Arianna Andreangeli's research interests lie in the area of EU and domestic competition law, both substantive and procedural. She is especially interested in exploring how the competition rules can be effectively applied so as to safeguard genuine rivalry in the market while safeguarding the concerned actors' economic freedom and incentive to innovate and invest. Her current work examines the complex interplay between securing the good functioning of open and competitive markets and maintaining the effective exercise of regulatory powers, so that "market failures" can be appropriately corrected, if not altogether prevented.
Biotechnology Bioethics and Society (LLM)
EU Competition Law (LLM) (Course Organiser)
Intellectual Property Law 1: Copyright and Related Rights (LLM)
Scottish Legal System (Ordinary)
Dionysios Pelekis 'The EU Commission's new approach to fiscal State aid: Issues of law and policy, a comparative analysis'
Aiste Slezeviciute 'Access to Documents in Competition Cases - An International Perspective'
Richard Tepper 'The relevant market in the access-based economy'
Books and Reports
Arianna Andreangeli, Private Enforcement of Antitrust: Regulating Corporate Behaviour through Collective Claims in the EU and the US, (E Elgar, 2014)
Abstract: Enhancing private litigation as a means of boosting the detection of anti-competitive behaviour and of remedying the harmful consequences of these practices on consumers has been at the forefront of the EU Commission agenda for a long time. Starting from an examination of theories of collective action as a means of mobilising large groups of individuals, this book examines the current approaches governing class certification in competition damages claims in the US Federal courts. Andreangeli argues that the Commission’s ‘established wisdom’ on collective redress in competition cases as well as in the general area of tort law, may no longer be totally justified. The book proposes a more ‘holistic’ approach to collective redress, involving access to civil justice, a greater role for public enforcement authorities and the involvement of representative organisation. It argues that this may succeed in delivering on goals of efficient adjudication and meaningful compensation of antitrust injuries without compromising on procedural fairness, and therefore that the EU Commission and the legislatures of many Member States may be more inclined to move away from their traditional views on these issues.
Arianna Andreangeli, EU Competition Enforcement and Human Rights, (E Elgar, 2008)
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Making markets work in the public interest: Combating hazardous alcohol consumption through minimum pricing rules in Scotland', (2017), Yearbook of European Law, pp 1-31
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Competition law and fundamental rights ', (2017), Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, pp 1-15
Abstract: This survey covers the following rights: right to a fair hearing and to an effective judicial remedy (Article 47, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—hereinafter referred to as CFR); right to good administration (Article 41 CFR); tight to equal treatment, (Article 20 CFR); the presumption of innocence (Article 48 CFR); the principle of nulla poena sine lege (Article 49 CFR); the right to privacy (Article 7 CFR).
Arianna Andreangeli, 'The consequences of Brexit for competition litigation: An end to a "success story"?', (2017), european competition law review, Vol 38, pp 226-233
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Weathering the Murphy storm: Domestic IP litigation and industrial consolidation as pragmatic responses to the Court of Justice’s decision?', (2016), Journal of Media Law, Vol 8, pp 173-197
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Competition litigation in the EU and the UK after the 2014 Antitrust damages directive: Balancing the demands of a sound administration of justice with the need for more effective private competition enforcement through fair and effective evidence disclosure', (2016), Civil Justice Quarterly, Vol 35, pp 342-366
Abstract: How to facilitate the private enforcement of the competition rules has been a much vexed issue for the EU institutions as well as for the Member States: debate in this area eventually led to the enactment in 2014 of a Directive aimed at laying down common rules governing key aspects of competition damages actions, ranging from standing to limitation periods to the interaction between adjudication and the out-of-court resolution of these disputes. This paper considers the extent to which the 2014 Directive successfully harmonises the prima facie concurring objectives of making civil competition litigation a "realistic" option for all plaintiffs and safeguarding the role of the national competition authorities in the detection of new infringements.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Healthcare services, the EU single market and beyond: Meeting local needs in an open economy—how much market or how little market?', (2016), Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol 43, pp 145-172
