Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Application of EU Competition Law by the Hungarian Judiciary: Cooperation with the ECJ and Relying on the Case Law of the ECtHR

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Consistent Application of EU Competition Law

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 9))

Abstract

This chapter deals with the application of EU competition law by the Hungarian judiciary. It will first sketch the contours of requesting a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice as an ordinary practice of Hungarian courts. As Hungarian courts are very active in posing preliminary questions, it comes as a surprise that in competition law matters the judiciary seems to be more inclined to rule on the interpretation of EU competition law without the help of the ECJ. Since 2015, two ECJ judgments were issued on antitrust matters. The second part of the chapter provides a deeper examination of a recent Supreme Court judgment and a Constitutional Court judgment. Both judgments concern the nature of competition law proceedings as decided by the European Court of Human Rights. The penal nature of antitrust procedures and its implication on the standard of proof was in the centre of discussion at the highest level of the court system in Hungary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Somssich Réka: Előzetes döntéshozatali eljárások a számok tükrében- a 2004-ben csatlakozott országok bíróságai által kezdeményezett eljárások 10 évvel a csatlakozás után. Európai Jog, 2015/2. pp. 1–13.

  2. 2.

    C- 32/11. Hungária Biztosító Zrt v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal, ECLI:EU:C:2013:160.

  3. 3.

    C-470/13. Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2469.

  4. 4.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Act XXXI of 1993.

  5. 5.

    Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, OJ L 347, 31/12/1993, p. 2–266. According to Article 67, Hungary shall act to ensure that future legislation is compatible with Community legislation as far as possible.

  6. 6.

    Article 11(1): Agreements or concerted practices between undertakings and decisions by social organisations of undertakings, public corporations, associations or other similar organisations (hereinafter together: agreements), which have as their object or potential or actual effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, shall be prohibited. Agreements concluded between undertakings, which are not independent of each other do not qualify as such kind of agreements.

  7. 7.

    Article 21: It shall be prohibited to abuse a dominant position.

  8. 8.

    “In order to attain these objectives – also taking into consideration the requirements of the approximation to the law of the European Community and the conventions of domestic competition law – Parliament passed the following Act.”

  9. 9.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1–25.

  10. 10.

    On the history of the reception of EU competition law, see Tihamér Tóth: The reception and application of EU competition rules in Hungary: An organic evolution In: The law of the European Union in Hungary: Institutions, processes and the law, edited by Márton Varju and Ernő Várnay, HVG-Orac, Budapest, 2014.

  11. 11.

    C-32/11, Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt et al v. Gazdasági Versenyhivatal ECLI:EU:C:2013:160.

  12. 12.

    The Supreme Court cannot order the taking of evidence; its judgment is based on the file.

  13. 13.

    Act III of 1952 on the Code of Civil Procedure.

  14. 14.

    Article 339/B.

  15. 15.

    Article 275(3).

  16. 16.

    Article 24(2) d, Basic Law. The so-called constitutional complaint procedure may be submitted when a right guaranteed by the Fundamental Law of the petitioner is violated by a judicial action and the possibilities for legal remedy have already been exhausted by the petitioner. Consequently, it is not a claim for judicial review.

  17. 17.

    The data is taken from the following article written in Hungarian by Decsák Péter- Sárai József-Szilágyi Gabriella: The experience of the GVH in the application of EU competition law ten years after accession; A 10 éves uniós tagság tapasztalatai a GVH jogalkalmazásának tükrében. Versenytükör 2014. 1. szám, pp. 19–30.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., p. 24–25.

  19. 19.

    Article 50(6).

  20. 20.

    See for example T-541/08, Sasol and others, ECLI:EU:T:2014:628, para 206.

  21. 21.

    C-185/95 P, Baustahlgewebe GmbH v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1998:608, para 58, Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Mel Marquis (eds): European Competition Law Annual 2009: The Evaluation of Evidence and its Judicial Review in Competition Cases, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2011.

  22. 22.

    Case 29 and 30/83, Compagnie Royale Asturienne des Mines SA and Rheinzink GmbH v Commission [1984] ECR 1679.

  23. 23.

    C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85 and C-125/85 to C-129/85, Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1307, para 127. See also Jacques Buhart, Romain Maulin: Proof in Cartels: State of Play and Perspectives. Concurrences No 4-2011, pp.51–64.

  24. 24.

    Alison Jones and Brenda Sufrin: EU Competition Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014., p.126

  25. 25.

    Joined cases T-44/02 OP et al, Dresdner Bank AG and others, ECLI:EU:T:2004:302, para 60, Case T-441/08, International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:188. para 91. and T-348/08; Aragonesas Industrias y Energía SAU v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:621, paras 92–93; C-199/92 P, Hüls AG v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1999:358, para 149–150.

  26. 26.

