Global Competition Law is primarly a practitioner's guide presenting the most salient aspects of the major competition laws country by country, giving an overview of their structure and most charasteristic elements.
Global Competition Law also provides insight into possible future developments in the field.

Global Competition Law

Criminal actions are brought by either the CCPC or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
For the sake of providing guidance for business, the former Competition Authority had stated that it would prepare a file for the Director of Public Prosecutions that would treat the following types of conduct as criminal:
- agreements, decisions or concerted practices directly or indirectly fixing purchase or  …

Criminal enforcement

Civil actions concerning breaches of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act may be brought either by the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) or by interested third parties.

When deciding whether or not to bring civil proceedings, the CCPC will take into account the harm that a particular type of behavior may have on consumers or smaller businesses weighed against any public benefit of bringing proceedings. The CCPC will also take into account whether the courts have previously found that a particular practice has the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition or that it is considered to constitute abuse of a dominant position.

Parties demonstrating the necessary standing may always bring a private action for damages or alternatively seeking interim relief or a declaration. Actions brought by third parties are initiated before the Circuit Court or the High Court. An action for damages may be brought, either against the undertaking in question or against its directors, officers or managers. Section 8 of the Competition (Amendment) Act 2012 enhanced follow-on actions by providing that a court's finding that there has been an infringement of competition rules may be used as evidence in subsequent actions for damages.

Statutory Instrument No. 43 of 2017 “European Union (Actions for Damages for Infringements of Competition Law) Regulations 2017”, which implements EU Directive 2014/104 on damages actions goes further. Like the directive, the regulation provides for a right to full compensation to the benefit of any person who has suffered harm caused by an infringement of competition law. Full compensation covers the right to compensation for actual loss and for loss of profit, plus the payment of interest. However, full compensation may not lead to overcompensation, whether by means of punitive, multiple or other types of damages. In the context of damages actions, access to the other party's information may be crucial. In this respect, the regulation provides that courts must only order proportionate disclosure of evidence without excluding per se evidence containing confidential information where they consider it relevant to an action for damages. In granting access to evidence included in the file of a competition authority, the courts must guarantee the effectiveness of the public enforcement of an infringement of competition law and only order disclosure after the authority has closed its proceedings. However, courts cannot at any time order a party or a third party, involved in an action for damages, to disclose leniency statements or settlement submissions. Regarding the effects of national decisions, the regulation states that a final decision taken in another Member State may be presented before a court as at least prima facie evidence that an infringement of competition law has occurred and, as appropriate, may be assessed along with any other evidence adduced by the parties.

The statute of limitations for damages action has been brought to six years from the date on which the infringement of competition law to which the cause of action relates ceased or, the date on which the victim became aware of or could reasonably be expected to have become aware of the acts or omissions that constituted such infringement or, the date on which that person came to know or could reasonably be expected to have come to know that those acts or omissions constituted such an infringement or, the date on which that person came to know or could reasonably be expected to have come to know that the infringement caused harm to that person or, the date on which that person came to know or could reasonably be expected to have come to know the identity of the infringer concerned. The statute of limitations may be suspended by investigations relating to the infringement or by proceedings or an action in relation to a competition infringement. Furthermore, undertakings which have infringed competition law through joint behavior may be held jointly and severally liable for the harm caused by the infringement. Under certain conditions, SMEs and immunity recipients benefit from softer rules. Pursuant to Section 12, a defendant in an action for damages can invoke as a defense against a claim for damages the fact that the claimant passed on the whole or part of the overcharge resulting from the infringement of competition law. That defendant bears the burden of proving that the overcharge was passed on, and to that effect, he/she may reasonably require disclosure from the claimant or from third parties. Section 13 however lays down a rebuttable presumption to the benefit of indirect purchasers that the overcharge has been passed on to them where they show that (a) the defendant has committed an infringement of competition law, (b) the infringement of competition law has resulted in an overcharge for the direct purchasers of the defendant, and (c) the indirect purchasers have purchased the goods or services that were the object of the infringement of competition law, or have purchased goods or services derived from or containing them. Finally, for the purpose of an action for damages it is presumed that cartel infringements cause harm. The quantification of harm still bears on the claimant, but where it is established that he/she suffered harm but it is practically impossible or excessively difficult to quantify precisely the harm suffered on the basis of the evidence available, a court may estimate the amount of such harm.

Civil enforcement

Criminal actions are brought by either the CCPC or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

For the sake of providing guidance for business, the former Competition Authority had stated that it would prepare a file for the Director of Public Prosecutions that would treat the following types of conduct as criminal:

- agreements, decisions or concerted practices directly or indirectly fixing purchase or selling prices;

- agreements, decisions or concerted practices to limit production;

- agreements, decisions or concerted practices to stay out of markets, geographically defined or otherwise;

- agreements, decisions and concerted practices among competitors to refuse to deal with third parties;

- agreements, decisions or concerted practices to divide sources of supply with competitors.

The Competition Act 2002 granted the Irish competition authority partial responsibility for bringing criminal proceedings for breaches of the Competition Act as regards minor or summary offenses. For more serious offenses, the Director of Public Prosecutions may bring indictment proceedings against the directors, officers or managers of the undertaking in question.

During investigations, the 2014 Act now allows the CCPC to compel undertakings to disclose information protected by legal privilege as long as the confidentiality of such material is maintained, or to request data held by telecommunications service providers. A new offense, consisting in withholding information relating to a cartel infringement has also been created and sanctioned by a fine of up to EUR 5 million and/or imprisonment.

On 21 January 2025, the CCPC published a new framework for settlement procedures in competition law investigations pursuant to the expanded powers conferred by the Competition Amendment Act 2022. The adoption of these procedures marks a significant development in the Irish enforcement landscape, aligning national practice more closely with that of the European Commission and other leading jurisdictions.

Participation in the settlement procedure is entirely voluntary. Any undertaking wishing to avail itself of the procedure must formally acknowledge its liability for the alleged infringement of competition law.

The regime provides for a reduction in the financial penalty of up to 30% where settlement discussions are initiated prior to the issuance of a Statement of Objections, and up to 10% where such discussions commence thereafter. These discounts are comparatively generous when measured against those available under the European Commission’s settlement procedure (a fixed 10% reduction) or the UK Competition and Markets Authority (a discretionary reduction of up to 20%).

Importantly, settlement under this regime does not confer immunity from follow-on actions for damages. Any admissions of liability made in the context of a settlement may be relied upon by third parties to substantiate civil claims for harm suffered as a result of the infringement.

The CCPC has explicitly clarified that the settlement procedure does not provide a platform for negotiation of the facts or the level of the fine. Rather, it is a streamlined mechanism designed to promote procedural efficiency while preserving the authority’s discretion over the final decision and sanction.

Finally, it is worth distinguishing this mechanism from Ireland’s pre-existing leniency program, which offers immunity or fine reductions to undertakings that voluntarily disclose cartel conduct and cooperate with the authority. The two instruments pursue complementary objectives but are governed by distinct procedural rules and legal thresholds.

Pursuant to Section 14(5) of the Act 2002, any person who is aggrieved in consequence of any agreement, decision, concerted practice or abuse may require the Circuit Court or the High Court to provide relief by way of injunction or declaration. The Competition (Amendment) Act 2012 allowed the Competition Authority [now replaced by the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission] to make use of that possibility. In such cases, relief will take the form of an interim injunction or a declaration in respect of a contravention of Sections 4 or 5 of the Act or Articles 101 or 102 TFEU.

Global Competition Law

400. Criminal enforcement

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

400. Criminal enforcement

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise