Advanced

Brott utan straff? - EU:s regler om eftergift vid konkurrensrättsliga överträdelser i svensk rätt

Andersson, Matilda LU (2016) HARH12 20161
Department of Business Law
Abstract
As the EU has become an important role for the reciprocal trade between the acceding Member States, the legal order of EU has had an effect on some of the national legal systems. A relatively new system has been voluntarily introduced into the Swedish law, with the purpose to combat competitive cross-collaborations like cartels. This cartel enforcement order, known as the Leniency system, has not previously been known to the Swedish legal culture.

The purpose of this paper is to find out how the Swedish justice system has adapted the Leniency system from EU, in the light of the ancient legal traditions. Critism is pointed at how the system can be defended, when a party that violates the Competition Act can be released from some sort of... (More)
As the EU has become an important role for the reciprocal trade between the acceding Member States, the legal order of EU has had an effect on some of the national legal systems. A relatively new system has been voluntarily introduced into the Swedish law, with the purpose to combat competitive cross-collaborations like cartels. This cartel enforcement order, known as the Leniency system, has not previously been known to the Swedish legal culture.

The purpose of this paper is to find out how the Swedish justice system has adapted the Leniency system from EU, in the light of the ancient legal traditions. Critism is pointed at how the system can be defended, when a party that violates the Competition Act can be released from some sort of penalty by letting on about the existence of a cartel that he self-starred in. What also will be considered, is whether there is a requirement for adjustment to EU, when it comes to the Leniency system which is regulated by the secondary law of EU.

The questions in the paper are the follwing:

1) Are there any obligations for Sweden to introduce the rules regulated by EU on remission following the model of the Leniency program and Regulation 1/2003 into the Swedish Compettition Act?

2) To what extent has Sweden considered the cultural differences between EU law and Swedish law when it introduced provisions on immunity in the Swedish Competition Act?

The paper presents the following answeres:

Today there are no obligations who says that Sweden has to adjust to the Leniency system from EU. The only obligation there is, is when the criterium of reciprocal trade is achieved between the Member States. When it comes to the cultural differences between Sweden and EU, there seems to have been a larger profit in introducing the Leniency system rather than keeping on to the old legal traditions. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
I takt med att EU skapat sig en större roll för samhandeln mellan de anslutande medlemsländerna har den EU-rättsliga ordningen inverkat på vissa av de nationella rättsystemen. Ett relativt nytt system har frivilligt införts i den svenska rätten vilket behandlar bekämpningsmedel för konkurrensöverskridande samarbeten som karteller. Denna kartellbekämpande ordning, kallad eftergiftssystemet, har inte tidigare varit känd för den svenska rättskulturen.

Syftet med denna uppsats är få svar på hur det svenska rättssystemet har anpassat sig efter EU-rättens eftergiftssystem, detta med hänsyn till de gamla rättstraditionerna. Den kritiska vinklingen som ställs vid skrivandet är hur systemet kan försvaras, då en part som bryter mot... (More)
I takt med att EU skapat sig en större roll för samhandeln mellan de anslutande medlemsländerna har den EU-rättsliga ordningen inverkat på vissa av de nationella rättsystemen. Ett relativt nytt system har frivilligt införts i den svenska rätten vilket behandlar bekämpningsmedel för konkurrensöverskridande samarbeten som karteller. Denna kartellbekämpande ordning, kallad eftergiftssystemet, har inte tidigare varit känd för den svenska rättskulturen.

Syftet med denna uppsats är få svar på hur det svenska rättssystemet har anpassat sig efter EU-rättens eftergiftssystem, detta med hänsyn till de gamla rättstraditionerna. Den kritiska vinklingen som ställs vid skrivandet är hur systemet kan försvaras, då en part som bryter mot konkurrenslagen kan släppas fri från några slags repressalier genom att skvallra om att det finns en kartell som denna själv medverkat i. Det som även kommer beaktas är om det finns ett krav på EU-anpassning då de gäller just systemet kring eftergift som finns reglerat genom EU:s sekundärrätt.

Frågorna jag ställer mig i uppsatsen är således:
1) Finns det en skyldighet för Sverige att i den svenska konkurrenslagen införa EU:s regler om eftergift som följer av modellprogrammet för förmånlig behandling och förordning 1/2003?

2) I vilken utsträckning har Sverige beaktat rättskulturella skillnader i EU-rätten och den svenska rätten när det infördes bestämmelser om eftergift i den svenska konkurrenslagen?
Uppsatsen påvisar följande resultat:

Idag finns det inget som säger att Sverige har en skyldighet att införa EU:s regler om eftergift i sina egna rättssystem. Det finns endast en skyldighet att tillämpa de gemensamma reglerna då samhandelskriteriet är uppfyllt mellan medlemsstaterna. Då det gäller de rättskulturella skillnaderna mellan Sverige och EU tycks det funnits en större fördel i att införa reglerna om eftergift snarare än att hålla kvar på de gamla rättstraditionerna. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Andersson, Matilda LU
supervisor
organization
course
HARH12 20161
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
The Leniency system, Eftergiftssystemet, Eftergift, Kartell, Compettition Law, EU, Konkurrenslag
language
Swedish
id
8877696
date added to LUP
2016-06-07 13:35:32
date last changed
2016-06-07 13:35:32
@misc{8877696,
  abstract     = {As the EU has become an important role for the reciprocal trade between the acceding Member States, the legal order of EU has had an effect on some of the national legal systems. A relatively new system has been voluntarily introduced into the Swedish law, with the purpose to combat competitive cross-collaborations like cartels. This cartel enforcement order, known as the Leniency system, has not previously been known to the Swedish legal culture.

The purpose of this paper is to find out how the Swedish justice system has adapted the Leniency system from EU, in the light of the ancient legal traditions. Critism is pointed at how the system can be defended, when a party that violates the Competition Act can be released from some sort of penalty by letting on about the existence of a cartel that he self-starred in. What also will be considered, is whether there is a requirement for adjustment to EU, when it comes to the Leniency system which is regulated by the secondary law of EU.

The questions in the paper are the follwing:

1) Are there any obligations for Sweden to introduce the rules regulated by EU on remission following the model of the Leniency program and Regulation 1/2003 into the Swedish Compettition Act?

2) To what extent has Sweden considered the cultural differences between EU law and Swedish law when it introduced provisions on immunity in the Swedish Competition Act?

The paper presents the following answeres: 

Today there are no obligations who says that Sweden has to adjust to the Leniency system from EU. The only obligation there is, is when the criterium of reciprocal trade is achieved between the Member States. When it comes to the cultural differences between Sweden and EU, there seems to have been a larger profit in introducing the Leniency system rather than keeping on to the old legal traditions.},
  author       = {Andersson, Matilda},
  keyword      = {The Leniency system,Eftergiftssystemet,Eftergift,Kartell,Compettition Law,EU,Konkurrenslag},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Brott utan straff? - EU:s regler om eftergift vid konkurrensrättsliga överträdelser i svensk rätt},
  year         = {2016},
}