ANTITRUST DAMAGES ACTIONS: LESSONS FROM AMERICAN INDIRECT PURCHASERS' LITIGATION
This article aims to draw policy lessons from the American indirect purchasers' litigation experience for the design of the European private antitrust regime in the light of the European Commission's White Paper on damages actions. The article shows that in multi-level polities procedural...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The International and comparative law quarterly 2010-01, Vol.59 (1), p.39-63 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 63 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 39 |
| container_title | The International and comparative law quarterly |
| container_volume | 59 |
| creator | Cengiz, Firat |
| description | This article aims to draw policy lessons from the American indirect purchasers' litigation experience for the design of the European private antitrust regime in the light of the European Commission's White Paper on damages actions. The article shows that in multi-level polities procedural aspects of antitrust litigation and judicial cooperation are as crucial as the substantive standards for the success of private enforcement regimes. From this perspective the article criticizes the White Paper for the lack of procedural assessment and urges the Commission to give due consideration to procedural standards and mechanisms of judicial cooperation before taking any legislative action. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0020589309990030 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743793099</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0020589309990030</cupid><jstor_id>25622269</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25622269</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-c1b92995c6382702a020cce98ab3d17bbb27039f24e197a383743ac4152198573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkV9LwzAUxYMoOKcfwAeh-LKnav40SeNb6bqt0G3adgi-hLTLZHOzM9lAv72tFQVF8OmGe37ncm4uAOcIXiGI-HUGIYbUFwQKISAk8AB0kMeRy3xBD0Gnkd1GPwYn1q4gRIxQ2gG3wSSP83SW5U4_GAfDKHOCMI-nk-zGSaIsqx_OIJ2OnWAcpXEYTJx40o_TKMyd21kajoIsSrOek8R5PAwa3yk4Wqi11WeftQtmgygPR24yHdb-xC2ph3ZuiQqBhaAlIz7mEKs6X1lq4auCzBEviqLuErHAnkaCK-IT7hFVeohiJHzKSRf02rlbU73std3JzdKWer1Wz7raW1nj_OM3_kNCTDhqZl7-IFfV3jzXa0hMGPOJEA2EWqg0lbVGL-TWLDfKvEkEZXML-esWteei9azsrjJfBkwZxpg1Ed1WX9qdfv3SlXmSjBNOJRveyUTcjx5SH8u7miefGdSmMMv5o_5O-neKd0hJmcE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>236683997</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>ANTITRUST DAMAGES ACTIONS: LESSONS FROM AMERICAN INDIRECT PURCHASERS' LITIGATION</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Cengiz, Firat</creator><creatorcontrib>Cengiz, Firat</creatorcontrib><description>This article aims to draw policy lessons from the American indirect purchasers' litigation experience for the design of the European private antitrust regime in the light of the European Commission's White Paper on damages actions. The article shows that in multi-level polities procedural aspects of antitrust litigation and judicial cooperation are as crucial as the substantive standards for the success of private enforcement regimes. From this perspective the article criticizes the White Paper for the lack of procedural assessment and urges the Commission to give due consideration to procedural standards and mechanisms of judicial cooperation before taking any legislative action.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-5893</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6895</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0020589309990030</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Anti-trust legislation ; Antitrust ; Bricks ; Civil procedure ; Commercial law ; Commissions ; Cooperation ; Courts of law ; Damage ; Europe ; European Commission ; Evaluation ; International judicial cooperation ; Jurisdiction ; Law ; Legal systems ; Litigation ; Plaintiffs ; Political action committees ; Political Systems ; Public policy ; Rule of law ; Settlements & damages ; U.S.A ; Working papers</subject><ispartof>The International and comparative law quarterly, 2010-01, Vol.59 (1), p.39-63</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2010 British Institute of International and Comparative Law</rights><rights>Copyright 2010 British Institute of International and Comparative Law</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-c1b92995c6382702a020cce98ab3d17bbb27039f24e197a383743ac4152198573</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-c1b92995c6382702a020cce98ab3d17bbb27039f24e197a383743ac4152198573</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25622269$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020589309990030/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,778,782,801,12832,27911,27912,55615,58004,58237</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cengiz, Firat</creatorcontrib><title>ANTITRUST DAMAGES ACTIONS: LESSONS FROM AMERICAN INDIRECT PURCHASERS' LITIGATION</title><title>The International and comparative law quarterly</title><addtitle>ICLQ</addtitle><description>This article aims to draw policy lessons from the American indirect purchasers' litigation experience for the design of the European private antitrust regime in the light of the European Commission's White Paper on damages actions. The article shows that in multi-level polities procedural aspects of antitrust litigation and judicial cooperation are as crucial as the substantive standards for the success of private enforcement regimes. From this perspective the article criticizes the White Paper for the lack of procedural assessment and urges the Commission to give due consideration to procedural standards and mechanisms of judicial cooperation before taking any legislative action.