EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Prague, Czechia

of balance of the institute as a whole when compared to the statute of limitations applicable under Regulation 1/2003. That is because shortening of the respective limitation period could result in a slight increase of the legal certainty and could also help to ensure that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, there is no further space in this contribution for the authors to elaborate on this possibility. Considering the interpretation of the beginning of the limitation period with regard to the Kilpailu case discussed above, the authors (after thorough research) came to the conclusion that neither the OPC nor the relevant Czech Administrative Courts interpret the date at which the infringement was committed or in respect to continuing or repeated infringements the date at which such an infringement ceased contrary to the conclusions made by the CJEU in Kilpailu . The authors were unable to find any relevant case law from which it would appear that the OPC tried to directly or indirectly artificially extend the duration of the infringement period in order to allow prosecution of the respective offence. Even though no such case law was found the OPC should still bear in mind the conclusions of the above mentioned Judgement of the CJEU. From this point of view, the current and previous Czech statute of limitations should be considered as consistent with the conclusions of Kilpailu case. 4. Conclusion In conclusion, the authors discovered that the current and previous Czech statute of limitations strikes the necessary balance between, on the one hand, the objectives of providing legal certainty and ensuring that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time as general principles of EU law and, on the other, the effective and efficient application of the competition rules. This conclusion can be made even though the current rules for interruption of the limitation period can be determined to be contrary to the finding of the Whiteland judgement, as those rules upset the necessary balance at the expense of effective and efficient application of the competition rules. This is because this negative effect can be balanced out by the length of the limitation period itself, which is generally twice as long as the limitation period under Regulation 1/2003. The authors also determined that the other aspects of the current Czech statute of limitations including rules for the suspension of the limitation period and rules for determining the beginning of the limitation period have a neutral effect on the necessary balance. Concerning the previous Czech statute of limitation, the authors came to the conclusion that all its individual aspects have a neutral effect on the necessary balance between, on the one hand, the objectives of providing legal certainty and ensuring that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time as general principles of EU law and, on the other, the effective and efficient

310