Advanced

Rätten mot självangivelse i konkurrensprocessen - En jämförelse av rätten mot självangivelse som den tillämpas i EU-domstolen respektive Europadomstolen

Horndahl, Jesper LU (2020) LAGF03 20201
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Föreliggande uppsats behandlar frågeställningar rörande förhållandet mellan EU:s konkurrensrätt och rätten mot självangivelse. Uppsatsens syfte är att undersöka företags rätt att vara tyst när de är föremål för en konkurrensrättslig utredning. För att uppfylla syftet kommer följande två frågeställningar att ställas:
1. Vilken rätt till att vara tyst har den enskilde under konkurrensprocesser enligt EU-domstolens respektive Europadomstolens praxis?
2. Är konkurrensprocessen förenlig med den enskildes rättigheter utifrån ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv?
Med hänsyn till att EU-medlemsstaterna är bundna till det konkurrensrättsliga regelverket samtidigt som de är bundna att följa Europeiska konventionen för mänskliga rättigheter, kommer... (More)
Föreliggande uppsats behandlar frågeställningar rörande förhållandet mellan EU:s konkurrensrätt och rätten mot självangivelse. Uppsatsens syfte är att undersöka företags rätt att vara tyst när de är föremål för en konkurrensrättslig utredning. För att uppfylla syftet kommer följande två frågeställningar att ställas:
1. Vilken rätt till att vara tyst har den enskilde under konkurrensprocesser enligt EU-domstolens respektive Europadomstolens praxis?
2. Är konkurrensprocessen förenlig med den enskildes rättigheter utifrån ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv?
Med hänsyn till att EU-medlemsstaterna är bundna till det konkurrensrättsliga regelverket samtidigt som de är bundna att följa Europeiska konventionen för mänskliga rättigheter, kommer förhållandet mellan EU och konventionen att undersökas. Av relevans är också att utreda om konkurrensprocessen klassas som av straffrättslig eller administrativ art. Detta eftersom vissa konventionsrättigheter aktualiseras först när det någon blir anklagad för brott.
Beträffande förhållandet mellan EU och Europakonventionen kan det konstateras att EU-domstolen återkommande inspireras av Europadomstolens avgöranden. Konventionens påverkan på EU-medlemsstaters rättsordningar medför dessutom att vissa rättigheter existerar så som allmänna principer inom EU. Sedermera kan konstateras att flera försök har gjorts från EU att ansluta till konventionen, samt att EU-stadgan ska tillförsäkra den enskilde minst samma rättigheter som följer av konventionen. Europadomstolens tolkning av konventionen får således oundvikligen påverkan på EU-domstolens tillämpning av civila rättigheter. Däremot synes inte finnas stöd i praxis för att EU-domstolens avgöranden i konkurrensmål har påverkats av Europadomstolen.
Beträffande rätten mot självangivelse, eller rätten att vara tyst, tillämpas olika utgångspunkter av domstolarna. EU-domstolen tillämpar en princip om rätten till försvar, där rätten att vara tyst ingår, medan Europadomstolen grundar sina avgöranden på artikel 6 i konventionen, och såldes rätten till rättvis rättegång. Följaktligen ser rätten mot självangivelse olika ut i domstolarnas praxis. EU-domstolen stödjer ofta sina avgöranden på vikten av att EU-kommissionen ska ha omfattande befogenheter för att kunna bedriva effektiv konkurrenstillsyn. Möjligheten för ett företag att vara tyst under en utredning består endast av att inte behöva besvara frågor som skulle innebära ett erkännande. Europadomstolens praxis tyder på mer omfattande möjligheter för den enskilde att vara tyst. Där föreligger mindre möjligheter för administrativ myndighet att genom tvång, begära svar från den enskilde. Dessutom visar domstolens praxis att det även finns restriktioner när det kommer till att begära självexisterande bevisning. Slutligen gör Europadomstolen en helhetsbedömning av huruvida någons rätt till rättvis rättegång har åsidosatts.
De mer extensiva rättigheterna som följer av Europadomstolens avgöranden skulle kunna komma att påverka konkurrensprocessen om EU-domstolen tillämpade EU-stadgan till förmån för princip om rätten till försvar. Något annat riskerar förefalla bristfälligt ut ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv. (Less)
Abstract
The present essay deals with issues concerning the relationship between the European union’s competition law and the right not to self-incriminate. The purpose of this essay is to examine an undertaking’s right to remain silent when it’s subject of a competition law investigation. To fulfill this purpose, the following issues will be dealt with:
1. How does an individual’s right to remain silent look like during competition procedures according to the practice of the European court of justice and the European court of human rights concerning?
2. Is the competition procedure compatible with an individual´s rights from a legal security perspective?
Given that all EU member states are bound to the competition law framework as well as... (More)
The present essay deals with issues concerning the relationship between the European union’s competition law and the right not to self-incriminate. The purpose of this essay is to examine an undertaking’s right to remain silent when it’s subject of a competition law investigation. To fulfill this purpose, the following issues will be dealt with:
1. How does an individual’s right to remain silent look like during competition procedures according to the practice of the European court of justice and the European court of human rights concerning?
