一罪不二审:bpost、Nordzucker和《数字市场法》

Q4 Social Sciences
Patrick Harrison, Monika Zdzieborska, Bethany M. Wise
{"title":"一罪不二审:bpost、Nordzucker和《数字市场法》","authors":"Patrick Harrison, Monika Zdzieborska, Bethany M. Wise","doi":"10.4337/clj.2022.02.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Court of Justice of the European Union has recently issued its judgments in bpost and Nordzucker, in which it considers the scope and interpretation of the ne bis in idem principle (i.e., the protection against double jeopardy) provided by EU law. This article sets out some of the key takeaways from the two judgments and discusses their potential implications in navigating the forthcoming overlap between the Digital Markets Act and EU competition law enforcement. While bpost and Nordzucker provide welcome clarification as regards due process and proportionality in this context, key questions remain unanswered and we can expect more litigation in this area moving forward.","PeriodicalId":36415,"journal":{"name":"Competition Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating ne bis in idem: bpost, Nordzucker and the Digital Markets Act\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Harrison, Monika Zdzieborska, Bethany M. Wise\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/clj.2022.02.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Court of Justice of the European Union has recently issued its judgments in bpost and Nordzucker, in which it considers the scope and interpretation of the ne bis in idem principle (i.e., the protection against double jeopardy) provided by EU law. This article sets out some of the key takeaways from the two judgments and discusses their potential implications in navigating the forthcoming overlap between the Digital Markets Act and EU competition law enforcement. While bpost and Nordzucker provide welcome clarification as regards due process and proportionality in this context, key questions remain unanswered and we can expect more litigation in this area moving forward.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Competition Law Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Competition Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2022.02.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Competition Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2022.02.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

欧洲联盟法院最近发布了bpost和Nordzucker的判决,其中它考虑了欧盟法律规定的“一事再议”原则(即防止双重危险的保护)的范围和解释。本文列出了这两项判决的一些关键要点,并讨论了它们对《数字市场法》和欧盟竞争法执法之间即将出现的重叠的潜在影响。虽然bpost和Nordzucker在这种情况下就正当程序和相称性提供了令人欢迎的澄清,但关键问题仍未得到解答,我们可以预期在这一领域会有更多的诉讼。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Navigating ne bis in idem: bpost, Nordzucker and the Digital Markets Act
The Court of Justice of the European Union has recently issued its judgments in bpost and Nordzucker, in which it considers the scope and interpretation of the ne bis in idem principle (i.e., the protection against double jeopardy) provided by EU law. This article sets out some of the key takeaways from the two judgments and discusses their potential implications in navigating the forthcoming overlap between the Digital Markets Act and EU competition law enforcement. While bpost and Nordzucker provide welcome clarification as regards due process and proportionality in this context, key questions remain unanswered and we can expect more litigation in this area moving forward.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Competition Law Journal
Competition Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信