Abstract: This paper considers the impact of the choices made by the member states in designing the institutional and regulatory concerning taxpayer-funded health services on the applicability of the EU single market and competition rules and on the public procurement legal regime. It will focus on the different approaches adopted in the United Kingdom in England and Wales as opposed to Scotland. The paper will conclude by looking at some of the issues that could arise from the implementation of common commercial policy initiatives undertaken by the Union: taking in consideration the ongoing negotiation of the EU/US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), it will consider whether liberalising trade in services may imperil the solidarity-based nature of healthcare that is typical of the EU member states.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'EU Competition Enforcement and Compliance with Fundamental Rights’ Standards: The Challenge and the Promise of Accession to the ECHR', (2015), Antitrust Chronicle, Vol 7
Abstract: The question of the compliance of the framework and the procedures for the enforcement of the EU competition rules with human rights’ rules has been a vexed subject for many years. In that context, whether and how the European Union should become a party to the European Convention on Human Rights has been also hotly discussed.In 2013, following a complex period of negotiations, a Draft Accession Agreement was submitted to the Court of Justice of the EU to obtain an opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU. The Draft Agreement had envisaged a series of arrangements designed to address issues of passive standing of the Union before the European Court of Human Rights and the possible involvement of the EU judiciary in respect of claims involving the Union and lodged in Strasbourg.However, the CJEU ruled at the end of 2014 that the agreement, as it stood, did not comply with a number of founding principles of EU law, namely the principle of supremacy of EU law over domestic norms, the rules governing the inter-institutional architecture enshrined in the Founding Treaties, and—in that context—the judicial independence enjoyed by the same Court of Justice, especially in discharging its role vis-à-vis the domestic courts in the context of the preliminary reference procedure.This brief paper aims to investigate some of the implications of accession for the public enforcement of the EU competition rules. It will review the 2014 Opinion and consider how the human rights’ scrutiny of inspections ordered by the Commission and carried out either directly or via the assistance of the competent NCAs could be conducted post-accession. It will argue that any future arrangements should encompass robust mechanisms to ensure that the “Union interests” are taken into account and the primacy and coherence of Union law is maintained, even in cases involving domestic authorities acting within the scope of EU law.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Competition Law and the Opinion 2.13 on the Accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights: Back to Square one?', (2015), Journal of European Competition Law & Practice
Abstract: The Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) ruled that the Draft Accession agreement between the EU and the European Council of Europe, aimed at the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights, is not compatible with the Treaty on the EU and on the Functioning of the EU.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'The Changing Structure of Competition Enforcement in the UK: The Competition Appeal Tribunal between Present Challenges and an Uncertain Future', (2014), Journal of Antitrust Enforcement
Abstract: This article seeks to analyse the role and function of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in the face of the current debate arising from the proposals for reform tabled by the UK Government and concerning both the Tribunal’s powers to hear competition damages claims and its jurisdiction in respect of the scrutiny of competition decisions.In respect to the former, it will be argued that the reforms being tabled and potentially affecting its powers to hear actions for damages under section 47A and B of the Competition Act 1998 should be welcomed as a means of facilitating access to justice on the part of the victims of competition infringements. Although concerns remain as to the practicalities of these actions, including the availability of funding, these proposals remain consistent with the Government’s commitment to endowing would-be competition plaintiffs with an effective remedy to obtain relief from their injuries. As regards the latter, the article will submit that the outright abolition of the ‘on the merits’ review, while being easier to justify in respect of ‘regulatory appeals’, may lead to a ‘disproportionate’ inroad in the right to a fair trial and to a fair procedure enjoyed by the addressees of competition infringement decisions.This article will conclude that an undeniable tension seems to characterize the future development of the CAT's jurisdictional remit: if the UK Government is resolved to invest it with stronger powers vis-à-vis damages’ actions, its attempt at introducing less intensive forms of judicial scrutiny of appeals brought against CMA's or sector regulators’ decisions is likely to have unpredictable consequences for the continuing observance of the due process standards to which the public enforcement of the competition rules is subject.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Private Enforcement of the EU Competition Rules: The EU Commission Wishes to "Practice What it Preaches"...but Can It Do So?: Comment on Otis', (2014), European Law Review, Vol 39, pp 717-34
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Ne bis in idem and Administrative Sanctions: Bonda', (2013), Common Market Law Review, Vol 50, pp 1827-1842
Abstract: The principle of ne bis in idem has played a key role in protecting human rights within the European Union. It has long been recognized by the Court of Justice as part of the general principles of Union law and its safeguard has been closely linked to the good functioning of the internal market. According to the Court its observance ensures that no one is prosecuted for the same acts in several Contracting States on account of the fact that he exercises his right to freedom of movement. This case note analyses exactly such a situation: the Bonda preliminary ruling concerns the compatibility with the principle of ne bis in idem of the action of domestic agencies competent for administering Union funds and criminal prosecution under domestic law for the same facts.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'EU Competition Law in Times of Crisis: Between Present Challenges and a Largely Unwritten Future', (2013), Competition Law Review, Vol 9, pp 91-118
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Collective Redress in EU Competition Law: An Open Question with Many Possible Solutions', (2012), World Competition, Vol 35, pp 529–58
Abstract: This paper analyses the current trends of the debate in the area of collective redress of injuries caused by the consequences of anti-competitive behaviour in the EU in light of the more recent case law governing class certification of antitrust collective complaints in the US federal courts and of the legislative developments occurring in several European jurisdictions. Whilst not advocating the total 'transplantation' of opt-out class actions in EU competition law, it will illustrate that the Commission's concerns as to the viability of these collective lawsuits have become less pressing and consequently, will argue for a more open-minded discussion of how to create effective and fair mechanisms for the collective redress of individual rights.It will first provide a brief examination of the current approach adopted by the Commission to collective redress in the area of competition law and, more specifically, in respect to 'diffuse torts'. Thereafter, the paper will analyse the case law of the US Superior Federal Courts concerning the class certification of collective antitrust complaints and illustrate that the Commission's scepticism as to the viability of these actions may no longer be justified. It will be shown that the scrupulous scrutiny of the proposed class filings, conducted by the American courts can contribute effectively to 'identifying' prima facie unmeritorious claims and thereby allowing only truly 'suitable' complaints to proceed as class actions.In light of the forgoing, it will be concluded that the Commission's position on these issues seems difficult to sustain and could even become an obstacle to discussing how to respond to the demands of ensuring effective redress to the victims of torts having a widespread impact on society and the economy, for which individual dispute settlement may be inefficient.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Current Competition Law Research: Developing New Themes between Continuity and Change', (2012), Competition Law Review, Vol 8, pp 123-28
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Modernizing the Approach to Article 101 TFEU in Respect to Horizontal Agreements: Has the Commission’s Interpretation eventually 'Come of Age'?', (2011), Competition and Regulation Review, Vol 1, pp 570
Abstract: This note seeks to examine the approach proposed by the European Commission in its new Guidelines against the background of the more recent EU Courts’ case law in the area. Firstly, it will give a brief overview of the general trends and principles governing the interpretation of Article 101 TFEU, especially in respect to its structure and to the subject matter of the analysis that ought to be conducted under each of its limbs. Thereafter, it will examine the more recent decisions adopted by the EU Courts and affecting that interpretation in respect to both restrictions ‘by object’ and restraints ‘by effect’. In that context, the note will argue that the position adopted by the Commission in 2004, in as much as it was anchored to the 'egalitarian division of labour' between the prohibition clause and the legal exception of Article 101(3) TFEU, whilst compatible with earlier judicial decisions, has become difficult to reconcile with the existing approach adopted by the General Court and the European Court of Justice. The final part of the note will consider whether, in respect especially to horizontal restraints, the Draft Guidelines have succeeded in increasing the consistency between the EU Courts and the Commission’s approach to Article 101 TFEU. It will be argued that whereas the Commission sought to maintain intact the 'dichotomy' existing between restrictions ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’, in accordance with the existing case law, it expressly recognised and articulated the 'counterfactual analysis' established by the General Court in O2 as the legal standard applicable to ‘by effect’ restrictions of competition.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'From Mobile Phones to Cattle: How the Court of Justice Is Reframing the Approach to Article 101 (Formerly 81 EC Treaty) of the EU Treaty', (2011), World Competition, Vol 34, pp 215-243
Abstract: This paper seeks to analyse the current trends characterising the interpretation of Article 101 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as Article 101 EU Treaty; formerly Article 81 EC Treaty) in the light of recent decisions of the ECJ. The approach to the reading of this provision has evolved slowly but at the same time quite radically in the past years, due to the adoption of a more 'economics-based' approach as well as to the enactment of the Modernisation Regulation, according to which Article 101 is now directly applicable in its entirety by the European Commission, the national competition authorities and the national courts. The paper will investigate the extent to which these two factors have contributed to the emergence of a more 'rule of reason' inspired approach to the application of Article 101 (1) and to a change of approach to the scope of the exemption clause contained in Article 101(3) of the EU Treaty.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Between Economic Freedom and Effective Competition Enforcement: The Impact of the Antitrust Remedies Provided by the Modernisation Regulation on Investigated Parties’ Freedom to Contract and to Enjoy Property', (2010), Competition Law Review, Vol 6, pp 225-57
Abstract: This paper seeks to analyse the issues emerging from the imposition of certain antitrust remedies, such as the obligation to grant intellectual property licenses regarding key inventions covered by patent or copyright and to stipulate contracts with other firms, including competitors, as a means to remedy the consequences of antitrust infringements. It will consider the extent to which Article 7 remedies can be reconciled with other important tenets of the market economy, such as the freedom to contract and the right to peacefully enjoy one’s possessions. After briefly examining the rationale for the application of certain human rights’ guarantees to competition investigations and decisions, the first part of the paper will consider the questions of whether and to what extent the European Convention on Human Rights protects economic freedom and compare the current position with that adopted by the US Supreme Court. The second part will illustrate the notion of competition remedies and consider whether the principles governing them are compatible with current human rights standards as well as with the concept of the rule of law as a tool to protect ‘everyone’ from the arbitrary or disproportionate use of public power. The final part of the paper will argue that although antitrust remedies pursue a legitimate objective, i.e. the preservation of economic well-being through competitive markets, they must also comply with basic human rights safeguards, such as the protection of property and of freedom to contract, by striking a “fair balance” between the common good and the legitimate interests of the affected undertakings. It will be concluded that the practice in this area should conform to standards consistent with the principles enshrined in the ECHR and to the substantive concept of ‘rule of law’, i.e. accuracy, administrability, consistency, objectivity, applicability and transparency.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Interoperability as an "Essential Facility" in the Microsoft Case: Encouraging Stifling Competition or Innovation?', (2009), European Law Review, Vol 4, pp 584-611
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Editorial Comment: Between the Public Interest and the Free Market: Would the Liberalisation of the Legal Profession Bring Benefits to the Client – And to the Market?', (2008), European Business Law Review, Vol 19, pp 1051
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Case note on T-201/04, Microsoft v Commission, Judgment of 17 September 2007 ', (2008), Common Market Law Review, Vol 45, pp 863
