File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL
Supplementary

Article: Due Process: The Exchange of Information and Risk of Hindering Effective Cross-Border Co-Operation in Competition Cases

TitleDue Process: The Exchange of Information and Risk of Hindering Effective Cross-Border Co-Operation in Competition Cases
Authors
Issue Date1-Dec-2010
PublisherAngus MacCulloch & Andrew Matthews
Citation
Competition Law Review, 2010, v. 7, n. 1, p. 105-127 How to Cite?
AbstractThe paper investigates the different regimes for the exchange of information in cross-border competition cases. It argues that the co-operation and information exchange mechanisms in competition cases established by Regulation 1/2003 have been overtaken by the means provided by the European Evidence Warrant which was developed under the former third Pillar (Co-operation in Criminal Matters). Moreover, the paper argues that both means: those provided by Regulation 1/2003 and those provided by the European Evidence Warrant are in general available to national competition authorities. In the light of the merging of the first pillar and third pillar under the Lisbon Treaty possible solutions are put forward to address the inconsistencies created by the availability of different co-operation mechanisms.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/354875
ISSN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNowag, J-
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-14T00:35:30Z-
dc.date.available2025-03-14T00:35:30Z-
dc.date.issued2010-12-01-
dc.identifier.citationCompetition Law Review, 2010, v. 7, n. 1, p. 105-127-
dc.identifier.issn1745-638X-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/354875-
dc.description.abstractThe paper investigates the different regimes for the exchange of information in cross-border competition cases. It argues that the co-operation and information exchange mechanisms in competition cases established by Regulation 1/2003 have been overtaken by the means provided by the European Evidence Warrant which was developed under the former third Pillar (Co-operation in Criminal Matters). Moreover, the paper argues that both means: those provided by Regulation 1/2003 and those provided by the European Evidence Warrant are in general available to national competition authorities. In the light of the merging of the first pillar and third pillar under the Lisbon Treaty possible solutions are put forward to address the inconsistencies created by the availability of different co-operation mechanisms.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherAngus MacCulloch & Andrew Matthews-
dc.relation.ispartofCompetition Law Review-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.titleDue Process: The Exchange of Information and Risk of Hindering Effective Cross-Border Co-Operation in Competition Cases-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.volume7-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage105-
dc.identifier.epage127-
dc.identifier.issnl1745-638X-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats