Study on Judges' Trainingneeds
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Study on judges’ training needs in the field of European competition law Final report Competition EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Competition E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Study on judges’ training needs in the field of European competition law Final report by ERA – Academy of European Law EJTN – European Judicial Training Network Ecorys January 2016 [Catalogue number] Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 Catalogue number: KD-04-16-407-EN-N ISBN 978-92-79-58508-1 doi: 10.2763/4743 © European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Trier/Brussels, 2016 Authors: John Coughlan Wolfgang Heusel Erika Szyszczak Valentina Patrini Andreas Pauer Final report Table of Contents List of annexes ............................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................ 2 1. Executive Summary .................................................................................... 3 1.1. Scope .................................................................................................... 3 1.2. Methodology ........................................................................................... 3 1.3. Mapping of national jurisdictions and analysis of judges’ training needs ........... 3 1.4. Evaluation of the “Training of National Judges” funding programme ................ 6 1.5. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................ 8 2. Methodology ............................................................................................. 10 2.1. Research Area 1: Mapping individual jurisdictions ...................................... 10 2.2. Research Area 2: Training needs analysis ................................................. 12 2.3. Research Area 3: Evaluation of "Training of National Judges" programme ...... 15 2.4. Expert panel ......................................................................................... 18 3. Mapping of national jurisdictions and analysis of judges’ training needs . 19 3.1. Historical background ............................................................................ 19 3.2. Defining target groups ........................................................................... 20 3.3. Public enforcement ................................................................................ 22 3.4. Private enforcement .............................................................................. 35 3.5. Enforcement of the EU rules on State aid .................................................. 47 3.6. Specialisation of courts and judges: benefits and challenges ........................ 59 3.7. Typology of training profiles .................................................................... 62 3.8. Language skills ..................................................................................... 68 3.9. Training opportunities and preferences ..................................................... 69 3.10. Networking, databases and cross-border activities ................................... 72 4. Evaluation of the “Training of National Judges” Programme .................... 74 4.1. Relevance ............................................................................................ 74 4.2. Effectiveness ........................................................................................ 83 4.3. Efficiency ............................................................................................. 87 4.4. Coherence and complementarity ............................................................. 91 4.5. EU added value ..................................................................................... 94 4.6. Sustainability ........................................................................................ 96 4.7. Programme monitoring system and performance indicators ......................... 98 5. Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................... 110 5.1. Judges’ training needs in the field of EU competition law ........................... 110 5.2. Evaluation of the “Training of National Judges” programme ....................... 114 1 Study on judges’ training needs in the field of European competition law List of annexes Annex 1: Mapping of national jurisdictions ……………………………………… 125 1.1. Country profiles 1.2. List of contributors Annex 2: Training needs analysis …………………………………………………… 260 2.1. Objectives of the needs analysis 2.2. Literature review and bibliography 2.3. Overview of training activities for judges organised at national level 2.4. Survey of judges on their training needs 2.5. Focus groups 2.6. Consultation of stakeholders Annex 3. Evaluation of the “Training of National Judges” programme ............................................. 355 3.1. Intervention logic 3.2. Evaluation methodology 3.3. Commented evaluation matrix 3.4. High-level interviews at programme/EU level 3.5. Survey of programme participants 3.6. Interviews with training providers Acknowledgements The research team would like to thank the many contributors in national courts, judicial training institutions, judges’ associations, national competition authorities, lawyers’ associations and other bodies who have helped make this study a reality, the members of the expert panel who have guided its work, and the staff of the European Commission who have accompanied and supported its development. 2 Final report 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Scope This study presents: . a mapping of national jurisdictions for the application of EU competition law, including an analysis of judges’ needs in terms of training and networking; . an evaluation of DG Competition’s “Training of National Judges” programme. The subject is “European competition law” as defined by Articles 101-109 TFEU, including classic antitrust law (Art. 101-102 TFEU) and the rules on State aid (Art. 107-109 TFEU) but excluding national competition law. 1.2. Methodology The research team divided the work into three Research Areas. It was aided by an expert panel composed of senior judges and training specialists. It was also supported by members of EJTN, the Association of European Competition Law Judges (AECLJ), the Association of European Administrative Judges (AEAJ), the European Union of Judges in Commercial Matters and others. Research Area 1 (Mapping individual jurisdictions): Following desk research, the research team made targeted enquiries to individual judges and courts and to the institutions responsible for judicial training in the Member States. It then prepared country profiles detailing the competent courts and describing the training of judges in EU competition law. Research Area 2 (Training needs analysis): Judges from all Member States responded to an online survey about their training needs in the field. Three off-the- record face-to-face focus groups involving judges, judicial trainers and other key actors were held. National competition authorities (NCAs) and lawyers in private practice also participated in a stakeholder consultation. Research Area 3 (Evaluation of "Training of National Judges" programme): Scoping interviews at EU level was accompanied by refinement of the evaluation matrix and selection of a sample of relevant projects to analyse. A survey of former participants in projects funded by the programme was conducted and interviews held with training providers at national level. The monitoring system and performance indicators were compared with benchmarks for grant management, reporting, data collection, transparency and accountability. 1.3. Mapping of national jurisdictions and analysis of judges’ training needs Few judges deal with all aspects of EU competition law. In very few Member States are the same courts competent at first instance for both public enforcement and private actions. While there may be an overlap in terms of the courts dealing with antitrust and State aid, there are no specialised courts for the latter and judges are rarely faced with a case. The survey revealed that most judges with experience of EU competition law had dealt with only one type of enforcement action. The country profiles provide separate details of the competent courts for public enforcement, private enforcement 3 Study on judges’ training needs in the field of European competition law and State aid. The research team also proposes six distinct profiles in terms of judges’ training needs. Table 1.1: Number of judges in the competent courts (EU total) Intermediate Source: ERA First instance Final instance instance (if app) 1 Public enforcement: A 330 90 471 (a) judicial review B2 305 26