegen das EG-Kartellverbot’ (2003) Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft, 896Google Scholar

Ysewyn, Johan and Kahmann, Siobhan, ‘The Decline and Fall of the Leniency Programme in Europe’ (2018) 1 Concurrences, 44Google Scholar

Zandler, Dieter, ‘Die wirtschaftliche Einheit als Normadressat im Kartellbußgeldrecht’ (2016) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 98Google Scholar

Zekaria, Simon, ‘Truck Cartel Disclosure “slow” and “difficult”, UK Claimant Ryder Tells Competition Judge’ (6 February 2020), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1160838&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

Zekaria, Simon, ‘Visa, WH Smith Settle Antitrust Claim Over Card Fees’ (9 July 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1110490&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

Zekaria, Simon, ‘Wallenius Wilhelmsen Data Provides “smoking gun” in Car-shipper Operations, Daimler Tells UK Judge’ (5 May 2020), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1184384&siteid=244&rdir=1 Google Scholar

Zelek, Mariusz, ‘Art. 415’ in Gutowski, Maciej (ed.), Duże Komentarze Becka. Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Art. 1-449 (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2016), vol. IGoogle Scholar

Zhou, Wanli, ‘The Effects of Joint and Several Liability Rule on Collusion and Antitrust Settlement’ (2015) 4 The Bonn Journal of Economics, 1, 76Google Scholar

Zimmer, Daniel J. and Paul, Thomas, ‘Kartellbußgeldrechtliche Haftung und Haftungsbefreiung im Konzern’ (2007) 9 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 970Google Scholar

Zingales, Nicolo, ‘European and American Leniency Programmes: Two Models towards Convergence?’ (2008) 5 The Competition Law Review, 1, 5Google Scholar

Book contents

Bibliography

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive