INTERVIEW WITH MURIEL CHAGNY AND BRUNO DEFFAINS

Why did a law professor and an economics professor choose to write together?

Economy and law are still too often separated in our country whereas it is often at the point of convergence between the law and the economy that innovations in thinking are made. Research should be combined in both disciplines. This is particularly true in the area of compensation for anti-competitive harm that requires a pluralistic approach.

Is private enforcement essential to the effectiveness of competition law?

That is the theory we are defending. The effectiveness of competition law depends very much on private enforcement, that is, the enforcement of competition law by private parties in the form of actions for damages. Public enforcement is of course essential but is not enough. Undertakings often have more specific information on competition law infringements. They also have very strong incentives to implement it that the administrative authorities do not necessarily have. It is therefore very efficient for companies to be able to act as private prosecutors of competition law violations in order to make its implementation more effective and to increase the likelihood and therefore the risk of prosecution for infringers.

Does your book associate a vision of lege lata and lege feranda ?

Yes we did want to combine the two approaches. In the first part, we describe by theme all the difficulties faced by victims of anticompetitive practices in obtaining compensation and the obstacles they may encounter on their way. In the second part, we propose improvements by going beyond the directive – recently transposed into French law - insofar as, as it stands, it remains incomplete and is not entirely satisfactory.