    C-411/04 Salzgitter Mannesmann GmbH v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2007:54, para 45.,Opinion of Judge Vesterdorf acting as Advocate General of 10 July 1991 in Case T-1/89, Rhône-Poulenc v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1991:38, at page II-954., Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00, JFE Engineering Corp, ECLI:EU:T:2004:221, para 273. Heike Sweitzer claims that ‘with a view to Article 101 and Article 102 decisions imposing fines, a significantly higher standard of proof applies, analogous to what in the common law system would be qualified as ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. (Ioannis Kokkoris: The Reform of EC Competition Law: New Challenges In Mel Marquis and Roberto Cisotta (eds): Litigation and Arbitration in EU Competition Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, p. 113.) She refers to the Siemens judgment, according to which the Court must come to a “firm conviction” that the alleged infringement took place. In the Toshiba judgment in 2014 the General Court allegedly raised the standard of proof to beyond reasonable doubt, as it has declared that ‘the evidence submitted by the Commission must permit the conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt that there was an infringement.’ As that judgement has not yet been confirmed by the ECJ, the prevailing view applies according to which the balance of probabilities standard is enough to be satisfied by the Commission. See T-519/19, Toshiba Corp v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2014:263 and the appeal pending:C-373/14. P.

  27. 27.

    Eric Gippini-Fournier: The Elusive Standard of Proof in EU Competition Cases http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1433744, p. 5., Per Hellström: A Uniform Standard of Proof in EU Competition Proceedings in: Claus-Dieter Ehlermann and Mel Marquis (eds): European Competition Law Annual 2009: The Evaluation of Evidence and its Judicial Review in Competition Cases, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2011.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2147705, p. 2.

  28. 28.

    Eric Gippini-Fournier: The Elusive Standard of Proof in EU Competition Cases http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1433744, p. 5 and p. 9.

  29. 29.

    Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschaapij and Others v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2002:582, paragraphs 513–523.

  30. 30.

    Ioannis Kokkoris: The Reform of EC Competition Law: New challenges. In Mel Marquis and Roberto Cisotta (eds): Litigation and Arbitration in EU Competition Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, p.114. See Joined cases T-305/94 to T-307/94 Linburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and others v Commission (PVC II.) ECLI:EU:T:1999:80, para 768–778 and recent cases Toshiba, para 38 and Intel v Commission, para 64.

  31. 31.

    Alison Jones and Brenda Sufrin: EU Competition Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014., p.1029.

  32. 32.

    T-201/04, Microsoft Corp. v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2007:289, para 87–89.

  33. 33.

    Para 88.

  34. 34.

    Para 89.

  35. 35.

    C-272/19 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:810.

  36. 36.

    C-272/19 P, KME Germany v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2011:810, paras 94, 102; C-386/10 P, Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2011:815, para 54. See also Igor Nikolic: Full judicial review of antitrust cases after KME: a new formula of review? E.C.L.R. 2012, 33(12), 583–588.

  37. 37.

    Igor Nikolic: Full judicial review of antitrust cases after KME: a new formula of review? E.C.L.R. 2012, 33(12), 583–588., at page 587. Wils has also admitted that with regard to the amount of the fine, Regulation 1/2003, the case law of the EU Courts and the Guidelines and Leniency Notice still leave the European Commission a significant margin of discretion. Wouter P.J. Wils: The compatibility with fundamental rights of the EU antitrust enforcement system in which the European Commission acts both as investigator and as first-instance decision maker, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2363440, at page 13. Nonetheless, his final conclusion is that the combination of the review of legality and this unlimited jurisdiction meets the “full jurisdiction” standard laid down in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights; at p. 14.

  38. 38.

    C-199/11 Europese Gemeenschap v Otis and others, ECLI:EU:C:2012:684.

  39. 39.

    paras 56–63.

  40. 40.

    Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel: Efficient justice in the service of justiciable efficiency? Varieties of comprehensive judicial review in a modernised EU competition law enforcement context. The Competition Law Review, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp. 35–6, at p.37.

  41. 41.

    P.37.

  42. 42.

    José Carlos Laguna de Paz: Understanding the limits of judicial review in European competition law, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2014), pp. 203–224, at p. 204.

  43. 43.

    P. 41.

  44. 44.

    P.44. He is relying on the judgments of Schindler and Kone: C-501/11P,, ECLI:EU:C:2013:522 and C-510/11P, Kone Oyj et al v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2013:696.

  45. 45.

    Marc Jaeger: The Standard of Review in Competition Cases Involving Complex Economic Assessments: Towards the Marginalisation of the Marginal Review? (2011) 2:4 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice: 295–314. See also the editorial comments in the October 2011 issue of The Common Market Law Review: ‘… generally, the ‘margin of appreciation’ doctrine has not prevented the General Court from looking into any economic or technical detail of a case that appeared remotely promising as a basis for a successful ground of appeal. Therefore, much would be won if the Court stopped paying lip-service to the old ‘complex appraisals’ formula’.

  46. 46.

    T-336/07 Telefónica SA and Telefónica Espaňa SA v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2012:172, paras 110–144.

  47. 47.

    T-271/03, Deutsche Telekom AG v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2008:101, para 185; and on appeal C-280/08. P, ECLIEU:C:2010:603.

  48. 48.

