Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T13:08:32.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2022

Katarzyna Sadrak
Affiliation:
Geradin Partners (Brussels)
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aberle, Lukas, Sanktionsdurchgriff und wirtschaftliche Einheit im deutschen und europäischen Kartellrecht (Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2013)Google Scholar
Acton, Michael, ‘Pirelli Challenges Cable Cartel Liability at EU’s Top Court’ (6 November 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1140994&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Ahrens, Börries, ‘Gemeinschaftsunternehmen als wirtschaftliche Einheit’ (2013) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 899, available at https://beck-online.beck.de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Feuzw%2F2013%2Fcont%2Feuzw.2013.899.1.htm&anchor=Y-300-Z-EUZW-B-2013-S-899-N-1Google Scholar
Andreu, Lionel, La réforme du régime général des obligations (Paris: Dalloz, 2011)Google Scholar
Angland, Joseph, ‘Joint and Several Liability, Contribution, and Claim Reduction’ (2008), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1528007Google Scholar
Antitrust Modernization Commission, ‘Report and Recommendations’ (2007), available at https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/report_recommendation/amc_final_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Antoszek, Tomasz, ‘Art. 441’ in Gutowski, Maciej (ed.), Duże Komentarze Becka. Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 2 vols. (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2016), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Ashurst, ‘Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in Case of Infringement of EC Competition Rules’ (2004), available at https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/comparative_report_clean_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bailey, David, ‘United Kingdom’ in Këllezi, Pranvera, Kilpatrick, Bruce and Kobel, Pierre (eds.), Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-competitors (Berlin: Springer, 2014)Google Scholar
Bailey, David and John, Laura Elizabeth, Bellamy and Child: European Union Law of Competition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)Google Scholar
Baker, John, ‘The Use of Assumpsit for Restitutionary Money Claims 1600–1800’ in Schrage, Eltjo J. H. (ed.), Unjust Enrichment: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1999)Google Scholar
Baker, Lynn A., ‘Mass Torts and the Pursuit of Ethical Finality’ (2017) 85(5) Fordham Law Review, 2, 1943Google Scholar
von Bar, Christian and Clive, Eric M. (eds.), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) (München and Oxford: Sellier European Law Publishers and Oxford University Press, 2009/2010)Google Scholar
von Bar, Christian and Clive, Eric M. (eds.), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). Full Edition, 6 vols. (München: Sellier European Law Publishers, 2009), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Barbier de La Serre, Éric and Lagathu, Eileen, ‘The Law on Fines Imposed in EU Competition Proceedings: On the Road to Consistency’ (2014) 5 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 6, 400Google Scholar
Barennes, Marc, ‘The Role of the Settlement Procedure and Leniency Programme in the European Commission’s Fight against Cartels’ in Tomljenović, Vesna, Bodiroga-Vukobrat, Nada, Malnar, Vlatka Butorac and Kunda, Ivana (eds.), EU Competition and State Aid Rules. Europeanization and Globalization (Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, 2017)Google Scholar
Bargren, Paul, ‘Joint and Several Liability: Protection for Plaintiffs’ (1994) Wisconsin Law Review, 453Google Scholar
Barker, Kit and Steele, Jenny, ‘Drifting towards Proportionate Liability: Ethics and Pragmatics’ (2015) 74 Cambridge Law Journal, 1, 49Google Scholar
Barros, Pedro Pita, ‘The Simple Economics of Risk-Sharing Agreements between the NHS and the Pharmaceutical Industry’ (2011) 20 Health Economics, 4, 461CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, Günter and Reisner, Nina, ‘Erweiterte Zurechnung des Verhaltens Dritter bei der Festsetzung von Geldbußen im EG-Kartellrecht?’ (2007) 8 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 737Google Scholar
Baxter, William F., ‘Antitrust Damage Allocation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1983), House of Representatives 118, available at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754077953184&view=1up&seq=3Google Scholar
Baxter, William F., ‘The Antitrust Equal Enforcement Act. Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1982), House of Representatives J-97-15, available at: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/10/07/hear-3359-1959.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bentele, Florian, Gesamtschuld und Erlass (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006)Google Scholar
Bieber, Tobias, Die gesamtschuldnerische Haftung für die Zahlung von Kartellbußen im EU-Recht (Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2014)Google Scholar
Bien, Florian, ‘Überlegungen zu einer haftungsrechtlichen Privilegierung des Kartellkronzeugen’ (2011) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 889Google Scholar
Bieniek, Gerard, ‘Art. 415’ in Gerard, Bieniek, Helena, Ciepła, Stanisław, Dmowski, et al. (eds.), Komentarz do kodeksu cywilnego. Zobowiązania, 4 vols. (Warszawa: LexisNexis, 2011), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar
Bieniek, Gerard, ‘Art. 441’ in Gerard, Bieniek, Helena, Ciepła, Stanisław, Dmowski, et al. (eds.), Komentarz do kodeksu cywilnego. Zobowiązania, 4 vols. (Warszawa: LexisNexis, 2011), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar
Bieniek, Gerard, ‘Pojęcie regresu w prawie cywilnym’ (1972) 6 Nowe Prawo, 889Google Scholar
Bieniek, Gerard, ‘Solidarność; Regres’ in Gudowski, Jacek (ed.), Komentarz do art. 441 Kodeksu cywilnego (2013) LEXGoogle Scholar
Blair, Roger D. and Durrance, Christine Piette, ‘Umbrella Damages: Towards a Coherent Antitrust Policy’ (2018) 36 Contemporary Economic Policy, 2, 241Google Scholar
Blair, Roger D. and Sokol, D. Daniel (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Blöcker, Morten, Die tätige Reue (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2000)Google Scholar
Blum, Ulrich, Steinat, Nicole and Veltins, Michael, ‘On the Rationale of Leniency Programs: A Game-Theoretical Analysis’ (2008) 25 European Journal of Law and Economics, 209Google Scholar
Bodenstein, Ines, ‘Zurück zum bewährten Grundsatz: Wer handelt, haftet. Wegweisende Klärung zum Gesamtschuldnerausgleich bei Kartellgeldbußen durch den BGH in Sachen Calciumcarbid’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 141Google Scholar
Böhlke, Alexander, ‘Die gesamtschuldnerische Verantwortlichkeit im EU-Wettbewerbsrecht’ (2011) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 781Google Scholar
Bonnecase, Julien, La notion juridique de bonnes mœurs (Paris: Études Capitant, 1939)Google Scholar
Boré, Jacques, ‘La causalité partielle en noir et blanc ou les deux visages de l’obligation “in solidum”’ (1971) 1 La Semaine Juridique, 2369Google Scholar
Boré, Jacques, ‘Le recours entre coobligés in solidum’ (1967) 1 La Semaine Juridique, 2126Google Scholar
Born, Gary B., International Arbitration: Law and Practice (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2012)Google Scholar
Bosch, Wolfgang, ‘Haftung für kartellrechtswidriges Handeln der Tochtergesellschaft – Neue Rechtslage nach dem Urteil in der Rechtssache Elf Aquitaine/Kommission?’ (2012) 3 Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht, 368Google Scholar
Bosch, Wolfgang, ‘Verantwortung der Konzernobergesellschaft im Kartellrecht’ (2013) 277 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 454Google Scholar
Böttcher, Lars, ‘§ 421 BGB’ in Westermann, Harm-Peter, Grunewald, Barbara and Maier-Reimer, Georg (eds.), Erman Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Köln: OVS Verlag Dr. Otto Walter Schmidt, 2011)Google Scholar
Böttcher, Lars, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Westermann, Harm-Peter, Grunewald, Barbara and Maier-Reimer, Georg (eds.), Erman Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Köln: OVS Verlag Dr. Otto Walter Schmidt, 2011)Google Scholar
Boudou, Mathilde, Charvoz, Laurence, de la Laurencie, Jean-Patrice, Sautel, Olivier and Sélinsky, Véronique, ‘France’ in Këllezi, Pranvera, Kilpatrick, Bruce and Kobel, Pierre (eds.), Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors (Berlin: Springer, 2014)Google Scholar
Bougerol, Laetitia, ‘La réforme de la solidarité passive, illusions perdues et incertitudes’ (2016) 2 Revue de Droit bancaire et financier, 9Google Scholar
Bovis, Christopher H. and Clarke, Charles M., ‘Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law’ (2015) 36 Liverpool Law Review, 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, Andrew, ‘Truck Makers and AkzoNobel, Unilever, Others Dispute Damage Claim Time-frame in Dutch Court’ (13 March 2020), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1170341&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Braun, Dominik, Das Konzept der gesamtschuldnerischen Verantwortlichkeit von Konzerngesellschaften im europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2018)Google Scholar
Braun, Dominik and Kellerbauer, Manuel, ‘Das Konzept der gesamtschuldnerischen Verantwortlichkeit von Konzerngesellschaften bei Zuwiderhandlungen gegen das EU-Wettbewerbsrecht – Teil 1’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 175Google Scholar
Braun, Dominik and Kellerbauer, Manuel, ‘Das Konzept der gesamtschuldnerischen Verantwortlichkeit von Konzerngesellschaften bei Zuwiderhandlungen gegen das EU-Wettbewerbsrecht – Teil 2’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 211Google Scholar
Bredenoord-Spoek, Marieke and Wesseling, Rein, ‘Forum Shopping on the Dutch High Street. Jurisdiction Issues in Follow-on Litigation Cases’, available at https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/7171252/Paper_Wesseling_Bredenoord_Spoek_IBA_Competition_Law_Conference_Floren…pdfGoogle Scholar
Breit, William and Elzinga, Kenneth G., ‘Antitrust Penalties and Attitudes towards Risk: An Economic Analysis’ (1973) 86 Harvard Law Review, 4, 693Google Scholar
Bréna, Stéphane, Les recours en contribution (Montpellier: Université Montpellier 1, 2005)Google Scholar
Brenner, Steffen, ‘An Empirical Study of the European Corporate Leniency Program’ (2009) 27 International Journal of Industrial Organization, 6, 639Google Scholar
Brettel, Hauke and Thomas, Stefan, ‘Unternehmensbußgeld, Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz und Schuldprinzip im novellierten deutschen Kartellrecht’ (2009) 1 Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht, 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronckers, Marco and Vallery, Anne, ‘No Longer Presumed Guilty? The Impact of Fundamental Rights on Certain Dogmas of EU Competition Law’ (2011) 34 World Competition, 4, 535Google Scholar
Bronett, Georg-Klaus de, ‘Gesamtschuldnerische Geldbußen nach EU-Kartellrecht für Personen, die wettbewerbswidrig handelnden “wirtschaftlichen Einheiten” angehören’ (2015) 3 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 123Google Scholar
