EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

Prague, Czechia

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

the beginning of which is determined on the same basis as the beginning of the limitation period defined by Regulation 1/2003. Under the current legislation, the beginning of the limitation period should be determined based on the provisions of Section 31 of ALAO. This act regulates, among other things, the bases of liability for administrative offences, including the general statute of limitations. Since the APC does not contain a special regulation for determining the beginning of the basic limitation period and since the use of the relevant provisions of this act are not excluded they should be fully applicable. This conclusion can be further supported by the fact that the changes in the APC statute of limitations were made by an Act No. 183/2017 Sb. which was adopted in accordance with the general change in the concept of administrative offences in the Czech Republic, which also changed and unified the regulation of the statute of limitations regarding administrative offences. Under the current legislation, the beginning of the limitation period is thus determined based on the date of the commission of the infringement and begins on the day after the infringement has been committed. In the case of continuing infringements, it is based on the date on which the infringement ceases and begins on the day after the infringement has been ceased. And in the case of repeated infringements, it is based on the date when last partial attack occurred and begins on the day after the last partial attack occurred (see Section 31(1) and (2) ALAO). The beginning of the limitation period under the current Czech law corresponds to the regulation of this issue in Regulation 1/2003 (except for the one-day difference). Based on this the authors determined that even the current legislation which determines the beginning of the limitation period is neutral and does not negatively affect the necessary balance between legal certainty and efficient and effective application of the competition law. The authors then took into account the individual aspects of the limitation period under the current and the previous statute of limitations, comparing them to European Union legislation and assessing the statute of limitations in the Czech competition law as a whole legal institute. In the light of the above, the authors concluded, that the current and previous Czech statute of limitations can be considered as striking a good balance between, on one hand, the objectives of providing legal certainty and ensuring that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time and, on the other, the effective and efficient application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. From this point of view, it can be concluded that the current and previous Czech statute of limitations complies with the requirements set out in Whiteland . Although, the authors would like to explore in more detail the possibility of slightly shortening the current basic subjective (e.g., to 7-9 years) and objective limitation periods (e.g., to 12-13 years), which could result in an even better level

309