National courts play a key role in the application of European competition policy. You may be asked to apply Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU to various scenarios: (i) certain courts have jurisdiction over disputes between private parties, such as.B. contract actions or actions for damages; (ii) some act as public enforcement authorities (e.g. B in Finland, Ireland and Sweden); (iii) and some act as appellate courts that rule on appeals against decisions of national competition authorities. Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 gave national courts a wider role in the full application of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In addition, where national courts apply national competition law, they must also apply Union competition law where this has an impact on trade between Member States. Here is an example of a state law dealing with concurrent jurisdiction: In the United States, there is concurrent jurisdiction to the extent that the U.S. Constitution allows federal courts to hear lawsuits that can also be tried in state courts. For example, if an Alabama party sues a Florida party for breach of contract, the Alabama party may bring an action in either federal court (as part of its diversity jurisdiction) or in The Florida state court (as part of its personal jurisdiction over the defendant). Concurrent jurisdiction may also be created if the United States Congress, in creating a plea, allows state courts to hear cases in which this plea is raised.
For example, a state court may hear a lawsuit for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. A state may have concurrent jurisdiction with a federal court, for example, if a crime on federal property defined by state law is committed, and certain crimes involving members of Indian tribes. State and federal courts have also had concurrent jurisdiction over the Jones Act, which allows seafarers who suffer bodily injury while employed to sue for damages. The U.S. District Court has the power to hear and rule on civil cases in which the parties are « different in citizenship. » This means that the parties to a civil lawsuit come from different states, or that one or more are not U.S. citizens or residents of a foreign country. The power to allow federal courts to hear diversity cases was granted to Congress in Article III of the United States Constitution. This was due to concerns that if a criminal prosecution or case was brought in a State also involving parties from other States, the court might show bias against that State party. Congress put diversity jurisdiction into practice in the Judicial Act of 1789, with modern jurisdiction established in 28 U.S.C§ 1332.
The existence of a competing court, both at the federal, state and local levels, leads to a phenomenon known as « forum shopping », » in which parties to a court case seek to hear their civil or criminal case before the court that they believe will make the most favorable decision. In the Middle Ages, the Church extended its jurisdiction in many parts of Europe far beyond the original scope of ecclesiastical courts in spiritual or religious matters, thus creating in many civil cases a jurisdiction competing with the courts established by secular authorities.  The ICC gives SEBI competence to rule on a complaint for abuse of a dominant position against the national stock exchange* In a surprising deviation from its previous position, the Commission has decided in many cases by decision of 07.01.2019 not to investigate allegations of abuse of a dominant position (…) Understanding when diversity competence can be applied can be a confusing endeavor. In general, none of the parties to the lawsuit can be from the same state for diversity to apply. To this end, individuals, businesses and other entities are treated differently to determine their residence. Supreme Court clarifies jurisdictional conflict between ICC and TRAI – dismisses ICC and Jio appeals* The Honourable Supreme Court has finally lifted uncertainty about the jurisdiction of icc and TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) with its decision of 05.12.2018. (…) The U.S. Constitution allows concurrent jurisdiction when physical boundaries are crossed or when the laws governing the parties to a lawsuit differ. For example, if a person living in California sues a Florida-based company for breach of contract, they could sue either in their home state of California, where they entered into the contract, or in the state of Florida that has jurisdiction over the company, or in federal court under its « diversity jurisdiction. » Title 28 of the United States Code, Sections 1331 and 1332, gives federal courts concurrent jurisdiction with state courts in federal and diversity cases.
Since the term « regulation » has a very broad and sometimes ambiguous meaning, many authors have tried to define it. One of the most popular definitions comes from Philip Selznick, who argues that regulation is a « sustainable and targeted control exercised by a public authority over activities valued by the community. » As David Levi-Faur explained in his Handbook on Regulatory Policy, this definition implies that regulation implies « continuous action of monitoring, evaluating and refining rules instead of ad hoc operations ». Forum shopping is more common in cases where state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction, as state and federal courts adhere to different procedural rules and often refer to different substantive law when deciding cases. Since the plaintiff in civil matters chooses the court before which he brings an action, knowledge of these differences can be used to the advantage of the plaintiff. For example, a person suing a large pharmaceutical company for an injury caused by one of its drugs might conclude that a jury of locals is more sympathetic to their cause. While the globalization of antitrust law – for which President Kovacic deserves significant recognition – has brought competitive markets to consumers around the world, it has also given jurisdictions around the world significant influence over the behavior of increasingly global companies. In the merger (…) In the United States, there may also be concurrent jurisdiction between different levels of state courts, between state or local courts and other government agencies, or even with other countries that share authority over the parties. Concurrent jurisdiction occurs when two or more courts of different systems have jurisdiction over a particular case at the same time. This situation leads to a forum shopping, as the parties will try to have their civil or criminal case heard in the court they deem most convenient for them.
Concurrent jurisdiction occurs when two or more courts of different systems have jurisdiction over a particular case at the same time. Foreigners accused of violations of U.S. criminal law face a dilemma. Most U.S. courts will not challenge the charges unless the defendant travels to the United States and submits to the personal jurisdiction of the court. The Ministry of Justice (…) The article analyzes the institutional and procedural aspects of cooperation between antitrust enforcement at the federal and state levels from a comparative perspective. There are two objectives: to provide a global overview of the subject in order to better navigate multi-jurisdictional antitrust investigations, and (…) In addition to the other jurisdictions provided by law, a statutory district court that exercises civil jurisdiction at the same time as the constitutional jurisdiction of the district court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in: Concurrent jurisdiction in the United States may also exist between different levels of state courts, as well as between courts and other government agencies with judicial powers. .