2. Is the competition procedure compatible with an individual´s rights from a legal security perspective?
Given that all EU member states are bound to the competition law framework as well as being bound to follow the European convention of human rights, the relationship between the EU and the convention will be examined. Out of relevance is also to examine if the competition procedure is considered as criminal law or as of administrative nature. This due to some of the convention rights first comes into force when someone is accused of committing crime.
Concerning the relationship between the EU and the European convention it can be ascertained that the EU court recurrently is inspired by the judgements of the ECtHR. Furthermore, the conventions impact on the legal systems of the EU member states entails that some rights exists as general principles within the EU. Subsequently it can be noted that several attempts have been made from the EU to access to the convention, as well as that the EU-charter should ensure an individual at least the same rights as follows of the convention. The interpretation of the convention by the ECtHR thus inevitably has an impact on the ECJ´s enforcements of civil rights. However, it is not shown that the ECJ´s judgements in competition cases have been influenced by the ECtHR.
Regarding the right not to self-incriminate, or the right to remain silent, the courts have different premises’ when applying said rights. The EU-court applies a “rights of the defence” as a fundamental principle, while the ECtHR bases their judgements on article 6 of the convention, and therefore the right to a fair trial. Consequently, the right not to self-incriminate are applied differently by the courts. The EU-court often bases its judgements on the importance that the commission has extensive authorities to carry out effective supervision of the competition. The possibility for an undertaking to remain silent during an investigation consists solely of the right not to have to answer questions that would constitute an admission of guilt. The practice of the ECtHR, however, shows larger possibilities for an undertaking to remain silent. According to the ECtHR, there are less room for administrative authorities to demand answers from an undertaking by coercion. In addition, the courts practice shows that there are also restrictions when demanding self-existing evidence from an undertaking. Finally, when it comes to determining whether an individual’s right to a fair trial has been infringed, the court makes an overall assessment of certain circumstances in the case.
The more extensive rights arising from the decisions of the European Court of human rights could affect the competition procedure if the European Court of Justice applied the EU Charter in favor of the principle of the rights of the defense. Anything else risks appearing to be defective, from a legal security perspective. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Horndahl, Jesper LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20201
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Konkurrensrätt, självangivelse, self-incrimination, straffrätt
language
Swedish
id
9010816
date added to LUP
2020-09-21 13:58:24
date last changed
2020-09-21 13:58:24
@misc{9010816,
  abstract     = {The present essay deals with issues concerning the relationship between the European union’s competition law and the right not to self-incriminate. The purpose of this essay is to examine an undertaking’s right to remain silent when it’s subject of a competition law investigation. To fulfill this purpose, the following issues will be dealt with:
1.	How does an individual’s right to remain silent look like during competition procedures according to the practice of the European court of justice and the European court of human rights concerning?
2.	Is the competition procedure compatible with an individual´s rights from a legal security perspective? 
Given that all EU member states are bound to the competition law framework as well as being bound to follow the European convention of human rights, the relationship between the EU and the convention will be examined. Out of relevance is also to examine if the competition procedure is considered as criminal law or as of administrative nature. This due to some of the convention rights first comes into force when someone is accused of committing crime. 
Concerning the relationship between the EU and the European convention it can be ascertained that the EU court recurrently is inspired by the judgements of the ECtHR. Furthermore, the conventions impact on the legal systems of the EU member states entails that some rights exists as general principles within the EU. Subsequently it can be noted that several attempts have been made from the EU to access to the convention, as well as that the EU-charter should ensure an individual at least the same rights as follows of the convention. The interpretation of the convention by the ECtHR thus inevitably has an impact on the ECJ´s enforcements of civil rights. However, it is not shown that the ECJ´s judgements in competition cases have been influenced by the ECtHR. 
Regarding the right not to self-incriminate, or the right to remain silent, the courts have different premises’ when applying said rights. The EU-court applies a “rights of the defence” as a fundamental principle, while the ECtHR bases their judgements on article 6 of the convention, and therefore the right to a fair trial. Consequently, the right not to self-incriminate are applied differently by the courts. The EU-court often bases its judgements on the importance that the commission has extensive authorities to carry out effective supervision of the competition. The possibility for an undertaking to remain silent during an investigation consists solely of the right not to have to answer questions that would constitute an admission of guilt. The practice of the ECtHR, however, shows larger possibilities for an undertaking to remain silent. According to the ECtHR, there are less room for administrative authorities to demand answers from an undertaking by coercion. In addition, the courts practice shows that there are also restrictions when demanding self-existing evidence from an undertaking. Finally, when it comes to determining whether an individual’s right to a fair trial has been infringed, the court makes an overall assessment of certain circumstances in the case. 
The more extensive rights arising from the decisions of the European Court of human rights could affect the competition procedure if the European Court of Justice applied the EU Charter in favor of the principle of the rights of the defense. Anything else risks appearing to be defective, from a legal security perspective.},
  author       = {Horndahl, Jesper},
  keyword      = {Konkurrensrätt,självangivelse,self-incrimination,straffrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Rätten mot självangivelse i konkurrensprocessen - En jämförelse av rätten mot självangivelse som den tillämpas i EU-domstolen respektive Europadomstolen},
  year         = {2020},
}