Problems of Proving in Competition Cases in the Courts of Integration Associations on the Example of the EU and EAEU

Diyachenko, Ekaterina

doi:10.12737/jzsp.2023.039

Home>No. 3>Problems of Proving in Competition Cases in the Courts of Integration Associations on the Example of the EU and EAEU

Problems of Proving in Competition Cases in the Courts of Integration Associations on the Example of the EU and EAEU

Table of contents

Abstract Estimate Publication content

References Comments

Problems of Proving in Competition Cases in the Courts of Integration Associations on the Example of the EU and EAEU

Abstract

PII

S1991-32220000622-3-1

DOI

10.12737/jzsp.2023.039

Publication type

Article

Status

Published

Authors

Ekaterina Diyachenko Send message

ORCID: 0000-0002-2847-4713

Occupation: Judgeʼs Counselor, Court of the Eurasian Economic Union; Senior Researcher, Department of International Law, Institute of State and Law, Russian Academy of Sciences
Affiliation:
Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, Minsk, Belarus
Institute of State and Law, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Moscow, Russia

Edition

Volume 19 No. 3

Pages

103-114

Abstract

Proof is a key element of legal proceedings in international courts. Dispute resolution, including rules of evidence, in the courts of integration associations has significant specifics, which is enhanced when considering cases concerning individually defined acts with complex factual composition. These cases include cases of prosecution for violation of competition law.

The purpose of the article is to identify the features of evidence in the resolution by the courts of integration associations of cases in the field of competition law. The cases and grounds for transferring the burden of proof and exemption from proof, the essence of evidentiary presumptions and ways to refute them are analyzed. The subject of independent study is the approaches of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union in the framework of challenging the decisions of the Eurasian Economic Commission on bringing to responsibility for violation of the general rules of competition in cross-border markets.

The use of the induction method and the analysis of individual cases considered by the Court of the European Union allow us to identify patterns of application of the rules of evidence in resolving disputes on bringing to responsibility for violation of competition law. The comparative method makes it possible to apply the methodology identified in the study of the practice of the Court of the European Union to the cases of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union.

The rules of proof are based on the thesis onus probandi actori incumbit, known to Roman law, which is transformed into the principle of interaction between the parties and the court, as well as exemption from the obligation of proof. In competition cases, evidentiary presumptions come to the fore, as well as the conditions and grounds for transferring the burden of proof.

Keywords

burden of proof, presumption, prima facie evidence, Court of Justice of the European Union, Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, anticompetitive agreement

Date of publication

13.06.2023

Number of purchasers

Views

142

Readers community rating

0.0 (0 votes)

Cite Download pdf

GOST	Diyachenko E. Problems of Proving in Competition Cases in the Courts of Integration Associations on the Example of the EU and EAEU // Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law. – 2023. – V. 19. – No. 3 C. 103-114 . DOI: 10.12737/jzsp.2023.039
MLA	Diyachenko, Ekaterina "Problems of Proving in Competition Cases in the Courts of Integration Associations on the Example of the EU and EAEU." Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law. 19.3 (2023).:103-114. DOI: 10.12737/jzsp.2023.039
APA	Diyachenko E. (2023). Problems of Proving in Competition Cases in the Courts of Integration Associations on the Example of the EU and EAEU. Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law. vol. 19, no. 3, pp.103-114 DOI: 10.12737/jzsp.2023.039


1

References

Additional sources and materials

1.	Amerasinghe Ch. F. Evidence in International Litigation. Leiden; Boston, 2005. 492 p.
2.	Bronckers M., Vallery A. No Longer Presumed Guilty: The Impact of Fundamental Rights on Certain Dogmas of EU Competition Law. World Competition: Law and Economics Review, 2011, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 535—571.
3.	Brown Ch. A Common Law of International Adjudication. New York; Oxford, 2007. 303 p.
4.	Chayka K. L. Court of Integrative Organization as International Judicial Body. Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava Rossiyskoy akademii nauk, 2019, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 147—166. (In Russ.)
5.	De la Torre C. F., Fournier G. E. Evidence, Proof and Judicial Review in EU Competition Law. Cheltenham, 2017. 416 p.
6.	Dyachenko E. B. Control over corporations: doctrine and reality. Moscow, 2013. 148 p. (In Russ.)
7.	Dyachenko E. B. Knockin' on heaven's door: The burden of proof before international courts. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2021, no. 2(38), pp. 111—133. (In Russ.)
8.	Dyachenko E. B., Entin K. V. The Role of the EAEU Court 's Advisory Opinions in Development of the Eurasian Economic Union's Competition. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 2021, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 177—204. (In Russ.)
9.	Egorova M. V. Proving the existence of restricted agreements restricting competition or concerted practice between state bodies and economic entities. Khozyaystvo i pravo, 2020, no. 1(516), pp. 103—108. (In Russ.)
10.	Foster C. E. The Burden of Proof in International Courts and Tribunals. Australian Year Book of International Law, 2010, vol. 29, pp. 27—86.
11.	Jones A., Sufrin B., Dunne N. EU Competition Law. Text, Cases and Materials. 7th ed. Oxford, 2019. 1352 p.
12.	Kalintiri A. The Allocation of the Legal Burden of Proof in Article 101 TFEU Cases: A “Clear” Rule with Not-So-Clear Implications. Yearbook of European Law, 2015, no. 34(1), pp. 232—256.
13.	Kapustin A. Ya. International Judicial Interpretation of an International Treaty: Current Trends. Journal of Russian Law, 2021, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 104—117. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.12737/ jrl.2021.102.
14.	Karapetov A. G., Kosarev A. S. Standards of proof: analytic and empirical research. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. Prilozhenie k Ezhemesyachnomu zhurnalu, 2019, no. 5, pp. 3—96. (In Russ.)
15.	Kazazi M. Burden of Proof and Related Issues: A Study on Evidence before International Tribunals. The Hague; London; Boston, 1996. 432 p.
16.	Kinev A. Yu., Egorychev N. N., Samolysov P. V., Tenishev A. P. Cartels: system of proving and case-law. Zakon, 2013, no. 4, pp. 131—138. (In Russ.)
17.	Kokott J. The Burden of Proof in Comparative and International Human Rights Law: Civil and Common Law Approaches with Special Reference to the American and German Legal Systems. The Hague; London; Boston, 1998. 286 p.
18.	Lasok K. P. E. The European Court of Justice: Practice and Procedure. London, 1994. 739 p.
19.	Sandifer D. V. Evidence before International Tribunals. Charlottesville, 1975. 519 p.
20.	Shitkina I. Piercing of corporate veil in Russian law: legal regulation and practical application. Khozyaystvo i pravo, 2013, no. 2, pp. 3—26. (In Russ.)

Comments

No posts found

Write a review

Translate