Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Edited Legal Collections Data

Smith, Vincent --- "Fundamental rights in the application of competition law in the EU" [2017] ELECD 979; in Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh; Hatzis, Nicholas (eds), "Research Handbook on EU Law and Human Rights" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017) 345

Book Title: Research Handbook on EU Law and Human Rights

Editor(s): Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh; Hatzis, Nicholas

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN (hard cover): 9781782546399

Section: Chapter 15

Section Title: Fundamental rights in the application of competition law in the EU

Author(s): Smith, Vincent

Number of pages: 19

Abstract/Description:

EU competition law has been directly effective across the EU – conferring rights on EU citizens – since the early days of the formation of the Communities. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed early on in the history of the EEC that the wording of the Treaty articles forming the basis of the competition regime (now Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) create such rights. Despite allowing private parties to enforce EU competition law, the application of the EU competition rules was primarily entrusted to the European Commission until (at least) May 2004. Many of the general issues concerning the relationship between the Community legal order and international fundamental rights were therefore first raised in appeals against Commission competition decisions. The European Commission’s competition procedure has been tested against the fundamental rights standards by the General Court on numerous occasions. Indeed many appeals against Commission competition decisions often consist of little more than a plea that the fundamental rights of the addressees of the decision have been ignored by the procedure used by the Commission to investigate the competition infringement and reach a decision. These challenges have been of two broad varieties. Either the defendants have argued that the overall enforcement procedure is flawed when viewed against ‘due process’ requirements – because it is said the Commission acts as ‘prosecutor, judge and executioner’ in the same case – or defendants have claimed that their rights of defence were not respected on the facts of their particular case.