 Double Jeopardy Between Regulatory and Competition Proceedings: The bpost Judgment and the Digital Markets ActAlessandra Fratini ()
A chapter in Postal Strategies, 2023, pp 59-70 from Springer Abstract: Abstract With its judgment in the bpost case, the Court of Justice clarified that the protection against double jeopardy (principle of ne bis in idem), enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, does not preclude an undertaking from being penalized for an infringement of competition law where, on the same facts, it has already been the subject of a final decision for failure to comply with sectoral rules, subject however to specific conditions, including the “strict necessity test”. The judgment was welcome as signaling a shift in the case law towards a unified test for ne bis in idem across EU law, including EU competition law, where the principle had been applied more narrowly. The judgment bears implications for the enforcement of the upcoming Digital Markets Act: as compliance with the strict necessity test can only be verified ex post, the test does not prevent the duplication of investigations under the DMA and (EU and national) competition law. Keywords: Double jeopardy; Ne bis in idem; DMA; Duplication; Necessity test (search for similar items in EconPapers) There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:topchp:978-3-031-25362-1_5 Ordering information: This item can be ordered from DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-25362-1_5 Access Statistics for this chapter More chapters in Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy from Springer |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.