Bronett, Georg-Klaus de, ‘“Unternehmen” als Wiederholungstäter im EU-Kartellrecht vor und nach der Akzo Nobel-Rechtsprechung des EuGH zum Unternehmensbegriff’ (2014) 6 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 313Google Scholar
Broulík, Jan, ‘Two Contexts for Economics in Competition Law. Deterrence Effects and Competitive Effects’ (2018) 17 TILEC Discussion Paper, 1Google Scholar
Brown, Adrian and Schonberg, Morris, ‘Widening the Net: The General Court Extends the Principle of Successor Liability in EU Competition Law’ (2013) 34(1) European Competition Law Review, 1Google Scholar
Buccirossi, Paolo, Ciari, Lorenzo, Duso, Tomaso, Spagnolo, Giancarlo and Vitale, Cristiana, ‘Deterrence in Competition Law’ (2009) 285 GESY Discussion Paper, 1Google Scholar
Buccirossi, Paolo, Marvão, Catarina M. P. and Spagnolo, Giancarlo, ‘Leniency and Damages’ (2015) 32 Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics Working Paper, 1Google Scholar
Buczkowski, Stefan, ‘Z zagadnień regresu’ (1952) 1 Przegląd Ustawodawstwa Gospodarczego, 43, 444Google Scholar
Bundeskartellamt, ‘Bericht über die Tätigkeit in den Jahren 2003/2004’, BT-Drs. 15/5790, 110Google Scholar
Buntscheck, Martin, ‘Die gesetzliche Kappungsgrenze für Kartellgeldbußen. Bedeutung und Auslegung im Lichte der neuen Bußgeld-Leitlinien von Kommission und Bundeskartellamt’ (2007) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 423Google Scholar
Bürger, Christian, ‘Die Haftung der Konzernmutter für Kartellrechtsverstöße ihrer Tochter nach deutschem Recht’ (2011) 1 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 130Google Scholar
Bürger, Christian, ‘Unternehmensinterne Aufteilung einer Geldbuße der Kommission’ (2015) Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 348Google Scholar
Buts, Caroline and Vanhaverbeke, Lynn, ‘A Quantitative Analysis of the Efficiency of the EU’s Leniency Policy’ (2020) 1 European Competition and Regulatory Law Review (CoRe), 12Google Scholar
Bydlinski, Peter, ‘§ 421 BGB’ in Krüger, Wolfgang (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil, 14 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2012), vol. IIGoogle Scholar
Bydlinski, Peter, ‘§ 423 BGB’ in Krüger, Wolfgang (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil, 14 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2012), vol. IIGoogle Scholar
Bydlinski, Peter, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Krüger, Wolfgang (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil, 14 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2012), vol. IIGoogle Scholar
Cabrillac, Rémy, Droit des obligations (Paris: Dalloz, 2016)Google Scholar
von Caemmerer, Ernst, (1968) 9 Zeitschrift für Europarecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung 81Google Scholar
Cain, Oliver, and Carr, Danielle, ‘Litigation and Enforcement in the UK (England and Wales): Overview’ (2018), available at https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-502-0631?transitionType=DefaultandcontextData=(sc.Default)Google Scholar
Canenbley, Cornelis and Steinvorth, Till, ‘Effective Enforcement of Competition Law: Is There a Solution to the Conflict between Leniency Programmes and Private Damages Actions?’ (2011) 2 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 4, 315Google Scholar
Canin, Patrick, Les actions récursoires entre coresponsables (Paris: Litec, 1996)Google Scholar
Cannon, W. Stephen, ‘The Administration’s Antitrust Remedies Reform Proposal: Its Derivation and Implications’ (1986) 55 Antitrust Law Journal, 1, 103Google Scholar
Carbonnier, Jean, Droit civil. Les obligations, 4 vols. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992), vol. IVGoogle Scholar
Cartel Damages Claims, ‘CDC’s Claims against Kemira Aren’t Time-barred, Dutch Court Rules’ (4 February 2020), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1160399&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Catala, Pierre, Avant-projet de réforme du droit des obligations et de la prescription (Paris: La Documentation française, 2006)Google Scholar
Cauffman, Caroline, ‘The Interaction of Leniency Programmes and Actions for Damages’ (2011) 34 Maastricht European Private Law Institute Working Paper, 181Google Scholar
Cavanagh, Edward D., ‘Contribution, Claim Reduction, and Individual Treble Damage Responsibility: Which Path to Reform of Antitrust Remedies?’ (1987) 40 Vanderbilt Law Review, 1277Google Scholar
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), ‘Making Antitrust Damages Actions More Effective in the EU: Welfare Impact and Potential Scenarios’ (2007), available at https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/files_white_paper/impact_study.pdfGoogle Scholar
Chabas, François, L’influence de la pluralité de causes sur le droit à réparation (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1967)Google Scholar
Chabas, François, ‘Remarque sur l’obligation in solidum’ (1967) 1 Revue trimestrielle de droit civil, 310Google Scholar
Chang, Howard F. and Sigman, Hilary A., ‘Incentives to Settle under Joint and Several Liability: An Empirical Analysis of Superfund Litigation’ (2000) 29 The Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chantepie, Gaël and Latina, Mathias, La réforme du droit des obligations. Commentaire théorique et pratique dans l’ordre du Code civil (Paris: Dalloz, 2016)Google Scholar
Chatterjee, Charles and Lefcovitch, Anna, Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Practical Guide (London and New York: Routledge, 2008)Google Scholar
Chen, Zhijun and Rey, Patrick, ‘On the Design of Leniency Programs’ (2013) 56 The Journal of Law and Economics, 4, 917Google Scholar
Chénedé, François, Le nouveau droit des contrats et des obligations (Paris: Dalloz, 2016)Google Scholar
Claudel, Emmanuelle, ‘L’essor des sanctions en droit de la concurrence. Quelle efficacité ? Quelles garanties ?’ (2014) 6 Contrats Concurrence Consommation, 13, 6Google Scholar
Cochet, Dorothée, ‘La contribution à la dette des coobligés in solidum’ (2004) 118 Petites affiches, 3Google Scholar
Competition Appeal Tribunal, ‘JPMorgan, UBS, Barclays, Others Face Fresh Forex-rigging Lawsuit in UK, Court Filing Confirms’ (20 December 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1152433&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Competition Appeal Tribunal, ‘Prysmian Settles with Scottish Power, Other Suppliers in UK Cable-cartel Lawsuit’ (30 July 2020), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1213902&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Corgas-Bernard, Cristina, ‘La pluralité de responsables en droit français et dans d’autres ordres juridiques nationaux’ in G.R.E.R.C.A. (ed.), Le droit français de la responsabilité civile confronté aux projets européens d’harmonisation (Paris: Irjs editions, 2012)Google Scholar
Craig, Paul P., EU Administrative Law (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar
Craig, Paul P., ‘Subsidiarity: A Political and Legal Analysis’ (2012) 50 Journal of Common Market Studies, 1, 72Google Scholar
Crane, Daniel A., ‘Optimizing Private Antitrust Enforcement’ (2010) 63 Vanderbilt Law Review, 2, 675Google Scholar
Curry, Raper Kellie, Love, H. Alan and Shumway, C. Richard, ‘Distinguishing the Source of Market Power’ (2007) 89 American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1, 78Google Scholar
Czachórski, Witold, ‘Uwagi o rażącym niedbalstwie’ in Błeszyński, Jan (ed.), Witold Czachórski. Wybór prac (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2015)Google Scholar
Dąbrowa, Janina, Wina jako przesłanka odpowiedzialności cywilnej (Wrocław: Wrocławskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1968)Google Scholar
Danov, Mihail and Becker, Florian, ‘Governance Aspects of Cross-Border EU Competition Actions: Theoretical and Practical Challenges’ (2014) 10 Journal of Private International Law, 3, 359Google Scholar
Danov, Mihail, Becker, Florian and Beaumont, Paul, Cross-border EU Competition Law Actions (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2013)Google Scholar
Davidow, Joel, ‘Recent Developments in US Antitrust’ (2005) 28 World Competition, 3, 299Google Scholar
Davis, William Bruce, ‘Multiple Defendant Settlement in 10b-5: Good Faith Contribution Bar’ (1989) 40 Hastings Law Journal, 1253Google Scholar
Debroux, Michel, ‘Sanctioning Cartels under EC Law: Definition and Consequences of Group Liability’ (2008) 1 Concurrences, 42Google Scholar
Decocq, Georges, ‘D’utiles précisions sur le régime de la solidarité pour le paiement d’une amende’ (2014) 7 Contrat Concurrence Consommation, 165Google Scholar
Deguergue, Maryse, ‘Causalité et imputabilité’ (2013) 370–360 JurisClasseur Responsabilité civile et AssurancesGoogle Scholar
Dejean de la Bâtie, Noël, ‘Responsabilité délictuelle. Tome VI-2’ in Ponsard, André and Fadlallah, Ibrahim (eds.), Aubry et Rau, Droit Civil Français (Paris: Librairies Techinques, 1989)Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Kris and Roques, Christian, ‘The European Commission’s Settlement Procedure in Cartel Cases’ (2010) 55 The Antitrust Bulletin, 4, 819Google Scholar
Department for Business Innovation and Skills, ‘Consultation: Implementing the EU Directive on Damages for Breaches of Competition Law’ (January, 2016), available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/495757/BIS-16-6-consultation-implementing-the-EU-directive-on-damages-for-breaches-of-competition-law.pdfGoogle Scholar
Deutsche, Bahn, ‘Deutsche Bahn Settles Damages Litigation with Lufthansa’ (26 August 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1123288&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Diamond, Peter A., ‘Single Activity Accidents’ (1974) 3(1)The Journal of Legal Studies, 3Google Scholar
Dobbin, Robert F., ‘Settlement of Private Antitrust Litigation Including Class Type Actions and Multiple Defendant Lawsuits’ (1973) 34 Ohio State Law Journal, 513Google Scholar
Dohrn, Daniel, Die Bindungswirkung kartellrechtlicher Entscheidungen der Kommission sowie deutscher und mitgliedsstaatlicher Kartellbehörden und Gerichte im deutschen Zivilprozess (Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2010)Google Scholar
Domke, Martin, Domke on Commercial Arbitration (Eagan: West Group, 1984)Google Scholar
Dopuch, Nicholas, Ingberman, Daniel E. and King, Ronald R., ‘An Experimental Investigation of Multi-defendant Bargaining in “joint and several” and Proportionate Liability Regimes’ (1997) 23 Journal of Accounting and Economics, 189Google Scholar
Dougan, Michael, National Remedies Before the Court of Justice. Issues of Harmonisation and Differentiation (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar
Dreher, Meinrad, ‘Die Haftungsverteilung bei der gesamtschuldnerischen kartellrechtlichen Schadenersatzhaftung’ in Bechtold, Stefan, Jickeli, Joachim and Rohe, Mathias (eds.), Recht, Ordnung Und Wettbewerb: Festschrift Zum 70. Geburtstag Von Wernhard Möschel (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2011)Google Scholar
Dreher, Meinrad, ‘Zum Ausgleich zwischen den Gesamtschuldnern (innerhalb eines Konzerns) einer Kartell-Geldbuße (“Calciumcarbid-Kartell II”)’ (2015) 7 Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht, 231Google Scholar
