Antitrust Rules and Competition Violations. The Evolution of Consumer Protection [PDF]

Dr. Antonio Capasso
Political Science Department, University of Naples Federico II

According to the order of the Court of Verona of 01.10.2018, No. 3763, a prohibited agreement pursuant to Art. 2, Law No. 287/1990, can also be harmful to consumer or entrepreneur, who has not taken part in it. In order to recognize an interest in invoking the protection referred to in Art. 33, para. 2, Law No. 287/1990, it is not sufficient to allege the nullity of the agreement itself but it is also necessary to specify the consequence that this failure has produced regarding the right to an effective choice between a plurality of competing products. This paper intends to investigate the institutions of the omnibus guarantee and its consequent nullity for violation of the discipline that governs agreements restricting competition. It also provides an analysis of the remedies and safeguards available to consumers who have remained extraneous to the competitive agreement, and who have entered into a subsequent contract of the latter.

Keywords: competition, antitrust discipline, consumer protection, prohibition of restrictive agreements, nullity, subsequent contracts.

pp. 183–196

Juridiskā zinātne / Law, No. 14, 2021

Journal of the University of Latvia “Law” is an open access double blind peer-reviewed scientific journal.
The publishing of Journal of the University of Latvia “Law” is financed by the University of Latvia Faculty of Law.
No part of the volume may be reproduced in any form without a written permission of the publisher.
Journal of the University of Latvia “Law” is included in the international databases EBSCO Publishing and ERIH PLUS.

Editor-in-Chief Prof. Jānis Lazdiņš, University of Latvia
Editorial Board

Journal of the University of Latvia “Law”
ISSN 1691-7677

© University of Latvia, 2021