341.24 (FRA) n.º 49
Monografia
4841
FRAIPONT, Catarina Vieira Peres de
The Single Economic Unit Doctrine : From Public to Private Enforcement / Catarina Vieira Peres de Fraipont.- Coimbra : Almedina, 2023.- 660 p. ; 23 cm. - (Morais Leitão)
ISBN 978-989-40-1114-9 (Broch.) : Oferta
DIREITO COMUNITÁRIO
INTRODUCTION. PARTI: THE SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIX DOCTRINE IN EU COMPETITION LAW. I. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS. i. The Concept of Undertaking in EU Competition Law. ii. The Concept of Economic Activity. iii. The Concept of “Economic Unit”. iv. Irrelevance of Legal Personality. II. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ECONOMIC UNIT DOCTRINE UNDER ARTS. 101 AND 102 TFEU IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT. i. Under Art. 101: Irrelevance of Agreements within the same Undertaking. ii. Bloclt Exemptions Application. iii. Imputation of Anti-Competitive Conduct. iv. Calculation of the Fine. v. Jurisdictional Anchor. vi. Recidivism. vii. Surprise Inspections. viii. Leniency Implications. ix. Limitation Periods. III. A UNITARY CONCEPT OF UNDERTAKING IN ALL DOMAINS OF COMPETITION LAW? i. A Unitary Concept of Undertaking for Art. 101 Purposes? ii. The Undertaking and Art. 102. iii. The Use of the Single Economic Doctrine in Merger Control. iv. The use of the Single Economic Doctrine in State Aid Cases. IV. THE SPECIFICITY OF THE SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT DOCTRINE AND ITS JUSTIFICATION. i. EU Labour Law. ii. EU Tax Law. iii. Insolvency Law. iv. Parallel Imports. v. Product Liability. vi. Environmental Liability. vii. Public Procurement. viii. Why is the Single Economic Unit Concept Specific to Competition Law? ix. A Bxief Comparison with the U.S.. V. CASE LAW ON THE SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT IN PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT. i. Types of Economic Units: Agents, Contractors and Corporate Groups. ii. Case Law on Parent Company Liability. iii. Special Cases. iv. Economic Unit in Corporate Restructurings, Successions or Transfers. v. Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries and the Akzo Presumption. VI. ECONOMIC UNITS V. LEGAL UNITS. i. Economic Units under the Theory of the Firm. ii. The Nature of Corporate Personhood. iii. Corporate Groups under Economic and Legal Theory. iv. Transposing Legal and Economic Theory to the Undertaking Concept. VII. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE USE OF THE SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT IN PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT. i. Deterrence. ii. What about Punishment? iii. Other Considerations. iv. Economic Perspective: Efficiency Justification. VIII. THE SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT AND THE PRINCIPLE OF PERSONAL LIABILITY. i. Compatibility with the Principie of Personal Liability. ii. Better Altemative Solutions to the Economic Unit Doctrine? CONCLUDING REMARKS TO PART I. PART II: TRANSPOSING PARENT COMPANY LIABILITY TO THE PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT CONTEXT. I. ON MSS' OBLIGATION TO APPLY THE EU CONCEPT OF UNDERTAKING IN PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT. i. MSs’ Solutions to Parent Company Liability. ii. The Skanska Ruling. iii. Is there an Obligation to Transpose the Akzo Presumption? II. ON THE SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT DOCTRINE IN PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT. i. Specific Problems posed by Actions for Damages but Absence of Others. ii. Role and Justification of Parent Company Liability in Private Enforcement. III. INVERTED LIABILITY: A COMMON PROBLEM IN PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT. i. Subsidiary Liability in UK Case Law. ii. Inverted Liability in Continental Europe. iii. The Sumal Preliminary Ruling. iv. Inverted LiabiJity: an Asessment. IV. THE SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT DOCTRINE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF LIMITED LIABILITY. i. Introductory Concepts. ii. The Principie of Limited Liability. iii. Limited Liability and the Corporate Group. iv. Application of these Considerations in Competition Law. IV. THE DOCTRINE OF THE SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT, VEIL PIERCING AND ENTERPRISE LIABILITY. i. Veil Piercing and Enterprise Liability. ii. Enterprise Liability in the Statutory Context. iii. An assessment of the.An Assessment of the Single Economic Unit Doctrine. CONCLUDING REMARKS TO PART II. FINAL CONCLUSION. TABLE OF CASES. BIBLIOGRAPHY.