Dreher, Meinrad and Körner, Julia, ‘Germany’ in Këllezi, Pranvera, Kilpatrick, Bruce and Kobel, Pierre (eds.), Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors (Berlin: Springer, 2014)Google Scholar
du Chambon, Patrick Maistre, ‘Régime de la réparation. Action en réparation. Parties à l’instance’ (2016) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 220Google Scholar
Dubis, Wojciech in Gniewek, Edward and Machnikowski, Piotr (eds.), Komentarze Kodeksowe. Kodeks Cywilny. Komentarz (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2014)Google Scholar
Dugdale, Anthony M., ‘The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978’ (1979) 42 The Modern Law Review, 2, 182Google Scholar
Dunleavy, Nathy, ‘Contribution among Antitrust Defendants in English Law’ (2009) 30 European Competition Law Review, 1, 22Google Scholar
Dunne, Niamh, ‘Competition Law and Policy after Brexit’ (2017) 24 LSE Law Policy Briefing Series, Brexit Special 4, 2Google Scholar
Dunne, Niamh, ‘The Role of Private Enforcement within EU Competition Law’ (2014) 16 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 143Google Scholar
Dunz, Walter, ‘Abwägungskriterien bei der Schadensausgleichung’ (1964) 46 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 2133Google Scholar
Durner, Wolfgang, ‘Die Unabhängigkeit nationaler Richter im Binnenmarkt – Zu den Loyalitätspflichten nationaler Gerichte gegenüber der EG-Kommission, insbesondere auf dem Gebiet des Kartellrechts’ (2004) 4 Zeitschrift Europarecht, 547Google Scholar
Dybowski, Tomasz in Radwański, Zbigniew (ed.), System Prawa Prywatnego. Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna, 21 vols. (Warszawa: C.H. Beck and Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2002), vol. IIGoogle Scholar
Dzikiewicz, Lech, ‘O pojęciu winy i jej trzech odmianach’ (1977) IV Państwo i Prawo, 87Google Scholar
Easterbrook, Frank H., ‘The Antitrust Equal Enforcement Act. Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1982), House of Representatives J-97-15, available at: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/10/07/hear-3359-1959.pdfGoogle Scholar
Easterbrook, Frank H., Landes, William M. and Richard, A. Posner, ‘Contribution among Antitrust Defendants: A Legal and Economic Analysis’ (1980) 23 The Journal of Law and Economics, 2, 331Google Scholar
Ebert, Ina, Pönale Elemente im deutschen Privatrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004)Google Scholar
Eckert, Jörn, ‘Sittenwidrigkeit und Wertungswandel’ (1999) 199 Archiv für die civilistische Praxis, 3, 337Google Scholar
Ehmann, Horst, Die Gesamtschuld (Heidelberg: Inaugural-Dissertation, 1971)Google Scholar
Eilmansberger, Thomas, ‘The Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules and Beyond: Reflections on the Utility and Feasibility of Stimulating Private Enforcement through Legislative Action’ (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review, 431Google Scholar
Elzinga, Kenneth G., ‘The Goals of Antitrust: Other than Competition and Efficiency, What Else?’ (1977) 125 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1191Google Scholar
Emiliou, Nicholas, The Principle of Proportionality in European Law: A Comparative Study (London and Cambridge, MA: Kluwer Law International, 1996)Google Scholar
Enneccerus, Ludwig and Lehmann, Heinrich, Recht der Schuldverhältnisse (Tübingen: Mohr, 1958)Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Fines Google €4.34 billion for Illegal Practices Regarding Android Mobile Devices to Strengthen Dominance of Google’s Search Engine’ (18 July 2018) IP/18/4581Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Fines Scania €880 million for Participating in Trucks Cartel’ (27 September 2017) IP/17/3502Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Fines Truck Producers € 2.93 billion for Participating in a Cartel’ (19 July 2016) IP/16/2582Google Scholar
European Group on Tort Law, Principles of European Tort Law: Text and Commentary (Wien and New York: Springer, 2005)Google Scholar
Fabian, Claus-Peter, Schädigermehrheit und Regreß im internationalen Umwelthaftungsrecht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des anglo-amerikanischen Rechts (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999)Google Scholar
Fasoula, Vasiliki, ‘Extending the Principle of Economic Continuity to Private Enforcement of Competition Law. What Lies Ahead for Corporate Restructuring and Civil Damages Proceedings after Skanska? Case Comment to the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 march 2019 Skanska Industrial Solutions and others (Case C-724/17)’ (2019) 20 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 259Google Scholar
Faure, Michael, ‘Economic Analysis of Fault’ in Widmer, Pierre (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar
Feltovich, Nick and Hamaguchi, Yasuyo, ‘The Effect of Whistle-Blowing Incentives on Collusion: An Experimental Study of Leniency Programs’ (2018) 84 Southern Economic Journal, 4, 1024Google Scholar
Feunten, Tristan, ‘Industry-wide Trucks Cartel Face Massive Legal Claim in UK Tribunal’ (30 July 2018), Weightmans, available at https://weightmans.com/media-centre/news/industry-wide-trucks-cartel-facing-massive-legal-claim-in-uk-tribunal/Google Scholar
Ford, Sarah, ‘Claims for Contribution in Competition Damages Actions: The Impact of the EU Damages Directive’ (2015) 36 European Competition Law Review, 8, 327Google Scholar
Frenz, Walter and Lülsdorf, Tanja, ‘Kontinuität und Zurechnung im Kartellrecht’ (2012) 12 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 504Google Scholar
Frese, Michael, Sanctions in EU Competition Law: Principles and Practice (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2014)Google Scholar
Fritzsche, Alexander, Klöpper, Carsten and Walter, Schmidt Miriam, ‘Die Praxis der privaten Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung in Deutschland – Teil 1: Aspekte des kartellrechtlichen Schadensersatzanspruchs’ (2016) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 412Google Scholar
Galand-Carval, Suzanne, ‘Fault under French Law’ in Widmer, Pierre (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar
Gamble, Rorger, ‘The Cartel Penumbra: Where Public and Private Enforcement Policies Intersect’ (2013) 42 Common Law World Review, 23Google Scholar
Gänswein, Olivier, ‘Gesamtschuldnerausgleich unter Kartellbeteiligten: Bestimmung des Haftungsanteils und Verjährung der Ausgleichsansprüche’ (2016) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 50Google Scholar
Garlicki, Stanisław, ‘Glosa do orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego z dn. 21.11.1967 r.’ (1969) 1 Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych, 342Google Scholar
Gebauer, Martin, ‘§ 423 BGB’ in Pfeiffer, Thomas (ed.), Soergel Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Schuldrecht, 3 vols. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar
Gebauer, Martin, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Pfeiffer, Thomas (ed.), Soergel Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Schuldrecht, 3 vols. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar
Gehrlein, Markus, ‘§ 421 BGB’ in Bamberger, Heinz Georg and Roth, Herbert (eds.), Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 3 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2012), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Gehrlein, Markus, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Bamberger, Heinz Georg and Roth, Herbert (eds.), Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 3 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2012), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Gelmini, Francesca, ‘Brexit: The Future of Private Antitrust Enforcement in the UK’ (20 December 2017), European Future, available at https://europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/brexit-the-future-of-private-antitrust-enforcement-in-the-uk/Google Scholar
Geradin, Damien, ‘Public Policy and Breach of Competition Law in International Arbitration: A Competition Law Practitioner’s Viewpoint’ (2016) 29 TILEC Discussion Paper, 1Google Scholar
Geradin, Damien and Grelier, Laurie-Anne, ‘Cartel Damages Claims in the European Union: Have We Only Seen the Tip of the Iceberg?’ in Charbit, Nicholas and Ramundo, Elisa (eds.), William E. Kovacic. An Antitrust Tribute. Liber Amicorum, 2 vols. (New York: Institute of Competition Law, 2014), vol. IIGoogle Scholar
Geradin, Damien and Sadrak, Katarzyna, ‘The EU Competition Law Fining System: A Quantitative Review of the Commission Decisions between 2000 and 2017’ in Charbit, Nicolas, Malhado, Carolina and Yang, Ellie (eds.), Douglas H. Ginsburg. An Antitrust Professor on the Bench. Liber Amicorum, 2 vols. (New York: Concurrences, 2018), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Geradin, Damien, Stephan, Andreas and Argenton, Cedric, EU Cartel Law and Economics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020)Google Scholar
Geulette, Alexandre, ‘La solidarité pour le paiement des amendes en droit de la concurrence de l’Union’ (2014) 2 Revues des Affaires européennes, 433Google Scholar
Ghodoosei, Farshad, ‘The Concept of Public Policy in Law: Revisiting the Role of the Public Policy Doctrine in the Enforcement of Private Legal Arrangements’ (2016) 94 Nebraska Law Review, 3, 685Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Douglas H., ‘Comparing Antitrust Enforcement in the United States and Europe’ (2005) 1 Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 3, 427Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Douglas H. and Wright, Joshua D., ‘Antitrust Sanctions’ (2010) 6 Competition Policy International, 2, 3Google Scholar
Glaßer, Heinrich, Der Gesamtschuldnerausgleich zwischen deliktisch haftenden Schuldnern (München: VVF, 1995)Google Scholar
Glöckner, Jochen, ‘Individualschutz und Funktionenschutz in der privaten Durchsetzung des Kartellrechts – Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel nicht; er bestimmt sie!’ (2007) 5 Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis, 490Google Scholar
Götte, Wulf, Gesamtschuldbegriff und Regressproblem (Bonn: Ludwig Rührscheid, 1974)Google Scholar
Gould, John P., ‘The Economics of Legal Conflicts’ (1973) 2 The Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 279Google Scholar
Grangeon, Julie, ‘La directive relative aux actions en réparation à la suite d’une pratique anticoncurrentielle: révolution ou évolution du private enforcement dans l’Union ?’ (2015) 101 Revue Lamy droit des affaires, 59Google Scholar
Grundmann, Stefan, ‘§ 276 BGB’ in Krüger, Wolfgang (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Schuldrecht. Allgemeiner Teil I, 14 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2019), vol. IIGoogle Scholar
Grzybowski, Stefan, ‘Roszczenia zwrotne w prawie alimentacyjnym a problem nieprzenaszalności roszczeń alimentacyjnych’ (1956) 1 Nowe Prawo, 41Google Scholar
Guttso, Laura, ‘I’m an Immunity Applicant, Get Me Out of Here: Joint and Several Liability Revisited’ (2014) 7 Global Competition Litigation Review, 2, 94Google Scholar
Hamman, Hartmut, Das Unternehmen als Täter im europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht (Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus, 1992)Google Scholar
Harrington, Joseph E. Jr, ‘Optimal Corporate Leniency Programs’ (2008) 56 The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2, 215Google Scholar
