The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Peres, Catarina Vieira
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