Home > All journals > > () >
With the adoption and
entry into force of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) at the EU level as well as
national laws targeting similar issues (e.g., the German §19a GWB), questions
concerning the consequences of parallel proceedings (PP) pursuant to the
competition provisions and – in its broadest sense – ‘digital regulatory law’ become
more and more pressing. Potential conflicts with the principle of ne bis in
idem are thus about to occur in various different constellations. Against the
bigger picture of diverging approaches to competition law and/or regulation in
the digital sphere, this article depicts the current legal framework regarding
the prohibition of double jeopardy in EU (competition) law. It then identifies
scenarios of possible PPs of the different (EU and national) provisions
mentioned and exemplifies potential frictions by means of hypothetical case
studies. The latter shall be further scrutinized according to the law as it
stands and illustrate the different strands of arguments on how to deal with
such conflicts. The aim of this article is thus to show that while the current
legal framework is workable, the decisive element in many potential scenarios
of PPs surrounds the notion of the idem, that is, more precisely, the element
of the identity of the facts. A corollary of this finding is that there are
pivotal questions to be clarified with respect to the objectives of the two
regimes, namely the traditional competition provisions on the one hand and the
DMA or DMA-like provisions at the national level on the other hand.