Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Preface
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- General Introduction
- PART I ECONOMIC METHODS IN COMPETITION LAW
- PART II ECONOMIC EVIDENCES IN COMPETITION LAW
- PART III INSIDER TRADING, CARTELS AND CRIMINALISATION
- PART IV PRELIMINARY RULINGS AND STATE AID CONTROL
- PART V ECONOMIC EVIDENCE, ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS AND NATIONAL COURTS
- Chapter 15 Google, Competition Policy and the Owl of Minerva
- Chapter 16 The Interaction between EU Regulatory Implants and the Existing Croatian Legal Order in Competition Law
- Chapter 17 Empiric Assessment of the Role of Economic Analysis in Russian Competition Law
- Chapter 18 Challenges of Private Enforcement of Antitrust in Slovenia
- Chapter 19 On the Need of EU Wide Best Practices in Competition Law Enforcement Proceedings
- Index
Chapter 18 - Challenges of Private Enforcement of Antitrust in Slovenia
from PART V - ECONOMIC EVIDENCE, ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS AND NATIONAL COURTS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 September 2018
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Preface
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- General Introduction
- PART I ECONOMIC METHODS IN COMPETITION LAW
- PART II ECONOMIC EVIDENCES IN COMPETITION LAW
- PART III INSIDER TRADING, CARTELS AND CRIMINALISATION
- PART IV PRELIMINARY RULINGS AND STATE AID CONTROL
- PART V ECONOMIC EVIDENCE, ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS AND NATIONAL COURTS
- Chapter 15 Google, Competition Policy and the Owl of Minerva
- Chapter 16 The Interaction between EU Regulatory Implants and the Existing Croatian Legal Order in Competition Law
- Chapter 17 Empiric Assessment of the Role of Economic Analysis in Russian Competition Law
- Chapter 18 Challenges of Private Enforcement of Antitrust in Slovenia
- Chapter 19 On the Need of EU Wide Best Practices in Competition Law Enforcement Proceedings
- Index
Summary
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the number of cases in which plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages caused by anticompetitive behaviour and other forms of relief has been rising in Slovenia facing the courts, businesses and their representatives, to some extent even national competition authorities with novel and complex issues of antitrust private enforcement. Private enforcement of antitrust in Slovenia is still in its initial stage with the majority of cases still pending with the courts. It is thus yet to be seen how qualified are the judges in tackling antitrust cases.
The paper analyses focal elements of current regulation of private enforcement of antitrust in Slovenia. It focuses on relevant European legal framework, in particular on the new Directive 2014/104 and its travaux preparatoires, as well as on relevant national legislation. Article 62 of the Prevention of Restriction of Competition Act of 2008 (PRCA-1) setting down some specific rules as regards antitrust damages lawsuits, and other, more general pieces of Slovenian legislation relevant in proceedings of private enforcement of antitrust are also presented and are assessed through the prism of the new directive. Further, the paper elaborates on the status quo of private enforcement of European and national antitrust in Slovenia and tries to find reasons for its inefficiency. Relevant follow-on and stand-alone private lawsuits that are or were pending before Slovenian courts that are analysed in the final chapter, also mirror the challenges of Slovenian judiciary in private antitrust enforcement proceedings.
REGULATION OF PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT OF ANTITRUST IN SLOVENIA
JURISDICTION IN ANTITRUST PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT CASES
The presently valid act regulating competition law in Slovenia, i.e. the PRCA-1, does not set out any specific rules on jurisdiction in antitrust private enforcement cases. General rules of the Civil Procedure Act (CPrA) therefore apply.
According to the CPrA, jurisdiction in first-instance civil and commercial cases in Slovenia is divided between local and district courts based on various criteria. In general, local courts have jurisdiction in those cases where the disputed value does not exceed EUR 20.000, whereas district courts hear the cases where the disputed value exceeds EUR 20.000. However, in certain matters, jurisdiction is divided regardless of the disputed value.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Economic Evidence in EU Competition Law , pp. 375 - 428Publisher: IntersentiaPrint publication year: 2016
- 1
- Cited by