About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

4 CLPD 3 (2018)

handle is hein.journals/clpd4 and id is 1 raw text is: Dear Reader, Our first issue in 2018 deals with the role of individuals in cartel procedures. There has been much talk about the deterrence effects of high fines on companies, on the one hand, and of sanctioning individuals for their participation in cartels on the other. Over the last decade prison sentences in the United States have increased almost as inflationary as pecuniary sanctions in Europe. In order to approach the issue further we wanted to learn from the experience and the issues faced in jurisdictions where criminal sanctions can be imposed on individuals (the US, Brazil, the UI( and Ireland) and in countries with mostly administrative sanctions (Germany and the Netherlands). Needless to say, in all of these jurisdictions cartel behavior continues. Also, in all ofthese jurisdictions immunity/leniency applications, in which the cooperation of individuals having participated in the cartel is crucial, still play a significant role in the detection of infringements. What becomes clear from the articles is how intricately the different elements of each individual system of cartel prosecution are linkedto one another and to the legal system in general. What seems less clear is whether criminalization is always needed or appropriate or whether administrative fines on individuals or even on companies may not be sufficient. Of course it seems desirable to have similar rules with respect to individuals at least in the EU Member States so that, for example, their rights are always adequately protected if they are first interviewed in one country merely in order to help their company and then end up being investigated as participants in a cartel in another country. But as the articles show, there would be a large number of hurdles to overcome before Member State rules can be harmonized. Our synopsis looks at what happened in the area of merger control over the lastyear. There were two prohibitions and an abandoned merger, a number of very large deals in which significant remedies were imposed, four judgments by the EU courts in the area of merger control as well as a fine and several investigations on the basis of procedural infringements. Clearly an interestingyear for merger control practitioners. In addition to ourregular contributions we also have ahot topic article on the General Court's recent judgment in the ICAP case. The article looks, in particular, at ICAP's argument that the Commission infringed the presumption of innocence and the principle of good administration, by extensively describing ICAP's role as a facilitator in the 2013 settlement decision. Remains to be seen what impact the judgment will have on the drafting of settlement decisions. And finally, as a teaser for our next issue, which will deal with the recent Intel judgment and give an economic perspective on theas efficient competitor test, we have an article looking (somewhat critically) at the Commission's interpretation of the judgment. As usual, enjoy reading and let me know if you have comments or would like to see a symposium on a particular subject that we have not yet treated. Annette Schild Editor in Chief Annette.Schild@alschild.com

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most