THE INTRINSIC DISPUTE IN ANTITRUST LAW: BETWEEN NON-LITIGIOUS AND LITIGIOUS

Abstract

Although the Competition Council is the primary regulator of competition by the force of law, especially after adopting the principle of the Council's repressive authority in the economic field, however, in some cases, not every competitive dispute necessarily falls within the jurisdiction of the Competition Council, especially those related to anticompetitive practices. Here, we may be dealing with delineating the competencies of the Competition Council, allowing room for judicial review.

Undeniably, there is a non-litigious dispute when the judge does not have to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of those involved. It is a trial that allows for the search for evidence to determine the outcome of the case, so it is a dispute that is not resolved by a court decision. On the other hand, a litigious dispute is a disagreement between two parties that falls within the jurisdiction of a court. In this case, the judge will determine the guilt or innocence of one or both parties, that is, he will pronounce a court decision that resolves the dispute.

Therefore, the competitive dispute within the provisions of antitrust law has specificities that distinguish it from other disputes in different fields, particularly those related to the independence of proceedings before independent administrative bodies with the authority to impose penalties (whether it concerns the competition authority or sectoral regulatory authorities). Additionally, it involves a range of guarantees for the disputants to ensure a fair trial.

Given the importance of the competitive dispute, we have found it necessary to shed light on it by raising at least two legal points: firstly, the nature of the competitive conflict, and secondly, the guarantees for disputants to ensure a fair trial.