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Joined Cases T-125/03 and 253/03, AKZO Nobel and Ackros Chemicals Ltd v Commission ', (2008), European Business Law Review, Vol 19, pp 1141-61
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Toward an EU Competition Court: Article-6-Proofing Antitrust Proceedings Before the Commission?', (2007), World Competition, Vol 30, pp 595–622
Arianna Andreangeli, 'The Enforcement of Article 81 EC before National Courts after the House of Lords' Decision in Inntrepreneur Pub Co Ltd v Crehan ', (2007), European Law Review, Vol 32, pp 262
Arianna Andreangeli, 'The Impact of the Modernisation Regulation on the Guarantees of Due Process in Competition Proceedings ', (2006), European Law Review, Vol 31, pp 342
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Azioni civili nell’ambito del diritto della concorrenza prospettive di armonizzazione e la sfida dell’accesso alla giustizia' in Nicola Carpagnano (ed.) L'applicazione delle regole di concorrenza in Italia e nell'Unione europea (editoriale scientifica 2016)
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Private Antitrust Claims as a "Special Case" Can the General Court be Envisaged as the Appellate Court vis-a-vis Decisions of National Courts?' in Mihail Danov, Florian Becker, Paul Beaumont (ed.) Cross-Border EU Competition Law Actions (Hart Publishing 2013) 109-34
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Spotlight on the IT Industry The Microsoft Case--Protecting Rivalry on Innovative Markets...But at What Price for their Future?' in Barry Rodger (ed.) Landmark Cases in Competition Law (Kluwer Academic Publishers 2013) 89-120
Arianna Andreangeli, 'The Public Enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU under Council Regulation 1/2003 Due Process Considerations' in Ioannis Lianos, Damien Geradin (ed.) Handbook on EU Competition Law (E Elgar 2013) 138-80
Arianna Andreangeli, Ioannis Lianos, 'The European Union The Competition Law Institutions and the Union's Norms' in Eleanor M. Fox, Michael J. Trebilcock (ed.) The Design of Competition Law Institutions (Oxford University Press 2012) ch 9
Abstract: This chapter discusses the history, institutional structure, mandate, procedural characteristics, and agency performance of the EU's competition law system. The competition law provisions of the European Treaty have remained unchanged since the Treaty of Rome was adopted in 1957. The Treaty is now called the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Commission is the body primarily responsible for the enforcement of these provisions. Through the initiation of the Competition Directorate, the European Commission investigates, enforces, and adjudicates all issues relating to competition law within its jurisdiction.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Competition Law and Human Rights Striking a Balance between Business Freedom and Regulatory Intervention' in Ioannis Lianos, D. Daniel Sokol (ed.) The Global Limits of Competition Law (Stanford University Press 2012) 22-36
Abstract: This chapter discusses Council Regulation No 1/2003, which conferred pervasive investigative powers upon the European Commission. The regulation enlarged the array of tools at the Commission's disposal for competition matters. It addresses the question of where to draw the boundary between, on the one hand, the pursuit of competition through administrative action and, on the other, the effective protection of business freedom and freedom from disproportionate interferences with the undertakings' rights. The first part of the chapter focuses on the procedural aspects of this issue and considers the extent to which the current safeguards, prescribed by Council Regulation No 1/2003 and interpreted by the European Court of Justice, are sufficient to fulfill the standards of due process enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The second part addresses the substantive question of whether the restrictions on the freedom of contract, and more generally on market freedom, imposed upon dominant firms by competition enforcement agencies are compatible with the rights contained in the ECHR.
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Competition Enforcement and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon The State of Play and the (Near) Future Prospects' in Eugene Buttigieg (ed.) Rights and Remedies in a Liberalised and Competitive Internal Market (University of Malta 2012) 63-94
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Competition Law and Human Rights Striking a Balance between Business Freedom and Regulatory Intervention' in Ioannis Lianos, D. Daniel Sokol (ed.) The Global Limits of Competition Law (Stanford University Press 2011)
Arianna Andreangeli, 'Tying, Technological Integration and Article 82 EC Treaty Where Do We Go After Microsoft?' in Lisa Rubini (ed.) Microsoft on Trial (E Elgar 2011) 318-43
Arianna Andreangeli, 'From Complainant to Private Attorney General The Modernisation of EU Competition Enforcement and Private Antitrust Action before National Courts' in Michael Dougan, Samantha Currie (ed.) 50 years of the European Treaties (Hart Publishing 2008) 229-54