EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Prague, Czechia

period which is that the proceedings regarding the review of the specific decision is pending before the relevant reviewing body should be determined as being neutral with regard to inclination towards legal certainty and on ensuring that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time and the effective and efficient application of competition law. That is because such legislation cannot adversely affect legal certainty or the reasonability of the length of the proceedings, as the review proceedings which trigger the suspension of the limitation period can come into play only after the decision on the administrative offence was already issued by the Commission or the OPC. For this reason, the authors concluded that the Czech legislation on the suspension of the limitation period with regard to competition law is neutral as it cannot upset the balance between, on the one hand, assuring a high level of legal certainty and reasonable length of the proceedings and, on the other hand, the effective and efficient application of antitrust legislation. The same was true for the previous statute of limitations where the limitation period was also suspended for the duration of proceedings conducted in connection with an offence before an administrative court but based on the provision of Section 41 Act. No. 150/2002 Sb., Administrative Procedure Code, as amended (see Judgement of the SAC, 5 Afs 7/2011–799, not in numbered paragraphs). Determining the effect of the legislation regarding the date from which the limitation period begins to run on the aforementioned balance (as the last aspect of the Czech statute of limitations that the authors take into account with regard to this contribution) proved to be much more challenging compared to the other aspect of the Czech statute of limitations. First of all, in relation to the previous legislation, there is a difference between the beginning of the subjective limitation period and the beginning of the objective limitation period. As it turns out, the start of the subjective limitation period has been interpreted inconsistently even by the relevant administrative courts including the SAC. Concerning the beginning of the subjective limitation period, the authors found out, that there were two lines of interpretation of the beginning of the limitation period which contradict each other. The first one deemed the limitation period to begin at the latest when the OPC became aware of at least the beginning of a violation of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation under the APC even in the case of continuing or repeated infringements (see e.g. Judgement of the SAC, 2 As 204/2014 – 71, paras 51, 54, and 57; or Judgement of the Regional Court in Brno, 62 Af 23/2016 – 272 (not in numbered paragraphs) which was later overruled by the SAC). The second one deemed the limitation period to begin with regard to continuing or repeated infringements when the OPC became aware of a violation of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation under the APC but not sooner than the continuing or repeated

306