Harrison, Farin, ‘The Practical Antitrust Implications of Tomorrow: Brexit Day’, (30 January 2020), Kluwer Competition Law, available at https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2020/01/30/the-practical-antitrust-implications-of-tomorrow-brexit-day/Google Scholar
Haus, Florian C., ‘Die Entscheidung des BGH im Fall Calciumcarbid – (nicht nur) Regeln für den Innenregress bei gesamtschuldnerischer Bußgeldhaftung’ (2015) Der Konzern, 114Google Scholar
Havu, Katri, ‘EU Law in Member State Courts: ‘Adequate Judicial Protection’ and Effective Application – Ambiguities and Nonsequiturs in Guidance by the Court of Justice?’ (2015) 8 Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 1, 158Google Scholar
Hawk, Barry E., Common Market and International Antitrust: A Comparative Guide (New York and Washington: Aspen Law and Business, 1990)Google Scholar
Hay, Bruce and Rosenberg, David, ‘“Sweetheart” and “Blackmail” Settlements in Class Actions: Reality and Remedy’ (2000) 75 Notre Dame Law Review, 1377Google Scholar
Hazelhorst, Monique, ‘Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: Why Punitive Damages Are a Step Too Far’ (2010) 4 European Review of Private Law, 757Google Scholar
Heck, Philipp, Grundriß des Schuldrechts (Tübingen: Mohr, 1929)Google Scholar
Heidel, Ulrich, Die Auswirkungen von Haftungsbeschränkungen auf die Entstehung von Gesamtschuldverhältnissen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung versicherungsrechtlicher Probleme (Heidelberg: Dissertation, 1975)Google Scholar
Heinichen, Christian, Unternehmensbegriff und Haftungsnachfolge im Europäischen Kartellrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010)Google Scholar
Heinrichs, Helmut, ‘§ 249 BGB’ in Peter Bassenge, Gerd Brudermüller, Uwe Diederichsen, Wolfgang Edenhofer, Helmut Heinrichs, Andreas Heldrich, Hans Putzo, Hartwig Sprau and Heinz Thomas Walter Weidenkaff, Palandt. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (München: C.H. Beck, 2004)Google Scholar
Hilgenfeld, Mario, ‘HeidelbergCement Settles German Cement-cartel Damages Claims with CDC’ (13 August 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1120911&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Hilgenfeld, Mario and Hirst, Nicholas, ‘Lufthansa, Deutsche Bahn settle air-cargo Damages Litigation’ (26 Autust 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1123289&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Hinloopen, Jeroen, ‘An Economic Analysis of Leniency Programs in Antitrust Law’ (2003) 4 De Economist, 415Google Scholar
Hocquet-Berg, Sophie, ‘Affaire du « Distilbène » : une importante avancée en matière d’indemnisation des victimes’ (2009) 44 La Semaine Juridique Edition Generale, 381Google Scholar
Hofstetter, Karl and Ludescher, Melanie, ‘Fines against Parent Companies in EU Antitrust Law: Setting Incentives for “Best Practice Compliance”’ (2010) 33 World Competition, 1, 55Google Scholar
Hölzel, Norman, Kronzeugenregelungen im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht (Halle: Universitätsverlag Halle-Wittenberg, 2011)Google Scholar
Honoré, Anthony Maurice, International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law: Torts. Causation and Remoteness of Damage, 17 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971), vol. XIGoogle Scholar
Honsell, Heinrich, ‘Die zivilrechtliche Sanktion der Sittenwidrigkeit’ (1975) 30 Juristen Zeitung, 439Google Scholar
Hontebeyrie, Antoine, ‘Pluralité de sujets : altération et complications’ (2015) 249 Droit et Patrimoine. Dossier, 46Google Scholar
Hontebeyrie, Antoine, ‘Quelques incidences de la réforme du droit des obligations en matière de responsabilité civile’ (2015) 249 Droit et Patrimoine. Dossier, 54Google Scholar
Hontebeyrie, Antoine, ‘Régime général des obligations : l’essentiel d’une réforme substantielle’ (2015) 249 Droit et Patrimoine. Dossier, 33Google Scholar
Hösch, Antonia, Der schadensrechtliche Innenausgleich zwischen Kartellrechtsverletzern (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2015)Google Scholar
Howlett, Michael and Cashore, Ben, ‘Conceptualizing Public Policy’ (2004) Comparative Policy Studies, 17Google Scholar
Hubert, Patrick and Combet, Marie-Laure, ‘Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA: A Missed Opportunity to Shed More Light on Joint and Several Liability’ (2015) 6 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 9, 653Google Scholar
Hüffer, Uwe, Der Rückgriff gegen den deliktisch handelnden Schädiger bei Entschädigungsleistungen Dritter (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1970)Google Scholar
Hüschelrath, Kai and Laitenberger, Ulrich, ‘The Settlement Procedure in the European Commission’s Cartel Cases: An Early Evaluation’ (2017) 5 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 3, 458Google Scholar
Hviid, Morten and Medvedev, Andrei, ‘The Role of Contribution among Defendants in Private Antitrust Litigation’ (2008) 8 CCP Working Paper, 3, 1Google Scholar
Idot, Laurance, ‘Responsabilité des sociétés mères’ (2016) 8–9 Europe, 1Google Scholar
Inderst, Roman and Thomas, Stefan, Schadensersatz bei Kartellverstößen (Düsseldorf: Handerlsblatt Fachmedien, 2015)Google Scholar
Infantino, Marta and Zervogianni, Eleni, Causation in European Tort Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)Google Scholar
Janka, Sebastian Felix, ‘Parent Liability and Claims for Recovery between Joint and Several Debtors According to EU Antitrust Law’ (2014) 35 European Competition Law Review, 12, 594Google Scholar
Jędrejek, Grzegorz, ‘Polski Kodeks Zobowiązań z 1933 Roku. Powstanie, źródła, znaczenie dla Europejskiego prawa obligacyjnego’ (2001) XI Roczniki Nauk Prawnych, 1, 47Google Scholar
Jędrzejewska, Maria, Współuczestnictwo Procesowe (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, 1975)Google Scholar
Jolowicz, John Anthony, ‘Procedure and Substance – Apportionment of Damages’ (1988) 47(1)The Cambridge Law Journal, 32Google Scholar
Jones, Alison, ‘The Boundaries of an Undertaking in EU Competition Law’ (2012) 8 European Competition Journal, 2, 301Google Scholar
Jourdain, Patrice, ‘Droit à réparation. Lien de causalité. Détermination des causes du dommage’ (2013) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 160Google Scholar
Jourdain, Patrice, ‘Droit à réparation. Responsabilité fondée sur la faute. Notion de faute: fautes qualifiées’ (2017) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 120–220Google Scholar
Jourdain, Patrice, ‘Droit à réparation. Responsabilité fondée sur la faute. Applications de la notion de faute: imprudences et négligences ; fautes commises à l’occasion d’un contrat’ (2017) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 130–410Google Scholar
Jourdain, Patrice, ‘Les recours en contribution’ (2015) 9 Responsabilité civile et assurance, 16Google Scholar
Jourdain, Patrice, ‘Pour un réexamen du droit de recours en contribution’ (2009) 3 Responsabilité civile et assurances, 3Google Scholar
Jüchser, Alexander, ‘Gesamtschuldnerausgleich zwischen Mutter- und Tochtergesellschaft im Falles Schadensersatzes’ (2012) 10 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 1048Google Scholar
Jürgens, Robert and Seeliger, Daniela, ‘Die geplante Neufassung der Kronzeugenregelung der Europäischen Kommission’ (2006) 8 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 337Google Scholar
Jurkowska-Gomułka, Agata, Publiczne i prywatne egzekwowanie zakazów praktyk ograniczających konkurencje: w poszukiwaniu zrównoważonego modelu współistnienia (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2013)Google Scholar
Kahan, Marcel, ‘The Incentive Effects of Settlements under Joint and Several Liability’ (1996) 16 International Review of Law and Economics, 389Google Scholar
Jonas von, Kalben and Sekunde, Alexander, ‘Relative Responsibility of Joint and Severally Liable Units in Public and Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law – What Role for Economic Criteria?’ (2016) 37 European Competition Law Review, 1, 1Google Scholar
Kaliński, Maciej, Szkoda na mieniu i jej naprawienie (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2011)Google Scholar
Kaplan, Larry S., ‘From Contribution to Good Faith Settlements: Equity Where Are You?’ (1984) 49 Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 771Google Scholar
Karaszewski, Grzegorz, ‘Komentarz do art. 441 Kodeksu cywilnego’ (2014) LEXGoogle Scholar
Kasiński, Tadeusz, ‘Roszczenia regresowe z art. 441 para 3 kodeksu cywilnego’ (1972) 9 Nowe Prawo, 387Google Scholar
Katt, Mareen, Die Gesamtschuldnerische Haftung des Kronzeugen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019)Google Scholar
Kellerbauer, Manuel and Weber, Olaf, ‘Die gesamtschuldnerische Haftung für Kartellgeldbußen und ihre Grenzen: Das Urteil Siemens VA Tech’ (2011) 17 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrech, 666Google Scholar
Këllezi, Pranvera, Kilpatrick, Bruce and Kobel, Pierre (eds.), Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors (Berlin: Springer, 2014)Google Scholar
Kelly, Molly, ‘Settling for Settlement: The European Commission’s New Cartel Settlement Procedure’ (2010) 9 Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 699Google Scholar
Kern, Christoph, ‘Private Law Enforcement versus Public Law Enforcement’ (2007) 12 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International, 351Google Scholar
Kern, Christoph, ‘Restrukturierung als “private enforcement”’ in Boris Paal, Dörte Poelzig and Oliver Fehrenbacher (eds.), Festschrift für Werner F. Ebke (Münich: C.H. Beck 2021)Google Scholar
Kersting, Christian, ‘Die neue Richtlinie zur privaten Rechtsdurchsetzung im Kartellrecht’ (2014) 6 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 564Google Scholar
Kersting, Christian, ‘Die Rechtsprechung des EuGH zur Bußgeldhaftung in der wirtschaftlichen Einheit’ (2014) 12 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 64, 1156Google Scholar
Kersting, Christian, ‘Gesamtschuldnerausgleich bei Kartellgeldbußen’ (2016) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 147Google Scholar
Kersting, Christian, ‘Liability of Sister Companies and Subsidiaries in European Competition Law’ (2020) 41 European Competition Law Review, 125Google Scholar
Kersting, Christian, ‘Perspektiven der privaten Rechtsdurchsetzung im Kartellrecht’ (2008) 3 Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht, 252Google Scholar
Kersting, Christian, ‘Removing the Tension between Public and Private Enforcement: Disclosure and Privileges for Successful Leniency Applicants’ (2014) 5 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1, 2Google Scholar
Kersting, Christian and Preuß, Nicola, Umsetzung der Kartellschadensersatzrichtlinie (2014/104/EU). Ein Gesetzgebungsvorschlag aus der Wissenschaft (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2015)Google Scholar
Kessedjian, Catherine, ‘Public Order in European Law’ (2007) 1 Erasmus Law Review, 1, 25Google Scholar
Keuk, Brigitte, ‘BGB §§ 426, 633, 634, 635, 638, 242’ (1972) 17 Juristen Zeitung, 525Google Scholar
Kirgis, Paul F., ‘Apportioning Tort Damages in New York: A Method to the Madness’ (2001) 75 St. John’s Law Review, 427Google Scholar
