Guarantees of Human Rights in Competition Proceedings in the European Union and the Republic of Lithuania

This article focuses on the protection of human rights in disputes related to competition proceedings. The European Convention on Human Rights is regarded as a most effective instrument for the protection of human rights at the international level. National courts of the European Union member states have also developed specific systems for the protection of human rights. Entities that are charged with breaches of EU competition law, in most cases complain about breaches of two provisions of the ECHR: Article 6 of the Convention which guarantees the right to a fair trial and Article 8 which guarantees the right to respect for private life. In this article, we also discuss a couple of cases decided by the Competition Council of Lithuania, which raise doubts regarding proper guarantee of the right to a fair trial. One of the key problems is that during the questioning of witnesses the Competition Council makes an audio recording of the interview but afterwards deletes the recording without allowing the undertakings under investigation to have access to the Council’s case file. The article concludes with a short summary.Raimundas Moisejevas: raimundasm@mruni.euJustina Nasutavičienė: j.nasutaviciene@lvat.ltRaimundas Moisejevas – Ph.D. in Law, attorney at law, arbitrator, ICSID conciliator; professor at the Faculty of Law, Mykolas Romeris Law School (Lithuania). He advises and represents Lithuanian and international clients on local and international competition law issues such as merger control, dominance, vertical restraints and cartel issues. His knowledge has been deepened at universities in Lithuania, Germany, the USA, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, France, and Iceland, as well as at competition law judicial training centres.Justina Nasutavičienė – Ph.D. in Law, a lecturer at the Institute of International and EU Law at Mykolas Romeris University (Lithuania), where she teaches EU Substantive Law. She has held office in a European Law Department under the Ministry of Justice for 10 years and currently works in a Judicial Research Department of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. She is an author and co-author of several articles on various aspects of Human Rights Law, and has also participated in several projects and conferences presenting her field of interest.Raimundas Moisejevas - Mykolas Romeris UniversityJustina Nasutavičienė - Mykolas Romeris UniversityAmeye, E.M., The Interplay between Human Rights and Competition Law in the EU. European Competition Law Review. 2004, 25(6): 332-341.Dekeyser K., Gauer C., The New Enforcement System for Articles 81 and 82 and the Rights of Defence. In: International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law. 2004.Jočienė D., Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo jurisprudencijos įtaka nacionalinei teisei bei jurisprudencijai, tobulinant žmogaus teisių apsaugą. Konvencijos ir Europos Sąjungos teisės santykis. Jurisprudencija. 2007, 7(97): 17-27.Nasutavičienė J., Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių konvencijoje įtvirtintų įmonių teisių apsaugos problemos ES konkurencijos teisėje. Daktaro disertacija. Mykolo Romerio Universitetas. 2012.Rosas A., International Human Rights Instruments in the Case-Law of the European Court of Justice. In: Teisė besikeičiančioje Europoje. Liber Amicorum Pranas Kūris. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2008, p. 368-371, p. 372.Štarienė L., Teisė į teisingą teismą pagal Europos Žmogaus Teisių Konvenciją. Monografija, Mykolo Romerio universitetas, Vilnius, 2010, p. 253-254.Valančius V., Norkus R., Lietuvos administracinės ir baudžiamosios justicijos sąlyčio aspektai, Jurisprudencija, 2006, 4(82); 91-98.Van Overbeek, W., The right to remain silent in Competition Investigations: The Funke decision of the Court of Human Rights makes revision of the ECJ‘s case law necessary. European Competition Law Review. 1994, 15: 127.Waelbroeck D., Competition law proceedings before the European Commission and the right to a fair trial: no need for reform? European Competition Journal. 2009, 5(1): 97-143.Commission Notice on the rules for access to the Commission file in cases pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, Articles 53, 54 and 57 of the EEA Agreement and Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2005/C 325/07).Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004, (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1)).Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, part 1 of the Article 21 (OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000, p. 284).Council Regulation No 17/62: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, para d of part 1 of the Article 14 (OJ 013, 21/02/1962 P. 0204 – 0211).Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 1 March 2012, Administrative case No. A502-1668/2012.Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 11 February 2003, Administrative case No. 259_03.Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 13 August 2012, Administrative case No. A858-1516/2012.Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 22 December 2018, Administrative case No. eA-2330-520/2016.Judgment of CJEU of 12 November 1969 on the case of Erich Stauder v. Ville d’Ulm – Sozialamt, 29-69.Judgment of the CJEU of 1 April 1993 on the case of BPB Industries and British Gypsum v. Commission, T 65/89.Judgment of the CJEU of 10 May 2007 on the case of SGL Carbon AG v. Commission, C 328/05.Judgment of the CJEU of 11 July 2002 on the case of Mary Carpenter v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, C 60/00.Judgment of the CJEU of 13 February 1979 on the case of Hoffman-La Roche, 85/76.Judgment of the CJEU of 14 May 1998 on the case of Mayr-Melnhof Kartongesellschaft mbH v. European Commission, T 347/94.Judgment of the CJEU of 14 September 2010 on the case of Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd ir Akcros Chemicals Ltd v. European Commission, C 550/07.Judgment of the CJEU of 15 October 2002 on the case of Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v. Commission, C 238/99.Judgment of the CJEU of 18 December 1992 on the case of Cimenteries CBR and Others v. Commission, T 10/92.Judgment of the CJEU of 18 June 1991 on the case of Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and other, C 260/89.Judgment of the CJEU of 18 September 2003 on the case of Volkswagen AG v. European Commission, C 338/00.Judgment of the CJEU of 20 February 2001 on the case of Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v. European Commission, T 112/98.Judgment of the CJEU of 21 September 1989 on the case of Hoechst AG v. European Commission, 46/87 and 227/88.Judgment of the CJEU of 22 December 2010 on the case of DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C 279/09.Judgment of the CJEU of 22 October 2002 on the case of Roquette Frères SA v. Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes, C 94/00.Judgment of the CJEU of 25 October 2011 on the case of Solvay v. Commission, C 109/10.Judgment of the CJEU of 29 June 1995 on the case of Solvay v. Commission, T 30/91.Judgment of the CJEU of 29 June 2006 on the case of European Commission v. SGL Carbon AG, C 301/04.Judgment of the CJEU of 30 April 1996 on the case of P v. S and Cornwall County Council, C 13/94.Judgment of the CJEU of 7 January 2004 on the case of Aalborg Portland and Others v. Commission, C 204/00.Judgment of the CJEU of 7 June 1983 on the case of SA Musique Diffusion Francaise and Others v. Commission, C 100/80.Judgment of the CJEU of 8 July 2004 on the case of Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v. European Commission, T 44/00.Judgment of the CJEU of 8 March 1995 on the case of Société Générale v. European Commission, T 34/93.Judgment of the ECtHR of 16 December 1992 on the case of Niemietz v. Germany, No. 251-B.Judgment of the ECtHR of 16 February 2000 on the case of Jasper v. United Kingdom.Judgment of the ECtHR of 18 February 1997 on the case of Nideröst Huber v. Switzerland, No. 18990/91.Judgment of the ECtHR of 18 March 1997 on the case of Foucher v. France, No. 22209/93.Judgment of the ECtHR of 20 November 1989 on the case of Kostovski v. Netherlands, No. 166.Judgment of the ECtHR of 21 March 2002 on the case of Nikula v. Finland, No. 31611/96.Judgment of the ECtHR of 22 December 2008 on the case of Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, No. 65755/01.Judgment of the ECtHR of 23 October 1996 on the case of Ankerl v. Switzerland, No. 17748/91.Judgment of the ECtHR of 24 March 1988 on the case of Olsson v. Sweden, No. 130.Judgment of the ECtHR of 25 February 1993 on the case of Funke v. France, No. 256-A.Judgment of the ECtHR of 27 February 1992 on the case of Société Stenuit v. France, No. 232A.Judgment of the ECtHR of 28 November 1991 on the case of S. v. Switzerland, No. 12629/87.Judgment of the ECtHR of 29 January 2002 on the case of A.B. v. Netherlands, No. 37328/97.Judgment of the ECtHR of 7 August 1996 on the case of Johansen v. Norway.Judgment of the ECtHR of 8 December 1983 on the case of Axen v. Germany, No. 72.Judgment of the ECtHR of 8 June1976 on the case of Engel and other v. the Netherlands, No. 22.Judgment of the ECtHR of22 December 2008 on the case of Aleksanyan v. Russia, No. 46468/06.Resolution of the Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania Regarding the compliance of actions of economic entities providing driving training services with the requirements of Article 5 of the Law on Competition of the Republic of Lithuania, available at: https://kt.gov.lt/uploads/docs/docs/3705_2de8c4a97568bfd851c2746d0f8b23f4.pdf (accessed 30.04.2019)The Act of 1 February, 2018 – Regarding Approval of the Rules of Procedure of the Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania (Registry of Legal Acts 2018, No 2273).24216518