The graduate employment market faces ever-increasing socioeconomic and political pressures. Higher Education Institutions and the sport sector in the EU have an important role in contributing to graduate employment. The aims of the study were: (1) to assess general perceptions of employability, and (2) to assess sports graduates' and employers' perceptions of specific capabilities and competencies in order to identify possible improvements for sports graduate employability programmes. A cross sectional survey of sports graduates and employers was administered in six EU countries including the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Greece and the Czech Republic to assess graduate and employer perceptions. A graduate capabilities and competencies framework was devised to assess personal, interpersonal, cognitive, role-specific and generic skills. Responses were elicited from 1,132 sports graduates and 327 employers. There was generally a wide difference of opinion between employers and sports graduates in terms of the importance and possession of a number of capabilities and competencies. There is a need for the Higher Education sector and employers to take responsibility in ensuring that work experience, work placement and volunteering opportunities are embedded in curricula and to ensure the fitness of purpose of what and how graduate capabilities and competencies are assessed.

The ECN+ Directive gives national competition authorities more power in order to make them more effective enforcers of EU competition law. However, Art. 3 of the ECN+ Directive counterbalances this by requiring that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that undertakings’ fundamental rights are respected in EU competition law enforcement proceedings. The aim of this article is to critically reflect on the requirements of the ECN+ Directive with respect to safeguards for the fundamental rights that fall within the ambit of Art. 3 of the ECN+ Directive and the implementation of those requirements by EU Member States. To this end, the article first provides an overview of this provision. Second, by means of an overview of national laws, it analyses whether the very general Art. 3 is capable of harmonising the safeguards in question. A set of comparative examples from EU Member States, including in particular examples Poland and the Czech Republic, shows how the wording of Art. 3 invites national legislatures to misuse the potential of this provision. This results in undertakings continuing to face disparity in the extent to which their fundamental rights are protected in competition law enforcement proceedings before the various national competition authorities.

Even though public authorities, in particular the Government and the municipalities, may dis-turb effective competition by their exercise of public powers, competition law does not apply to them, except for the specific and limited circumstances when it can be used in connection with other Treaty provisions. This article first explores the limits of applicability of EU competition law on public authorities; it concludes that even though EU competition law as such does not provide protection against the conduct of public authorities that distorts competition, its scope should not be expanded. The aim of competition law is to limit market power, not official au-thority. Instead, after discussing the legislation of selected countries from Central Europe, it is put forward that specific domestic legislation, applied by competition authorities, may provide an effective remedy to this problem. As comparative research of these issues has been rather limited so far, further elaboration of this topic is recommended.