Odgovornost na temelju krivnje i objektivna odgovornost za štetu u odštetnom pravu EU

Puvača, Maja Bukovac

doi:10.18485/union_pf_ccr.2021.ch1

Zaštita Kolektivnih Interesa Potrošača 2021

DOI: 10.18485/union_pf_ccr.2021.ch1

|View full text |Cite

Odgovornost na temelju krivnje i objektivna odgovornost za štetu u odštetnom pravu EU

Maja Bukovac Puvača¹

Abstract: Cilj ovog rada bio je istražiti postoji li na europskoj razini temelj za razlikovanje odgovornosti na temelju krivnje i objektivne odgovornosti za štetu i određivanje granica njihove primjene. Europski zakonodavac, zbog posredne nadležnosti za intervencije u privatno pravo država članica, ujednačavanju pravila o odgovornosti za štetu pristupa selektivno i parcijalno i zato u europskim propisima jasno određenje o kojoj se vrsti odgovornosti radi u pravilu izostaje. Soft law izvori europskog odštetnog prava, PET… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

References 8 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

PROVING ANTITRUST DAMAGES IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – The Compatibility of Serbian Law with Directive 2014/104 –

Bajalović

2024

SPZ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Private competition law enforcement has been a recent phenomenon in the European Union. In the past, the EU law and member states’ national laws lacked elements that contributed to the preponderance of private enforcement in the United States, such as treble and punitive damages, the procedural right of a damaged party to request discovery of evidence, collective actions, etc. The interest in private enforcement of competition law has gradually increased after Regulation 1/2003 authorised national courts to implement Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, the EU courts established private enforcement principles, and Directive 2014/104 (Antitrust Damages Directive - ADD) laid down rules to facilitate proving competition law violations and damage resulting from them. The US model evidently inspired the EU legislator. At the same time, ADD attempted to balance the private interests of injured parties and the public interest for effective public enforcement. Specific ADD provisions instigated a public debate concerning their reach and alleged confrontation with general legal principles. Even though member states have taken comprehensive measures to implement ADD, national courts need to search for an equilibrium between private and public interests. Therefore, the full effect of Directive 2014/104 is yet to be seen. Private enforcement of competition law in Serbia is still in its initiation phase. The Serbian Competition Protection Act 2009 proclaimed the right of damaged persons to bring actions for damages, even though this right has already existed under the general rules of civil law. The Competition Protection Act failed to stipulate material conditions and procedural rules that would facilitate private enforcement. The Serbian legislator has not yet taken steps to transpose ADD into national law. This paper first analyses the development and principal features of the US and EU private enforcement models. After that it focuses on the ADD provisions expediting evidence collection and damage assessment. The second part of the paper analyses Serbian tort and civil procedure rules relevant to bringing actions for antitrust damages and case law on antitrust damages. The author concludes with proposals for Serbian legislators to harmonise national law with ADD.

show abstract

PROVING ANTITRUST DAMAGES IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – The Compatibility of Serbian Law with Directive 2014/104 –

Bajalović

2024

SPZ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Odgovornost na temelju krivnje i objektivna odgovornost za štetu u odštetnom pravu EU

Cited by 1 publication

References 8 publications

PROVING ANTITRUST DAMAGES IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – The Compatibility of Serbian Law with Directive 2014/104 –

PROVING ANTITRUST DAMAGES IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – The Compatibility of Serbian Law with Directive 2014/104 –

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About