Kirst, Philipp and Bergh, Roger Van den, ‘The European Directive on Damages Actions: A Missed Opportunity to Reconcile Compensation of Victims and Leniency Incentives’ (2016) 12 Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 1Google Scholar
Klein, Alfred, ‘Istota solidarności biernej a stosunki prawne odpowiedzialności’ in Radwański, Zbigniew (ed.), Studia z prawa zobowiązań (Warszawa and Poznań: Polskie Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1979)Google Scholar
Klerman, Daniel, ‘Settling Multidefendant Lawsuits: The Advantage of Conditional Setoff Rules’ (1996) 25 The Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 445Google Scholar
Knight, W. S. M., ‘Public Policy of the English Law’ (1922) 38 Law Quarterly Review, 379Google Scholar
Koch, Jens, ‘Der kartellrechtliche Sanktionsdurchgriff im Unternehmensverbund’ (2007) 171 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 554Google Scholar
Koch, Jens, ‘Rechtsdurchsetzung im Kartellrecht: Public vs. private enforcement: Auf dem Weg zu einem level playing field?’ (2013) 68 Juristen Zeitung, 390Google Scholar
Köhler, Helmut, ‘EU-Kartellgeldbußen gegen Mutter- und Tochtergesellschaft: Gesamtschuldnerische Haftung und Ausgleich im Innenverhältnis’ (2011) 3 Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis, 277Google Scholar
Köhler, Helmut, ‘Kartellverbot und Schadensersatz’ (2004) Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 99Google Scholar
Koenig, Carsten, ‘Making Contribution Work: The Liability of Privileged and Non-privileged Injurers in EU Competition Law’ (2018) 14 European Competition Journal, 110Google Scholar
Kohn, Harold E., ‘Antitrust Damage Allocation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1983) House of Representatives 118Google Scholar
Kokott, Juliane, ‘Zur Haftung von Muttergesellschaften, die Walter Selbst nicht wirtschaftlich tätig sind für Kartellverstöße von Tochtergesellschaften’ (2013) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 28Google Scholar
Kokott, Juliane and Dittert, Daniel, ‘Die Verantwortlichkeit von Muttergesellschaften für Kartellvergehen ihrer Tochtergesellschaften im Lichte der Rechtsprechung der Unionsgerichte’ (2012) 7–8 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 670Google Scholar
Komisja, Kodyfikacyjna and Podkomisja Prawa, o Zobowiązaniach, Uzasadnienie Projektu Kodeksu Zobowiązań. Zeszyt 4, 2 vols. (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Urzędowe Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej, 1934), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Komisja, Kodyfikacyjna and Podsekcja III, Prawa Cywilnego, Projekt prawa o zobowiązaniach. Zeszyt 4, 2 vols. (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Urzędowe Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej, 1932), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Komisja, Kodyfikacyjna, Uzasadnienie projektu kodeksu zobowiązań (Warszawa: Komisja Kodyfikacyjna Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, 1939)Google Scholar
Komninos, Assimakis P., EC Private Antitrust Enforcement. Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law by National Courts (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2008)Google Scholar
Koniak, Susan P. and Cohen, George M., ‘Under Cloak of Settlement’ (1996) 82 Vanderbilt Law Review, 1051Google Scholar
Kopaczyńska-Pieczniak, Katarzyna, ‘Dobre obyczaje i zasady współżycia społecznego w prawie spółek handlowych’ (2016) LXIII(2) Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, 93Google Scholar
Körner, Julia, Die Gesamtschuld im europäischen Kartellbußgeldrecht (Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2016)Google Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A. and Revesz, Richard L., ‘Settlements under Joint and Several Liability’ (1993) 68 New York University Law Review, 427Google Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A. and Revesz, Richard L., ‘Multidefendant Settlements: The Impact of Joint and Several Liability’ (1994) 23 The Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 41Google Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A. and Revesz, Richard L., ‘Sharing Damages among Multiple Tortfeasors’ (1989) 98 Yale Law Journal, 5, 831Google Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A. and Takeda, Keith T., ‘N-Defendant Litigation and Settlement: The Impact of Joint and Several Liability’ (2008) 109 New York University Law and Economics Working Papers, 1Google Scholar
Kosik, Jan, ‘Glosa do orzeczenia Sadu Najwyższego z dn. 14.03.1964 r.’ (1965) 5 Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych, 329Google Scholar
Krüger, Carsten, ‘Der Gesamtschuldnerausgleich im System der privaten Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung’ (2012) 1 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 6Google Scholar
Krüger, Carsten, ‘Die haftungsrechtliche Privilegierung des Kronzeugen im Außen- und Innenverhältnis gemäß dem Richtlinienvorschlag der Kommission’ (2013) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 483Google Scholar
Krüger, Carsten, ‘Überlegungen zur Gesamtschuld von Kartellmitgliedern im System der privaten Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung. Einer für alle, alle gegen einen?’ in Oberender, Peter (ed.), Private und öffentliche Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2012)Google Scholar
Krüger, Carsten, Kartellregress (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010)Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, Jens, Rückgriffsgrundlagen bei Gesamtschuld, Bürgschaft und Schadensversicherung in Deutschland, England und Schweden (Berlin: BMV Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2005)Google Scholar
Kühn, Kai-Uwe, Information Exchanges among Firms and Their Impact on Competition (Luxembourg: Official Publications of the European Communities, 1995)Google Scholar
Kuijpers, Matthijs, Tuinenga, Stefan, Wisking, Stephen, Dietzel, Kim, Campbell, Suzy, and Fritzsche, Alexander, ‘Actions for Damages in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany’ (2015) 6 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 2, 1Google Scholar
La Rocca, Laura, ‘The Controversial Issue of the Parent-company Liability for the Violation of EC Competition Rules by the Subsidiary’ (2011) 2 European Competition Law Review, 68Google Scholar
Laina, Flavio and Bogdanov, Aleko, ‘The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure: Latest Developments’ (2017) 8 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 5, 333Google Scholar
Laitinen, Klas, Multi-party and Multi-contract Arbitration Mechanisms in International Commercial Litigation. A study on Institutional Rules of Consolidation, Joinder, and Intervention from a Finnish Perspective (2013), available at https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/44922/klaslaitinenprogradu.pdf?sequence=2Google Scholar
Lande, Robert H., ‘The Role of Private Enforcement within EU Competition Law’ in Foer, Albert A. and Cuneo, Jonathan W. (eds.), The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law (Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar
Landes, William M., ‘An Economic Analysis of the Courts’ (1971) 14 The Journal of Law and Economics, 1, 61Google Scholar
Christoph von, Laufenberg, Kartellrechtliche Konzernhaftung (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2018)Google Scholar
The Law Commission, Working Paper No 59 Contribution (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1975)Google Scholar
Le Tourneau, Philippe, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats (Paris: Dalloz, 2012)Google Scholar
Le Tourneau, Philippe and Julien, Jérôme, ‘Solidarité’ (2013) Répertoire de droit civil DallozGoogle Scholar
Leczykiewicz, Dorota, ‘Private Party Liability in EU Law: In Search of the General Regime’ in Barnard, Catherine and Odudu, Okeoghene (eds.), The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. Volume 12, 2009-2010 (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar
Leonardo, Armati, ‘Siemens Österreich, Areva and Alstom: Joint and Several Liability in the Gas-insulated Switchgear Cartel’ (2015) 6 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1, 26Google Scholar
Leslie, Christopher R., ‘Judgment-Sharing Agreements’ (2009) 58 Duke Law Journal, 747Google Scholar
Lettl, Tobias, ‘Der Schadensersatzanspruch gemäß § 823 Abs 2 BGB i. V. mit Art. 81 Abs. 1 EG’ (2003) 167 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 473Google Scholar
Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska, Biruta, ‘Wina jako podstawa odpowiedzialności z tytułu czynów niedozwolonych’ (1969) Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne, 87Google Scholar
Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska, Biruta, Wyrządzenie szkody przez kilka osób (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, 1978)Google Scholar
Lianos, Ioannis, ‘The Principle of Effectiveness, Competition Law Remedies and the Limits of Adjudication’ (2014) 6 CLES Research Paper Series, 3Google Scholar
Liu, Jing and Faure, Michael, ‘Risk-sharing Agreements to Cover Environmental Damage: Theory and Practice’ (2018) 18 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2, 255Google Scholar
Longchamps de Bérier, Roman, Polskie Prawo Cywilne. Zobowiązania, 5 vols. (Lviv: Księgarnia Wydawnictwa Gybrynowicz i Syn, 1938), vol. IIGoogle Scholar
Lopatka, John E., ‘Missed Opportunity: The Enforcement Recommendations of the Antitrust Modernization Commission’ (2008) 53 Antitrust Bulletin, 663Google Scholar
Lowe, Philip, Marquis, Mel and Monti, Giorgio (eds.), European Competition Law Annual 2013: Effective and Legitimate Enforcement of Competition Law (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2016)Google Scholar
Ludwichowska-Redo, Katarzyna, ‘Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Polish Perspective’ in Koziol, Helmut (ed.), Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Comparative Perspective (Wien: Jan Sramek Verlag, 2015)Google Scholar
Łopatka, Adam and Ziembiński, Zygmunt, ‘Treść i Funkcja Zasad Współżycia Społecznego’ (1957) 4( 5) Państwo i Prawo, 802Google Scholar
Magnus, Ulrich, ‘Multiple Tortfeasors under German Law’ in Horton Rogers, W. V. (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Multiple Tortfeasors (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2004)Google Scholar
Magnus, Ulrich and Seher, Gerhard, ‘Fault under German Law’ in Widmer, Pierre (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar
Maier-Rigaud, Frank and Schwalbe, Ulrich, ‘Quantification of Antitrust Damages’ in Ashton, David and Henry, David (eds.), Competition Damages Actions in the EU. Law and Practice (Chelentham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013)Google Scholar
Makatsch, Tilman and Sascha, Mir Arif, ‘Die neue EU-Richtlinie zu Kartellschadensersatzklagen – Angst vor der eigenen “Courage”?’ (2015) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 7Google Scholar
Malarewicz-Jakubów, Agnieszka, ‘Klauzule Generalne i Zasady Słuszności’ (2014) 17 Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 145Google Scholar
Malaurie, Philippe, Aynes, Laurent and Stoffel-Munck, Philippe, Droit civil. Les obligations (Paris: Defrénois, 2004)Google Scholar
Malaurie, Philippe, L’Ordre Public et Le Contrat (Reims: Editions Matot-Braine, 1953)Google Scholar
