Development of private enforcement of competition law in Lithuania

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    The article reviews the jurisprudence of Lithuanian courts on private enforcement of competition law and identifies the main obstacles for the development of this practice. The analysis of the jurisprudence makes it possible to summarise that: most rulings of the Lithuanian courts relate to cases on the abuse of dominance; usually, dominant undertakings were allegedly applying discriminatory conditions towards the injured party and; most of the claims were presented as follow-on actions after a decision of the Competition Council. The courts held that damages caused by a breach of competition law have to be recovered in accordance with Lithuania’s main principles of civil responsibility. At the same time, the courts made it clear that their jurisprudence is based on the rulings of European Courts and the main principles of EU competition law. The main obstacles for the successful development of antitrust damages claims in Lithuania are, inter alia: complexity of competition cases; difficulty in obtaining substantive evidence; proving a consequential relationship and; high legal costs. The article also analyses substantial and procedural provisions of Lithuanian legislation that regulate the submission of antitrust damage claims.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)35-51
    JournalYearbook of antitrust and regulatory studies
    Volume8
    Issue number11
    Publication statusPublished - 2015

    Fingerprint

    Lithuania
    jurisprudence
    Law
    damages
    abuse
    EU
    legislation
    responsibility
    costs
    evidence

    Keywords

    • Antitrust damage
    • Competition law
    • Damage claims

    Cite this

    Development of private enforcement of competition law in Lithuania. / Moisejevas, Raimundas.

    In: Yearbook of antitrust and regulatory studies , Vol. 8, No. 11, 2015, p. 35-51.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{83e32232fe23403db3a9b0110426ab47,
    title = "Development of private enforcement of competition law in Lithuania",
    abstract = "The article reviews the jurisprudence of Lithuanian courts on private enforcement of competition law and identifies the main obstacles for the development of this practice. The analysis of the jurisprudence makes it possible to summarise that: most rulings of the Lithuanian courts relate to cases on the abuse of dominance; usually, dominant undertakings were allegedly applying discriminatory conditions towards the injured party and; most of the claims were presented as follow-on actions after a decision of the Competition Council. The courts held that damages caused by a breach of competition law have to be recovered in accordance with Lithuania’s main principles of civil responsibility. At the same time, the courts made it clear that their jurisprudence is based on the rulings of European Courts and the main principles of EU competition law. The main obstacles for the successful development of antitrust damages claims in Lithuania are, inter alia: complexity of competition cases; difficulty in obtaining substantive evidence; proving a consequential relationship and; high legal costs. The article also analyses substantial and procedural provisions of Lithuanian legislation that regulate the submission of antitrust damage claims.",
    keywords = "Antitrust damage , Competition law , Damage claims",
    author = "Raimundas Moisejevas",
    year = "2015",
    language = "English",
    volume = "8",
    pages = "35--51",
    journal = "Yearbook of antitrust and regulatory studies",
    issn = "1689-9024",
    number = "11",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Development of private enforcement of competition law in Lithuania

    AU - Moisejevas, Raimundas

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - The article reviews the jurisprudence of Lithuanian courts on private enforcement of competition law and identifies the main obstacles for the development of this practice. The analysis of the jurisprudence makes it possible to summarise that: most rulings of the Lithuanian courts relate to cases on the abuse of dominance; usually, dominant undertakings were allegedly applying discriminatory conditions towards the injured party and; most of the claims were presented as follow-on actions after a decision of the Competition Council. The courts held that damages caused by a breach of competition law have to be recovered in accordance with Lithuania’s main principles of civil responsibility. At the same time, the courts made it clear that their jurisprudence is based on the rulings of European Courts and the main principles of EU competition law. The main obstacles for the successful development of antitrust damages claims in Lithuania are, inter alia: complexity of competition cases; difficulty in obtaining substantive evidence; proving a consequential relationship and; high legal costs. The article also analyses substantial and procedural provisions of Lithuanian legislation that regulate the submission of antitrust damage claims.

    AB - The article reviews the jurisprudence of Lithuanian courts on private enforcement of competition law and identifies the main obstacles for the development of this practice. The analysis of the jurisprudence makes it possible to summarise that: most rulings of the Lithuanian courts relate to cases on the abuse of dominance; usually, dominant undertakings were allegedly applying discriminatory conditions towards the injured party and; most of the claims were presented as follow-on actions after a decision of the Competition Council. The courts held that damages caused by a breach of competition law have to be recovered in accordance with Lithuania’s main principles of civil responsibility. At the same time, the courts made it clear that their jurisprudence is based on the rulings of European Courts and the main principles of EU competition law. The main obstacles for the successful development of antitrust damages claims in Lithuania are, inter alia: complexity of competition cases; difficulty in obtaining substantive evidence; proving a consequential relationship and; high legal costs. The article also analyses substantial and procedural provisions of Lithuanian legislation that regulate the submission of antitrust damage claims.

    KW - Antitrust damage

    KW - Competition law

    KW - Damage claims

    M3 - Article

    VL - 8

    SP - 35

    EP - 51

    JO - Yearbook of antitrust and regulatory studies

    JF - Yearbook of antitrust and regulatory studies

    SN - 1689-9024

    IS - 11

    ER -