¾«Æ·¹ú²ú×ÔÏßÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

New court rules for competition proceedings were introduced in March 2005. These rules (order 63B of the Superior Court Rules) establish a competition list of the High Court which will deal with ‘Competition Proceedings’ as defined in those rules. These new rules are modelled on the Commercial Court rules that have operated successfully for the past two years. There are, however, some important differences between the two, arising mainly from the fact that council regulation (EC) no 1 of 2003 introduces important procedural changes regarding the enforcement of competition law, and the new rules are designed in part to address those changes.

The rules provide that any case that comes within the definition of ‘competition proceedings’ shall be dealt with in the competition list. If proceedings are not assigned to the competition list at the outset or if competition issues arise during the course of a case, any judge can transfer a case to the competition list with the consent of the judge in charge of that list.

The term ‘competition proceedings’ include the following types of cases or applications:

• Private actions instituted by a person aggrieved as a result of breaches of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 2002 act),
• Enforcement actions initiated by the Competition Authority (the authority) in respect of breaches of the 2002 act or in respect of breaches of articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty,
• Statutory appeals against declarations or determinations of the authority made pursuant to the 2002 act and proceedings seeking judicial review of a decision of the authority,
• Proceedings concerning the applications of articles 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty and proceedings concerning the application of the state aid rules of the EC Treaty.

In addition to case-management procedures encompassing initial directions hearings, case conferences and pre-trial conferences, the new rules address a number of issues peculiar to competition proceedings. Part III of the rules implement article 15(3) of council regulation (EC) no 1 of 2003 by enabling the authority and/or the European Commission to make observations on matters that are before the High Court. The authority and the commission can make written observations to the court: however, if they wish to submit oral observations, they must seek leave of the court to do so. The rules also provide that the authority may be invited to make written or oral submissions on the judge’s own motion or on the application of any of the parties to the proceedings. The rules provide that parties have an opportunity to review and respond to observations made by the authority or the commission.

Practitioners will be aware that council regulation (EC) no 1 of 2003 introduced new rules regarding communications between member state courts and the European Commission in respect of competition proceedings. In particular, the regulation provides that when a national court proposes to make certain findings in relation to EC competition matters, the proposed decision must be communicated to the commission. The regulation also provides that national courts can seek an opinion from the commission in any case involving the application of community law.

The competition list rules contain provisions that, in some cases, enable and in other cases require High Court judges to provide parties to proceedings with a copy of any communications between it and the European Commission.

The rules also provide for the appointment of assessors on the application of a party or of the court’s own motion to assist the court in understanding or clarifying expert evidence. With a view to ensuring that fair procedures are safeguarded, the rules provide that, where an expert provides advice or other information to the court, the court shall, where it considers it appropriate in the interests of justice, inform the parties of such advice or information and afford them an opportunity to make submissions in respect of it. This should allay concerns that information, opinions or views may be conveyed by an assessor to the court without the parties having an opportunity to comment on them. The rules provide that the court can appoint its own expert or one nominated by the parties and they anticipate that the payment terms of the expert will be dealt with on appointment.

This practice note was updated in 2014.