Mansdörfer, Marco, ‘Das Modell der Verbandshaftung im europäischen Kartellbußgeldrecht’ (2011) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 214Google Scholar
Marcus, Stanley, Koeltl, John G., Motz, J. Frederick, Rosenthal, Lee H., Sanders, Barefoot, Birnbaum, Sheila, Ray, Frank A. and Smith, Fern M. (eds.), Manual for Complex Litigation (Washington: Federal Judicial Center, 2004)Google Scholar
Marek, Wojciech, ‘Roszczenia regresowe z art. 441 k.c.’ (1974) 3 Nowe Prawo, 287Google Scholar
Marshall, Robert C., Marx, Leslie M. and Samkharadze, Lily, ‘Dominant-Firm Conduct by Cartels’ (15 February 2011), available at https://capcp.la.psu.edu/papers/2011/dominantfirm.pdf (last visited 09.12.2017)Google Scholar
Martin, Didier R., ‘Article 1310 : l’obligation solidaire’ (2015) 3 Revue de contrats, 799Google Scholar
Marx, Leslie M., Mezzetti, Claudio and Marshall, Robert C., ‘Antitrust Leniency with Mutliproduct Colluders’ (2015) 7 American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3, 205Google Scholar
Mäsch, Gerald, ‘Innenausgleich bei gesamtschuldnerisch festgesetzter Kartellbuße der EU-Kommission – „Calciumcarbid”’ (2012) Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Praxis im Immaterialgüter und Wettbewerbsrecht, 268Google Scholar
Mäsch, Gerald, ‘Private Ansprüche bei Verstößen gegen das europäische Kartellverbot – „Courage” und die Folgen’ (2003) 5 Zeitschrift Europarecht, 825Google Scholar
Mazeaud, Henri, Mazeaud, Léon, Mazeaud, Jean and Tunc, André, Traité théorique et pratique de la responsabilité civile délictuelle et contractuelle, 3 vols. (Paris: Montchrestien, 1958), vol. IIGoogle Scholar
Medicus, Dieter, Bürgerliches Recht (Köln, Berlin, Bonn, München: Vahlen, 2002)Google Scholar
Meier, Sonja, Gesamtschulden (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010)Google Scholar
Mestre, Jacques, ‘La pluralité d’obligés accessoires’ (1981) Revue trimestrielle de droit civil, 1Google Scholar
Meyer-Lindemann, Hans Jürgen, Clemens Graf York von, Wartenburg and Kafetzopoulos, Andreas, ‘Private Equity Investors Are Not Immune to Antitrust Risks in the European Union’ (2014) 35 European Competition Law Review, 8, 367Google Scholar
Meyring, Bernd, ‘Uferlose Haftung im Bußgeldverfahren?’ (2010) 2 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 157Google Scholar
Mignot, Marc, ‘Commentaire article par article de l’ordonnance du 10 fevrier 2016 portant réforme du droit des contrats, du régime general et de la preuve des obligations (VIII)’ (2016) 80 Petites affiches, 4Google Scholar
Mignot, Marc, ‘Plaidoyer pour l’abrogation de l’article 1216 du Code civil’ (2006) 27 Revue Lamy Droit civil, 27Google Scholar
Mignot, Marc, ‘Régime général des obligations. Pluralité de sujets de l’obligation. Principe de division’ (2017) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 10Google Scholar
Mignot, Marc, ‘Régime général des obligations. Pluralité de sujets d’obligation. Obligation solidaire’ (2017) JurisClasseur Civil Code, 20Google Scholar
Mignot, Marc, Les obligations solidaires et les obligations in solidum en droit privé français (Paris: Dalloz, 2002)Google Scholar
Milewska, Aleksandra, ‘Solidarna odpowiedzialność sprawców naruszenia prawa konkurencji przewidziana w projekcie ustawy o roszczeniach o naprawienie szkody wyrządzonej przez naruszenie prawa konkurencji z 7 lutego 2017 r. – aspekt podmiotowy’ (2017) 1 internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny, 6, 58Google Scholar
Miskolczi Bodnár, Péter and Szuchy, Robert, ‘Joint and Several Liability of Competition Law Infringers in the Legislation of Central and Eastern European Member States’ (2017) 15 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 85Google Scholar
Mitchell, Charles, The Law of Contribution and Reimbursement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
Modzelewska de Raad, Małgorzata, ‘Consensual Dispute Resolution in the Damages Directive. Implementation in CEE Countries’ (2017) 15 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 49Google Scholar
Mojak, Jan, ‘Dobre Obyczaje w polskim prawie kontraktowym – wybrane zagadnienia’ (2016) XXV Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 2, 161Google Scholar
Montesa, Aitor and Givaja, Ángel, ‘When Parents Pay for Their Children’s Wrongs: Attribution of Liability for EC Antitrust Infringements in Parent-Subsidiary Scenarios’ (2006) 29 World Competition, 4, 555Google Scholar
Morrissey, Joseph F. and Graves, Jack M. (eds.), International Sales Law and Arbitration: Problems, Cases and Commentary (Austin, Boston, Chicago, New York, The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, 2008)Google Scholar
Motta, Massimo and Polo, Michele, ‘Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution’ (2003) 21 International Journal of Industrial Organization, 347Google Scholar
Müller-Graff, Peter-Christian, ‘Kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz in neuer Versuchsanordnung’ (2015) 179 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 691Google Scholar
Nagy Csongor, István, ‘The New Hungarian Rules on Damages Caused by Horizontal Hardcore Cartels: Presumed Price Increase and Limited Protection for Whistleblowers – An Analytical Introduction’ (2011) 32 European Competition Law Review, 2, 63Google Scholar
Napel, Stefan and Oldehaver, Gunnar, ‘Kartellschadensersatz und Gesamtschuldnerausgleich – Ökonomisch faire Schadensaufteilung mit dem Shapley-Wert’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 135Google Scholar
Nehl, Hanns Peter, ‘Anmerkung’ (2013) 14 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 554Google Scholar
Nelken, David, ‘Using the Concept of Legal Culture’ (2004) 29 Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 1Google Scholar
Nesterowicz, Mirosław and Bagińska, Ewa, ‘Multiple Tortfeasors under Polish Law’ in Rogers, W. V. Horton (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Multiple Tortfeasors (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2004)Google Scholar
Newman, Matthew, ‘EU Cartel Busters Start at Least Three own-initiative Probes as Leniency Candidates Dry up, Madero Says’ (12 July 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1111720&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Odudu, Okeoghene and Bailey, David, ‘The Single Economic Entity Doctrine in EU Competition Law’ (2014) 51 Common Market Law Review, 1721Google Scholar
OECD, ‘Competition Policy: Promoting Efficiency and Sound Markets’ (2012), available at https://oecd.org/cleangovbiz/toolkit/50037123.pdfGoogle Scholar
OECD, ‘Roundtable on Information Exchanges between Competitors under Competition Law, Note by the Delegation of the European Union’ (27–28 October 2010), DAF/COMP/WD(2010)118Google Scholar
OECD, ‘SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook’ (2005), available at https://oecd.org/cfe/smes/oecdsmeandentrepreneurshipoutlook-2005edition.htmGoogle Scholar
OFT, ‘Private Actions in Competition Law: Effective Redress for Consumers and Business’ (April 2007) OFT 916Google Scholar
Ohanowicz, Alfred, ‘Glosa do orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego z dn. 23.01.2957 r.’ (1958) 2 Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych, 139Google Scholar
Olejniczak, Adam, ‘Art. 441’ in Kidyba, Andrzej (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Zobowiązania. Część ogólna, 4 vols. (Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2014), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar
Opper, Kai-Uwe, Die gesamtschuldnerische Bußgeldhaftung für Kartellverstöße innerhalb eines Konzerns (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2016)Google Scholar
Ota, Shozo, ‘The Fairness and the Efficiency of the Compensation System: An Economic Analysis of the Tort Theories’ (1987) 7 International Review of Law and Economics, 229Google Scholar
Pauer Nada, Ina, The Single Economic Entity Doctrine and Corporate Group Responsibility in European Antitrust Law (New York: Wolter Kluwer Law and Business, 2014)Google Scholar
Peter, Josefa F. and Wagener, Dominique S., ‘Anmerkung’ (2013) 7 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 268Google Scholar
Peyer, Sebastian, ‘Compensation and the Damages Directive’ (2015) 15 Centre for Competition Policy Working Paper, 10, 1Google Scholar
Peyer, Sebastian, ‘Myths and Untold Stories – Private Antitrust Enforcement in Germany’ (2010) Centre for Competition Policy Working Paper, 10–12, 1Google Scholar
Pimont, Sébastien and Roux-Sibillon, Eric, ‘Les dispositions du projet de réforme du droit des obligations relatives aux obligations plurales’ (2015) 47 La Semaine Juridique Notariale et Immobliere, 1218Google Scholar
Piszcz, Anna and Wolski, Dominik, Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press, 2017)Google Scholar
Pitsch, Johannes, ‘Kein Rückgriff der Muttergesellschaft gegen die Tochtergesellschaft wegen kartellrechtlicher Geldbuße (Calciumcarbid-Kartell)’ (2011) Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 192Google Scholar
Polden, Donald J. and Sullivan, E. Thomas, ‘Contribution and Claim Reduction in Antitrust Litigation: A Legislative Analysis’ (1983) 20(1) Harvard Journal on Legislation, 397Google Scholar
Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Shavell, Steven, ‘Contribution and Claim Reduction among Antitrust Defendants: An Economic Analysis’ (1981) 33 Stanford Law Review, 3, 447Google Scholar
Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Shavell, Steven, ‘The Optimal Trade-off between the Probability and Magnitude of Fines’ (1979) 69 American Economic Review, 880Google Scholar
Ponsoldt, James F. and Terry, Benjamin H., ‘Contribution in Civil Antitrust Litigation: The Emerging Consensus in Legal Literature’ (1981) 38 Washington and Lee Law Review, 2, 315Google Scholar
Prediger, Bernhard, Zur Auslegung und Anwendung der Regelungen im BGB über die Gesamtschuld (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, Europäische Hochschulschriften, 1988)Google Scholar
Pree, Jolling K. de and Molin, Stefan C. H., ‘Shareholder Liability for Joint Venture Infringements in the European Union’ (2011) 34 Fordham International Law Journal, 3, 431Google Scholar
Radwański, Zbigniew and Olejniczak, Adam, Zobowiązania – część ogólna (Warszawa, C.H. Beck, 2016)Google Scholar
Ranouil, Marine, Les recours entre coobligés (Paris: Bilbliothèque de l’IRJS – André Tunc, 2014)Google Scholar
Raynaud, Pierre, ‘La nature de l’obligation des coauteurs d’un dommage : obligation “in solidum” ou solidarité ?’ in Mélanges dédiés à Jean Vincent (Paris: Dalloz, 1981)Google Scholar
Reasoner, Harry M., ‘Prepared Statement of Harry M. Reasoner’ (14 July 2005), available at https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/commission_hearings/pdf/Reasoner.pdfGoogle Scholar
Regnier, Lukas, ‘Cartel Damages Actions in German Courts: What the Statistics Tell Us’ (2020) 11 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 12, 72Google Scholar
Reich, Norbert, ‘Horizontal Liability in EC Law: Hybridization of Remedies for Compensation in Case of Breaches of EC Rights’ (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review, 705Google Scholar
Riemer, Yosef J., ‘Sharing Agreements among Defendants in Antitrust Cases’ (1984) 52 The George Washington Law Review, 289Google Scholar
Riley, Alan, ‘Beyond Leniency: Enhancing Enforcement in EC Antitrust Law’ (2005) 28 World Competition, 3, 377Google Scholar
