Skip to content

How attractive is the system for redressing competition-related harm in this era of reform?

How attractive is the system for redressing competition-related harm in this era of reform?

By Maurice Nussenbaum, published in Concurrences No. 1-2017 / Conference / Competition Talks – 18 October 2016

Introduction
1. What are the strengths and limitations of our system for compensating for competition-related harm? Firstly, it should be noted that it is based on the principle of full compensation, that is to say, equivalence between the loss suffered and the compensation awarded, and that, furthermore, as a result of European directives, it incorporates concepts that were previously alien to it, such as in the area of infringement
, with the profits of the infringer being taken into account.

2. Our system of compensation also raises issues regarding its implementation, particularly when it comes to determining damages, due to the rule that loss must be assessed as at the date of the judgement. Consequently, the compensation awarded may be lower or higher than the actual loss suffered.

Read more

Article précédent Article suivant

Ces articles pourraient vous intéresser

Publications

Fairness opinions and independent expert reports

Certificates of fairness and independent expert opinions – M. Nussenbaum and T. Vassogne – Collective work on public offers –

16 July 2026

Lire

Publications

Clawback clauses: legal framework and economic analysis

By Maurice Nussenbaum and Sophie Schiller, published by LexisNexis in the journal *Actes pratiques et ingénierie sociétaire* (No. 2, March–April

2 April 2026

Lire

Publications

IPEV 2025: the same principles, clearer expectations

By Thomas Hachette, published on CFNEWS on 12 January 2026. "The independent, internationally recognised body has published new valuation guidelines

14 January 2026

Lire

Have a question or a need?

contact us