While company law makes great efforts to maintain the separation of different legal entities, other areas of law increasingly emphasise the common responsibility of corporate groups. One of the fields shaping this emerging principle is competition law, where focusing on the whole group rather than its individual members is increasingly becoming the norm. But this approach is still far from being uniformly accepted. While EU competition law is pushing ahead, US antitrust law is said to take a rather critical stance. Against this background, this chapter examines the functions performed by a unitary perspective on corporate groups. The main goal is to show that at least three important functions must be distinguished in EU competition law, each of which has its own implications. Only when these are properly understood can it be determined where the group perspective is appropriate and where it is not. This is shown by the example of current discussions, for example, on the liability of sister companies and on possible applications in the area of liability for damages. Finally, the analysis in this chapter also aims to contribute to a better understanding of the different approaches in EU and US competition law.

The intersection between contribution claims and EU competition law is controversial. Theoretically, the European Commission’s decision to hold several entities liable for an antitrust infringement can be circumvented if one entity escapes liability by successfully claiming contribution. The key questions are whether contribution claims are allowed in EU competition law and what requirements competition law sets for contribution litigation. The analysis shows that contribution claims do not endanger the effectiveness of competition law. The aims of competition law enforcement are met as soon as antitrust infringers pay the fine to the Commission or compensation to the victims of antitrust infringements. The CJEU in Siemens Österreich therefore allowed for contribution in competition law to be applied. While contribution claims generally do not endanger competition enforcement, competition law influences contribution litigation. The preliminary question in every dispute on contribution is an antitrust infringement, which has already been decided. Judges should thus not go against the decisions of the European Commission and are advised to respect the findings of national courts. In particular, one must respect the catalogue of entities held jointly and severally liable by the Commission, the 10% turnover cap and the information included in the Commission’s decision.

Andras Gyorgy Kovács researched the effectiveness of competition sanctions from the perspective of an administrative judge. Undertakings in breach of competition law rules are most likely expected to be fined. His hypothesis, ,to be examined through the courts’ case law, is that the level of competition fines is significantly higher than that of criminal penalties. Nevertheless, it is not unusual for the very same undertaking to be reinvestigated by the competition authority for a second or even third time. It seems that the expected legal policy aim of fines in competition matters, i.e. the individual and general prevention of anticompetitive practices, cannot be achieved in all cases. His chapter aims at identifying the reasons thereof and presenting a number of conclusions, to be drawn from the Hungarian administrative courts’ jurisprudence, in respect of the effectiveness of the imposition of fines. He argues that judicial case law can resolve some of the efficiency problems, while others require modification of the legislation. As regards repeated infringements, evaluating this as an aggravating factor may be used in an effective and reassuring way when imposing a fine. He argues for laws which stipulate the imposition of fines proportionate to the infringing undertakings’ income and assets.

What is the proper relationship between competition and labour law? In the UK since at least 1906 every real ‘person’ has had ‘freedom of association’ and is free to take collective action in a ‘trade dispute’, whether an employee, or self-employed. This principle was necessary for fair competition, fair working time, and fair wages. It forms a cornerstone of labour relations. The UK’s experience informed US antitrust law, the International Labour Organisation, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ‘Everyone’ in international law has the right to ‘just and favourable remuneration’, to join unions for ‘the promotion’ of their ‘social interests’, and the ‘right to strike’. UK and international law equally influenced EU law. Like all EU members states, since World War Two the UK has never used competition rules to suppress unions. This chapter explains the law on combinations, conspiracy and restraint of trade. Modern competition law, focused on undertakings, developed to break private monopoly power of unaccountable corporations, not to suppress fair wages and voice at work. Cases of collective action from self-employed barristers, to drivers and book dealers illustrate this. Competition law’s proper focus is unaccountable corporate power, to build a plural, more democratic economy.

When the authorities are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation pursuant to Article 5, the Member or Members the products of which are subject to such investigation and other interested parties known to the investigating authorities to have an interest therein shall be notified and a public notice shall be given.