Ripert, Georges, ‘L’ordre public économique et la liberté contractuelle’ in Recueil d’études sur les sources du droit en l’honneur de François Gény (Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1934)Google Scholar
Ritter, Jan-Stephan, ‘Private Durchsetzung des Kartellrechts – Vorschläge des Weißbuchs der Europäischen Kommission’ (2008) 7 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 773Google Scholar
Rogers, W. V. Horton, ‘Causation under English Law’ in Spier, Jaap (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Causation (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2000)Google Scholar
Rogers, W. V. Horton, ‘Comparative Report on Multiple Tortfeasors’ in Horton Rogers, W. V. (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Multiple Tortfeasors (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2004)Google Scholar
Rogers, W. V. Horton, ‘Fault under English Law’ in Widmer, Pierre (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar
Rogers, W. V. Horton, ‘Multiple Tortfeasors under English Law’ in Horton Rogers, W. V. (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Multiple Tortfeasors (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2004)Google Scholar
Rossi, Lucia Serena and Casolari, Federico, The Principle of Equality in EU Law (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017)Google Scholar
Rostron, Allen, ‘Beyond Market Share Liability: A Theory of Proportional Share Liability for Nonfungible Products’ (2003) 52 UCLA Law Review, 151Google Scholar
Roth, Hans-Peter, ‘Für 10% Gesamtumsatzgrenze einer Geldbuße ist jeweilige Konzernzugehörigkeit maßgeblich’ (2014) Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht, 439Google Scholar
Roth, Wulf-Henning, ‘Effet utile im europäischen Kartellrecht’ (2013) 3 Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis, 257Google Scholar
Rother, Werner, ‘Die “vorwiegende Verursachung”’ (1983) 33 Versicherungsrecht, 793Google Scholar
Rüßmann, Helmut, ‘§ 421 BGB’ in Junker, Markus (ed.), Juris Praxis Kommentar – BGB. Schuldrecht, 6 vols. (Saarbrücken: juris, 2010), vol. II(1)Google Scholar
Rüßmann, Helmut, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Junker, Markus (ed.), Juris Praxis Kommentar – BGB. Schuldrecht, 6 vols. (Saarbrücken: juris, 2010), vol. II(1)Google Scholar
Rüßmann, Helmut, ‘Die Abgrenzung der Gesamtschuld von anderen Schuldnermehrheiten – BGHZ 59, 97’ (1974) Juristische Schulung, 292Google Scholar
Rust, Ulrich, ‘Kartellverstoß und Gesamtschuld – Bestandsaufnahme und Ausblick’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 502Google Scholar
Rzetecka-Gil, Agnieszka, ‘Warunki odpowiedzialności solidarnej za szkodę. Komentarz do art. 441 Kodeksu cywilnego’ (2011) LEXGoogle Scholar
Safjan, Marek, ‘Art. 441’ in Pietrzykowski, Krzysztof (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 2 vols. (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2011), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Savey-Casard, Paul, ‘Le repentir actif en droit pénal français’ (1972) 3 Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé, 515Google Scholar
Karl von, Savigny Friedrich, Das Obligationenrecht als Theil des heutigen Römischen Rechts, 2 vols. (Berlin: Bei Zeit und Comp., 1851), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Schaper, Hanno and Stauber, Peter, ‘Ausgewählte Themen des neuen Kartellschadensersatzrechts – Schadensersatz, Abwälzung, Gesamtschuld und Innenausgleich’ (2017) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 279Google Scholar
Schmidt, Walter, Gesamtschuld und Gesamtschuldregress (Köln: Inaugural-Dissertation, 1973)Google Scholar
Schneider, Hans-Helmut, ‘Art. 16 VO 1/2003’ in Hirsch, Günter, Montag, Frank and Säcker, Franz Jürgen (eds.), Münchener Kommentar. Europäisches und Deutsches Wettbewerbsrecht. Kartellrecht, Missbrauchs- und Fusionskontrolle, 2 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2007), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Schnelle, Ulrich, ‘Die Aufteilung von Bußgeldern im Konzern’ (2015) 4 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 332Google Scholar
Schreiber, Till and Savov, Vasil, ‘Kone v. Commission: Umbrella Damages Claims’ (2014) 5 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 8, 548Google Scholar
Schricker, Gerhard, Gesetzesverletzung und Sittenverstoß (München: Beck, 1970)Google Scholar
Schwalbe, Ulrich and Höft, Jan, ‘Ausgestaltung von Kronzeugenprogrammen und private Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung’ in Bechtold, Stefan, Jickeli, Joachim, Rohe, Mathias (eds.), Recht, Ordnung und Wettbewerb – Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Wernhard Möschel (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2012)Google Scholar
Schweitzer, Heike, ‘Die neue Richtlinie für wettbewerbsrechtliche Schadensersatzklagen’ (2014) 9 Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 335Google Scholar
Schwenke, Hendrik, ‘Die Richtlinie für private Kartellschadensersatzklagen und der Gesamtschuldnerausgleich: Wie kann Art. 11 v. ins deutsche Recht umgesetzt werden?’ (2015) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 383Google Scholar
Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar Association, ‘Report on Contribution and Claim Reduction’ (14 December 2005), available at https://americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/at-comments/2005/12-05/contribution_claim_comm.pdfGoogle Scholar
Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar Association, Antitrust Evidence Handbook (Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing, 2016)Google Scholar
Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar Association, Contribution and Claim Reduction in Antitrust Litigation (Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing, 1986)Google Scholar
Seegers, Martin, ‘Interaction of the Rules on Joint and Several Liability and Settlements under the EU Directive on Damage Actions’ (2014) 7 Global Competition Litigation Review, 3, 140Google Scholar
Selb, Walter, Schadensbegriff und Regreßmethoden (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1963)Google Scholar
Siakka, Tatiana, ‘Case C-724/17 Vantaan kaupunki v. Skanska Industrial Solutions: Transposition of the Concept of an “Undertaking” into Civil Damages Actions’ (2019) 10 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 8, 479Google Scholar
Silbye, Frederik, ‘A Note on Antitrust Damages and Leniency Programs’ (2012) 33 European Journal of Law and Economics, 691Google Scholar
Silver, Charles and Baker, Lynn Anne, ‘Mass Lawsuits and the Aggregate Settlement Rule’ (1997) 32 Wake Forest Law Review, 733Google Scholar
Singer, Linda R., Settling Disputes: Conflict Resolution in Business, Families, and the Legal System (Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford: Westview Press, 1994)Google Scholar
Sitarz, Olga, ‘Active Repentance as an Instrument of Criminal and Penal Policy’ (2009) 31 Archiwum Kryminologii, 159Google Scholar
Slim, Hadi, ‘Approche comparative de la faute dans la responsabilité civile extra-contractuelle’ (2003) 6 Responsabilité civile et assurance, 18Google Scholar
Śmieja, Andrzej, ‘Art. 441’ in Olejniczak, Adam (ed.), Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna. System Prawa Prywatnego, 21 vols. (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2014), vol. VIGoogle Scholar
Sośniak, Małgorzata, ‘Elementy winy nieumyślnej w prawie cywilnym’ (1975) 68 Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 151Google Scholar
Sousa, Ferro Miguel, ‘Antitrust Private Enforcement and the Binding Effect of Public Enforcement Decisions’ (2019) 2 Market and Competition Law Review, 3, 51Google Scholar
Spagnolo, Giancarlo, ‘Divide et impera: Opimal leniency programs’ (2004) 4840 CEPR Discussion Paper, 1Google Scholar
Spier, Kathryn E., ‘A Note on Joint and Several Liability: Insolvency, Settlement, and Incentives’ (1994) 23 Journal of Legal Studies, 55Google Scholar
Stamm, Jürgen, Regreßfiguren im Zivilrecht. Eine Rückbesinnung auf die Gesamtschuld unter Neubewertung des Zessionsregresses gemäß § 255 BGB und der Drittschadensliquidation (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2000)Google Scholar
Stanevičius, Mantas, ‘Portielje: Bar Remains High for Rebutting Parental Liability Presumption’ (2014) 5 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1, 24Google Scholar
Stanley, Timothy James, ‘An Analysis of the Rules of Contribution and No Contribution for Joint and Several Liability in Conspiracy Cases’ (1994) 35 Santa Clara Law Review, 1, 1Google Scholar
Steel, Sandy, Proof of Causation in Tort Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar
Stefanicki, Robert, ‘Civil Law Remedies for Violation of Competition Law’ (2012) 4 European Review of Contract Law, 400Google Scholar
Gianni de, Stefano, ‘General Court Rules on Successor Liability and Apportionment of Group Liability in the Gas Insulated Switchgear Cartel’ (2011) 2 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 4, 344Google Scholar
Steinle, Christian, ‘Kartellschadensersatzrichtlinie – Auf dem Weg zum Sanktions-Overkill? (Gastkommentar)’ (2014) 13 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 481Google Scholar
Stephan, Andreas, ‘An Empirical Assessment of the European Leniency Notice’ (2008) 5 Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 3, 537Google Scholar
Stephens, Clay A., ‘Antitrust Damage Allocation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1983), House of Representatives 118Google Scholar
Stockmann, Kurt, ‘Ziele und Zielkonflikte bei Kartellsanktionen’ in Brinker, Ingo, Scheuing, Dieter H. and Stockmann, Kurt (eds.), Recht und Wettbewerb. Festschrift für Rainer Bechtold zum 65. Geburtstag (München: C. H. Beck, 2006)Google Scholar
Švirinas, Daivis, ‘The Assessment of Information Exchange Agreements Between Competitors from the Perspective of Competition Law of the EU and of the Republic of Lithuania’ (2012) 19 Jurisprudencija, 1, 87Google Scholar
Sychowicz, MarekArt. 441’ in Bieniek, Gerard, Ciepła, Helena, Dmowski, Stanisław, Gudowski, Jacek, Kołakowski, Krzysztof, Sychowicz, Marek, Wiśniewski, Tadeusz and Żuławska, Czesława (eds.), Komentarz do kodeksu cywilnego. Zobowiązania, 6 vols. (Warszawa, LexisNexis, 2010), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar
Synovate, ‘Competition Act and Consumer Rights’ (April 2005) OFT 799Google Scholar
Szpunar, Adam, ‘Glosa do orzeczenia Sądu Najważniejszego z dn. 16.10.1958 r.’ (1960) 1 Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych, 6Google Scholar
Szpunar, Adam, ‘Glosa do orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego z dn. 21.11.1967 r.’ (1968) 11 Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych, 486Google Scholar
Szpunar, Adam, ‘The Law of Tort in the Polish Civil Code’ (1967) 16 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1, 86Google Scholar
Szpunar, Adam, ‘Roszczenia regresowe Zakładu Ubezpieczeń’ (1974) XII Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne, 29Google Scholar
Tangdham, Krisadhikhun, The Potential Civil Liability of Innocent Subsidiaries as a Consequence of the Notion of undertaking in EU Competition Law an Implication from the Recent Case Skanska (Lund: Lund University, 2020)Google Scholar
