Competition litigation and EU private international law rules

Legalism without adversarialism?: Bureaucratic legalism and the politics of regulatory implementation in the European Union

“…Private actors can and do play important roles within bureaucratic legalism, providing information about violations to regulators (i.e., fire alarms) or seeking compensation for regulatory victims following public action (i.e., restitution). Private actors may also invoke public regulatory law as either a “sword” or a “shield” in private law disputes, as has long been common practice in Germany, a paragon of bureaucratic legalism (Peyer, 2012; Rodger, 2014). However, in contrast to adversarial legalism, such private actions do not significantly shape the authoritative rules and norms that structure the meaning and application of the law.…”

“… Source : Rodger (2014), European Competition Network, US Federal Courts. Calculations by the author. …”

“…Only a small fraction of cases was equivalent to “private attorneys general” in the United States. Just 17% of cases involved monetary damages, and most of these were follow‐on actions that relied on public judgments (Rodger, 2014, p. 154). Only 0.4% of cases—a total of just five cases in 27 countries—involved groups of consumers (i.e., class actions) (Rodger, 2014, p. 162).…”

“…Just 17% of cases involved monetary damages, and most of these were follow‐on actions that relied on public judgments (Rodger, 2014, p. 154). Only 0.4% of cases—a total of just five cases in 27 countries—involved groups of consumers (i.e., class actions) (Rodger, 2014, p. 162). This contrasts with the United States, where significant numbers of private antitrust lawsuits involve groups of consumers seeking monetary redress.…”