The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2019.1827 |
Resumo: | In March this year, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter “CJ”) answered the first preliminary question regarding the Private Enforcement Directive (“Directive”).1 One might expect this decision2 to remain relevant for the next few years, as it sheds some light on the rather intricate issue of the Directive’s temporal application. The CJ explains what rules are applicable to actions for damages regarding infringements which occurred prior either to the Directive’s adoption or to its implementation in the respective Member States. The case is also of major interest since it illustrates the role that the principle of effectiveness can play when applied alongside Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).3 Finally, albeit not expressly addressed, the case is also of interest regarding the controversial issue of parent company liability in private enforcement, where it represents a novelty in the Portuguese legal order. |
id |
RCAP_3e875e878c762bde64383ebe28431947 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/1827 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement DirectiveIn March this year, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter “CJ”) answered the first preliminary question regarding the Private Enforcement Directive (“Directive”).1 One might expect this decision2 to remain relevant for the next few years, as it sheds some light on the rather intricate issue of the Directive’s temporal application. The CJ explains what rules are applicable to actions for damages regarding infringements which occurred prior either to the Directive’s adoption or to its implementation in the respective Member States. The case is also of major interest since it illustrates the role that the principle of effectiveness can play when applied alongside Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).3 Finally, albeit not expressly addressed, the case is also of interest regarding the controversial issue of parent company liability in private enforcement, where it represents a novelty in the Portuguese legal order.Universidade Católica Editora2019-10-01T00:00:00Zjournal articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2019.1827oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/1827Market and Competition Law Review; Vol 3 No 2 (2019); 81-106Market and Competition Law Review; v. 3 n. 2 (2019); 81-1062184-000810.7559/mclawreview.2019.3.2reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/1827https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2019.1827https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/1827/5659Copyright (c) 2019 Catarina Vieira Pereshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPeres, Catarina Vieira2022-09-23T15:10:26Zoai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/1827Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:03:41.625991Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive |
title |
The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive |
spellingShingle |
The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive Peres, Catarina Vieira |
title_short |
The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive |
title_full |
The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive |
title_fullStr |
The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive |
title_sort |
The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive |
author |
Peres, Catarina Vieira |
author_facet |
Peres, Catarina Vieira |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Peres, Catarina Vieira |
description |
In March this year, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter “CJ”) answered the first preliminary question regarding the Private Enforcement Directive (“Directive”).1 One might expect this decision2 to remain relevant for the next few years, as it sheds some light on the rather intricate issue of the Directive’s temporal application. The CJ explains what rules are applicable to actions for damages regarding infringements which occurred prior either to the Directive’s adoption or to its implementation in the respective Member States. The case is also of major interest since it illustrates the role that the principle of effectiveness can play when applied alongside Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).3 Finally, albeit not expressly addressed, the case is also of interest regarding the controversial issue of parent company liability in private enforcement, where it represents a novelty in the Portuguese legal order. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-10-01T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
journal article info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2019.1827 oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/1827 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2019.1827 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/1827 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/1827 https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2019.1827 https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/1827/5659 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2019 Catarina Vieira Peres http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2019 Catarina Vieira Peres http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Católica Editora |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Católica Editora |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Market and Competition Law Review; Vol 3 No 2 (2019); 81-106 Market and Competition Law Review; v. 3 n. 2 (2019); 81-106 2184-0008 10.7559/mclawreview.2019.3.2 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130500094230528 |