Teff, Harvey, ‘“Market Share” Liability: A Novel Approach to Causation’ (1982) (31) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 4, 840Google Scholar
Temple, Lang John, ‘How Can the Problem of the Liability of a Parent Company for Price Fixing by a Wholly-owned Subsidiary Be Resolved?’ (2014) 37 Fordham International Law Journal, 5, 1481Google Scholar
Tereszkiewicz, Piotr, ‘Solidarność dłużników w świetle europeizacji prawa obligacyjnego’ in Haberko, Joanna, Olejniczak, Adam, Pyrzyńska, Agnieszka and Sokołowska, Dorota (eds.), Współczesne problemy prawa zobowiązań (Poznań: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2014)Google Scholar
Terré, François, Pour une réforme du droit de la responsabilité civile (Paris: Dalloz, 2011)Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther, Standards und Direktiven in Generalklauseln (Tübingen: Athenäum, 1971)Google Scholar
Thiede, Thomas, ‘Fine to Follow-on? Private Anti-trust Actions in European Law’ (2017) 5 China-EU Law Journal, 233Google Scholar
Thiede, Thomas, ‘Private Enforcement of Anti-trust Damages in Europe. A Germanic Perspective on Directive 2014/104/EU’ (2016) ELTE Law Journal, 147, available at: https://eltelawjournal.hu/private-enforcement-anti-trust-damages-europe-germanic-perspective-directive-2014104eu/Google Scholar
Thoma, Kerstin, Der internationale Regress. Formen und Gerichtszuständigkeit – unter Berücksichtigung des deutschen, österreichischen, schweizerischen und französischen materiellen Regressrechts (Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač, 2007)Google Scholar
Thomas, Stefan, ‘Die Gesamtschuld im EU-Kartellbußgeldrecht – die Kommission als “juristischer Pascha”?’ in Bechtold, Stefan, Jickeli, Joachim, Rohe, Mathias (eds.), Recht, Ordnung und Wettbewerb – Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Wernhard Möschel (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2012)Google Scholar
Thomas, Stefan, ‘Guilty of a Fault That One Has Not Committed. The Limits of the Group-Based Sanction Policy Carried out by the Commission and the European Courts in EU-Antitrust Law’ (2012) 3 Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1, 11Google Scholar
Thomas, Stefan, ‘Konzernprivileg und Gemeinschaftsunternehmen – Die kartellrechtliche Beurteilung konzerninterner Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen mit Gemeinschaftsunternehmen’ (2005) 3 Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht, 236Google Scholar
Till, Ernest, Polskie prawo zobowiązań. Część ogólna. Projekt wstępny z motywami (Lviv: Komisja Kodyfikacyjna Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, 1923)Google Scholar
Vecchio, Karoline Del, ‘German Sugar Cartelists Fail to Settle with Food Makers, Will Face Court Ruling’ (12 July 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1111634&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, ‘Appropriate Sanctions and Remedies, Sixth United Nations Conference to Review All Aspects of the Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices’ (8–12 November 2010), TD/RBP/CONF.7/5, available at https://unctad.org/en/Docs/tdrbpconf7d5_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
United States Congress, ‘Antitrust Damage Allocation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1983 House of Representatives 118)Google Scholar
United States Congress, ‘The Antitrust Equal Enforcement Act. Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary’ (1982), House of Representatives J-97-15Google Scholar
United States Government Accountability Office, ‘Criminal Cartel Enforcement. Stakeholder Views on Impact of 2004 Antitrust Reform Are Mixed, but Support Whistleblower Protection’ (2011), GAO-11-619Google Scholar
United States Department of Justice, ‘The Modern Leniency Program after Ten Years – A Summary Overview of the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Enforcement’ (12 August 2003), Justice News, available at https://justice.gov/atr/speech/modern-leniency-program-after-ten-years-summary-overview-antitrust-divisions-criminalGoogle Scholar
United States Department of Justice, ‘Public and Private Antitrust Enforcement in the United States’ (11 February 2004), Justice News, available at https://justice.gov/atr/file/517756/downloadGoogle Scholar
Vetu, F., ‘Application de la responsabilité civile pour faute à la violation du droit des pratiques anticoncurrentielles’ (2003) 48(II) La Semaine Juridique Edition Génerale, 10183Google Scholar
Vincent, Jean, ‘L’extension en jurisprudence de la notion de solidarité passive’ (1939) 38 Revue trimestrielle de droit civil, 601Google Scholar
Viney, Geneviève, ‘Apres la réforme du contrat, la nécessaire réforme des textes du Code civil relatifs à la responsabilité’ (2016) 4 La Semaine Juridique Edition Generale, 99Google Scholar
Virgo, Graham, ‘Contribution Revisited’ (2008) 67 The Cambridge Law Journal, 2, 254Google Scholar
Vogenauer, Stefan and Weatherill, Stephen (eds.), General Principles of Law: European and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2017)Google Scholar
Vormizeele, Philipp Voet van, ‘Die EG-kartellrechtliche Haftungszurechnung im Konzern im Widerstreit zu den nationalen Gesellschaftsrechtsordnungen’ (2010) 9 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 1008Google Scholar
Völzmann-Stickelbrock, Barbara, ‘§ 421 BGB’ in Dauner-Lieb, Barbara, Heidel, Thomas and Ring, Gerhard (eds.), Nomos Kommentar. BGB Schuldrecht, 8 vols. (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2014), vol. II(1)Google Scholar
Völzmann-Stickelbrock, Barbara, ‘§ 423 BGB’ in Dauner-Lieb, Barbara, Heidel, Thomas and Ring, Gerhard (eds.), Nomos Kommentar. BGB Schuldrecht, 8 vols. (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2014), vol. II(1)Google Scholar
Völzmann-Stickelbrock, Barbara, ‘§ 426 BGB’ in Dauner-Lieb, Barbara, Heidel, Thomas and Ring, Gerhard (eds.), Nomos Kommentar. BGB Schuldrecht, 8 vols. (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2014), vol. II(1)Google Scholar
Wagener, Hans-Markus, ‘Follow-up to Skanska – The “Implementation” by National Courts So Far’ (2019) 10 Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 535Google Scholar
Wagner, Gerhard§ 823 BGB’ in Habersack, Mathias (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Schuldrecht. Besonderer Teil III, 14 vols. (München: C.H. Beck, 2013), vol. VGoogle Scholar
Wagner-von Papp, Florian, ‘Der Richtlinienentwurf zu kartellrechtlichen Schadensersatzklagen’ (2009) 11 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 445Google Scholar
Weinhold, Janine, Der Gesamtschuldnerausgleich zwischen den Kartellmitgliedern (Frankfurt am Main: PL Academic Research, Europäische Hochschulschriften, 2015)Google Scholar
Widmer, Pierre, ‘Comparative Report on Fault as a Basis of Liability and Criterion of Imputation’ in Widmer, Pierre (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar
Williams, Glanville Llewelyn, Joint Torts and Contributory Negligence (London: Stevens and Sons Limited, 1951)Google Scholar
Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘Leniency in Antitrust Enforcement: Theory and Practice’ (2007) 30 World Competition, 1, 25Google Scholar
Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘Optimal Antitrust Fines: Theory and Practice’ (2006) 29 World Competition, 2, 183Google Scholar
Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘Private Enforcement of EU Antitrust Law and Its Relationship with Public Enforcement: Past, Present and Future’ (2017) 40 World Competition, 1, 3Google Scholar
Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘The Relationship between Public Antitrust Enforcement and Private Actions for Damages’ (2009) 32 World Competition, 1, 3Google Scholar
Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘The Undertaking as Subject of E.C. Competition Law and the Imputation of Infringements to Natural or Legal persons’ (2000) 25 European Law Review, 99Google Scholar
Wils, Wouter P. J., ‘The Use of Leniency in EU Cartel Enforcement: An Assessment After Twenty Years’ (2016) 39 World Competition, 327Google Scholar
Wish, Rirchard and Bailey, David, Competition Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar
Wolski, Dominik, ‘Solidarna odpowiedzialność naruszycieli’ in Skoczny, Tadeusz (ed.), Prawo konkurencji. 25 lat (Warszawa: Wolter Kluwers Polska, 2015)Google Scholar
Wright, Richard W., ‘Allocating Liability among Multiple Responsible Causes: A Principled Defense of Joint and Several Liability for Actual Harm and Risk Exposure’ (1988) 21 UC Davis Law Review, 1141Google Scholar
Wurmnest, Wolfgang, ‘Schadensersatz wegen Verletzung des EU-Kartellrechts. Grundfragen und Entwicklungslinien’ in Remien, Oliver (ed.), Schadensersatz im europäischen Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012)Google Scholar
Wurmnest, Wolfgang, ‘Zivilrechtliche Ausgleichsansprüche von Kartellbeteiligten bei Verstößen gegen das EG-Kartellverbot’ (2003) Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft, 896Google Scholar
Ysewyn, Johan and Kahmann, Siobhan, ‘The Decline and Fall of the Leniency Programme in Europe’ (2018) 1 Concurrences, 44Google Scholar
Zandler, Dieter, ‘Die wirtschaftliche Einheit als Normadressat im Kartellbußgeldrecht’ (2016) Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht, 98Google Scholar
Zekaria, Simon, ‘Truck Cartel Disclosure “slow” and “difficult”, UK Claimant Ryder Tells Competition Judge’ (6 February 2020), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1160838&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Zekaria, Simon, ‘Visa, WH Smith Settle Antitrust Claim Over Card Fees’ (9 July 2019), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1110490&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Zekaria, Simon, ‘Wallenius Wilhelmsen Data Provides “smoking gun” in Car-shipper Operations, Daimler Tells UK Judge’ (5 May 2020), Mlex, available at https://mlex.com/GlobalAdvisory/DetailView.aspx?cid=1184384&siteid=244&rdir=1Google Scholar
Zelek, Mariusz, ‘Art. 415’ in Gutowski, Maciej (ed.), Duże Komentarze Becka. Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Art. 1-449 (Warszawa: C.H. Beck, 2016), vol. IGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Wanli, ‘The Effects of Joint and Several Liability Rule on Collusion and Antitrust Settlement’ (2015) 4 The Bonn Journal of Economics, 1, 76Google Scholar
Zimmer, Daniel J. and Paul, Thomas, ‘Kartellbußgeldrechtliche Haftung und Haftungsbefreiung im Konzern’ (2007) 9 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 970Google Scholar
Zingales, Nicolo, ‘European and American Leniency Programmes: Two Models towards Convergence?’ (2008) 5 The Competition Law Review, 1, 5Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Katarzyna Sadrak
  • Book: Joint and Several Liability in EU Competition Law
  • Online publication: 15 September 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108989794.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Katarzyna Sadrak
  • Book: Joint and Several Liability in EU Competition Law
  • Online publication: 15 September 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108989794.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Katarzyna Sadrak
  • Book: Joint and Several Liability in EU Competition Law
  • Online publication: 15 September 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108989794.010
Available formats
×