    José Carlos Laguna de Paz: Understanding the limits of judicial review in European competition law, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, Vol.2, No. 1 (2014), pp.203–224, p.216. Heike Schweitzer also explains that “the intensity of judicial control exercised by the GC does not decrease, but rather increase with the complexity of the fact patters and the economic assessment at issue.” p. 511.

  49. 49.

    Heike Schweitzer, p. 512.

  50. 50.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of rules on competition laid down in Article 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 04/01/2003, pp. 1–25.

  51. 51.

    For earlier literature see in Hungarian: Ruszthiné Juhász Dorina- Zavodnyik József: A bizonyítási mérce, a bizonyítási teher és a bizonyítékok értékelése versenyügyekben, Jogtudományi Közlöny, 2014/6, pp. 286–299.

  52. 52.

    Kfv. III.37.690/2013/29. Case annotation by Dorkó Dalma in Hungarian in Versenytükör. Dorkó Dalma: Vasútépítő kartell a Kúria ítéletének tükrében. Versenytükör 2014/1, pp. 69–77.

  53. 53.

    The judges relied on the following judgments: Engel and others v The Netherlands, Application no. 5100/71, 5107/71, 5102/71, 5354/72, 5370/72, 08/06/1976, Öztürk v Germany, Application no. 8544/79, 21/02/1984, Jussila v. Finland, Application no. 73053/01, 23/11/2006, Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L. v Italy, Application no. 43509/08, 27/09/2011.

  54. 54.

    Article 6.

  55. 55.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6(1): “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.

  56. 56.

    C-283/81, Srl CILFIT and others v Ministry of Health, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335.

  57. 57.

    ‘In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection.’

  58. 58.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court of 30 September, 2014 (No.30/2014. (IX.30.) Case annotation by László Bak in Hungarian in Versenytükör. Bak László: Alkotmányos versenyjog-a versenyfelügyeleti eljárás az Alkotmánybíróság fókuszában. Versenytükör pp. 52–60.

  59. 59.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Act XXXI of 1993. On the relationship of the Convention, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Hungarian Constitutional Law see Juhász Miklós: Kriminális versenyjog? – gondolatok az emberi jogok és a versenyjog kapcsolatáról, Magyar Jog 2013.9. szám, pp 515–524. See also a Hungarian ECHR case: DEBÚT Zrt and others v Hungary, application o 24851/10, 20/11/2012.

  60. 60.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407.

  61. 61.

    Basic Law of Hungary, 25 April 2011, Article XXVIII (1) ‘Everyone shall be entitled to have any charge against him or her, or his or her rights and obligations in any litigation, adjudicated within a reasonable time in a fair and public trial conducted by an independent and impartial court established by an Act.’

  62. 62.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6(2), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 48, Fundamental Law, Article XXVIII (2) ‘No one shall be considered guilty until his or her liability under criminal law has been established by the final decision of a court.’

  63. 63.

    Article 48 of the Charter for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Hungarian Fundamental Law, Article XXVIII (4): ‘No one shall be found guilty and subjected to punishment for an act that, at the time it was committed, was not a criminal offence under the law of Hungary or – within the sphere specified by an international treaty or a legal act of the European Union – under the law of another State.’

  64. 64.

    The Engel, Jussila v. Finland, Janosevic v Sweden, and Menarini cases were referred to by the Constitutional Court from the ECHR jurisprudence; C-501/11.P. Schindler v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2013:522 was referred to from the case-law of the ECJ.

  65. 65.

    Para 65 of the decision.

  66. 66.

    My emphasis; para 62 of the decision.

  67. 67.

    C-89/11.P, ECLI:EU:C:2012:738.

  68. 68.

    C-185/95.P,ECLI:EU:C:1998:738.

  69. 69.

    27/76, ECLI:EU:C:1978:22.

  70. 70.

    Para 71.

  71. 71.

    Nagy Csongor István in Hungarian: Tisztességes eljárás és bírósági felülvizsgálat a versenyfelügyeleti eljárásban. In Verseny és szabályozás 2014 (szek.: Valentiny Pál, Kiss Ferenc László, Nagy Csongor István) MTA KRTK Közgazdaság-tudományi Intézet, pp. 55–72, http://econ.core.hu/file/download/vesz2014/felugyelet.pdf, p. 62.

Acknowledgments

Research was also financed by OTKA (No K-109414 project). The author would like to thank Márton Varju, Zoltán Marosi and András Kovács for their helpful comments on this topic. Any error or omission remains the author’s.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, University of Eötvös Loránd, Budapest, Hungary

    Mónika Papp

  2. Center for Social Sciences, HPOPs- Lendület Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

    Mónika Papp

Authors
  1. Mónika Papp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mónika Papp .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Sector 5, Romania

    Adriana Almășan

  2. School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

    Peter Whelan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Papp, M. (2017). Application of EU Competition Law by the Hungarian Judiciary: Cooperation with the ECJ and Relying on the Case Law of the ECtHR. In: Almășan, A., Whelan, P. (eds) The Consistent Application of EU Competition Law. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47382-6_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47382-6_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47381-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47382-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation