DUE SETTORI SENSIBILI DELL'OMOLOGAZIONE PROCESSUALE EUROPEA

The thesis addresses recent issues in two sensitive areas of European (uniform) procedural law. Part I addresses the scope of substantive competition law rules and the functional divide between public enforcement agencies and private enforcement. The European Court of Justice case law on the standing to bring antitrust claims is analysed with regard to the right of access to court underlying those precedents. Part II addresses the ambiguous rules of EC Regulation no. 1/2003, and critically analises the legal doctrine and case law on the interpretation of Article 16 of the Regulation. It is submitted that the duty upon national court to avoid decisions in contrast with the European Commission's decision does not allow the inference that the latter decisions have res judicata effects in civil legal proceedings. Part III gathers reflections on the topic of international adjudicatory jurisdiction in the European judicial area, on a variety of fields mostly connected to public entities and finance (wherefrom the "sensitivity" of the topic arises). Part III, Section I, addresses the issue of the determination of territorial competence of Italian courts seised with collective redress proceedings against companies having their seat abroad. It is submitted that the uniform jurisdictional rules of Regulation no. 44/2001 may be useful in this regard, to indicate the internally competent court. Section II deals with the jurisdiction of the court of recognition in the case of foreign judgments against sovereign States. It is submitted that the jus cogens rule of state immunity may not always apply in this case when the recognising court contents itself that the foreign court of the merits correctly qualified the State acts as acta iure gestionis. Section III is concerned with jurisdiction on claims arising out of contracts concluded with public entities upon self-annullment of the deliberation to contract by the public entity concerned. It is submitted that the forum prorogatum would maintain its jurisdiction on all contractual claims.