Abstract

This is a comment on the decision of the Consiglio di Stato of 22 September 2014, no. 4773, which addressed a range of unsettled issues related to antitrust commitments. This comment investigates the relationship between public and private antitrust enforcement, highlighting their different roles. Il also reframes the boundaries of the scope of judicial review on decisions to accept antitrust commitments. The comment, which agrees with the decision of the Consiglio di Stato, examines the evolution of these fundamental concepts related to protection of competition before administrative tribunals
Full Paper
Riccardo Tremolada
Research Associate

Since March 2013, Riccardo has been a Research Associate at gLAWcal – Global Law Initiatives for Sustainable Development. Riccardo works as an Associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. He joined the firm in Rome in 2013 and was resident in the Milan office in 2017 and in the Washington D.C. office in 2018.

Summary

This is a comment on the decision of the Consiglio di Stato of 22 September 2014, no. 4773, which addressed a range of unsettled issues related to antitrust commitments. This comment investigates the relationship between public and private antitrust enforcement, highlighting their different roles. Il also reframes the boundaries of the scope of judicial review on decisions to accept antitrust commitments. The comment, which agrees with the decision of the Consiglio di Stato, examines the evolution of these fundamental concepts related to protection of competition before administrative tribunals

glawcal comments

articles