</description><subject>Anti-trust legislation</subject><subject>Antitrust</subject><subject>Bricks</subject><subject>Civil procedure</subject><subject>Commercial law</subject><subject>Commissions</subject><subject>Cooperation</subject><subject>Courts of law</subject><subject>Damage</subject><subject>Europe</subject><subject>European Commission</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>International judicial cooperation</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Legal systems</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Plaintiffs</subject><subject>Political action committees</subject><subject>Political Systems</subject><subject>Public policy</subject><subject>Rule of law</subject><subject>Settlements & damages</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><subject>Working papers</subject><issn>0020-5893</issn><issn>1471-6895</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkV9LwzAUxYMoOKcfwAeh-LKnav40SeNb6bqt0G3adgi-hLTLZHOzM9lAv72tFQVF8OmGe37ncm4uAOcIXiGI-HUGIYbUFwQKISAk8AB0kMeRy3xBD0Gnkd1GPwYn1q4gRIxQ2gG3wSSP83SW5U4_GAfDKHOCMI-nk-zGSaIsqx_OIJ2OnWAcpXEYTJx40o_TKMyd21kajoIsSrOek8R5PAwa3yk4Wqi11WeftQtmgygPR24yHdb-xC2ph3ZuiQqBhaAlIz7mEKs6X1lq4auCzBEviqLuErHAnkaCK-IT7hFVeohiJHzKSRf02rlbU73std3JzdKWer1Wz7raW1nj_OM3_kNCTDhqZl7-IFfV3jzXa0hMGPOJEA2EWqg0lbVGL-TWLDfKvEkEZXML-esWteei9azsrjJfBkwZxpg1Ed1WX9qdfv3SlXmSjBNOJRveyUTcjx5SH8u7miefGdSmMMv5o_5O-neKd0hJmcE</recordid><startdate>201001</startdate><enddate>201001</enddate><creator>Cengiz, Firat</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201001</creationdate><title>ANTITRUST DAMAGES ACTIONS: LESSONS FROM AMERICAN INDIRECT PURCHASERS' LITIGATION</title><author>Cengiz, Firat</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-c1b92995c6382702a020cce98ab3d17bbb27039f24e197a383743ac4152198573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Anti-trust legislation</topic><topic>Antitrust</topic><topic>Bricks</topic><topic>Civil procedure</topic><topic>Commercial law</topic><topic>Commissions</topic><topic>Cooperation</topic><topic>Courts of law</topic><topic>Damage</topic><topic>Europe</topic><topic>European Commission</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>International judicial cooperation</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Legal systems</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Plaintiffs</topic><topic>Political action committees</topic><topic>Political Systems</topic><topic>Public policy</topic><topic>Rule of law</topic><topic>Settlements & damages</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><topic>Working papers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cengiz, Firat</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The International and comparative law quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cengiz, Firat</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>ANTITRUST DAMAGES ACTIONS: LESSONS FROM AMERICAN INDIRECT PURCHASERS' LITIGATION</atitle><jtitle>The International and comparative law quarterly</jtitle><addtitle>ICLQ</addtitle><date>2010-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>59</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>39</spage><epage>63</epage><pages>39-63</pages><issn>0020-5893</issn><eissn>1471-6895</eissn><abstract>This article aims to draw policy lessons from the American indirect purchasers' litigation experience for the design of the European private antitrust regime in the light of the European Commission's White Paper on damages actions. The article shows that in multi-level polities procedural aspects of antitrust litigation and judicial cooperation are as crucial as the substantive standards for the success of private enforcement regimes. From this perspective the article criticizes the White Paper for the lack of procedural assessment and urges the Commission to give due consideration to procedural standards and mechanisms of judicial cooperation before taking any legislative action.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0020589309990030</doi><tpages>25</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0020-5893 |
| ispartof | The International and comparative law quarterly, 2010-01, Vol.59 (1), p.39-63 |
| issn | 0020-5893 1471-6895 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743793099 |
| source | Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Jstor Complete Legacy; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Anti-trust legislation Antitrust Bricks Civil procedure Commercial law Commissions Cooperation Courts of law Damage Europe European Commission Evaluation International judicial cooperation Jurisdiction Law Legal systems Litigation Plaintiffs Political action committees Political Systems Public policy Rule of law Settlements & damages U.S.A Working papers |
| title | ANTITRUST DAMAGES ACTIONS: LESSONS FROM AMERICAN INDIRECT PURCHASERS' LITIGATION |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T20%3A25%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=ANTITRUST%20DAMAGES%20ACTIONS:%20LESSONS%20FROM%20AMERICAN%20INDIRECT%20PURCHASERS'%20LITIGATION&rft.jtitle=The%20International%20and%20comparative%20law%20quarterly&rft.au=Cengiz,%20Firat&rft.date=2010-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=39&rft.epage=63&rft.pages=39-63&rft.issn=0020-5893&rft.eissn=1471-6895&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0020589309990030&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E25622269%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=236683997&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0020589309990030&rft_jstor_id=25622269&rfr_iscdi=true |