DUE PROCESS IN COMPETITION PROCEEDINGS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND UZBEKISTAN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47390/SPR1342V6SI2Y2026N37Keywords:
due process, Competition rules, Transparency, Procedural fairness, European Union (EU), Charter of Fundamental Rights, Right to defense, Antitrust investigations, Rights of defendants, Statement of Objections, Administrative procedure, Confidentiality, Business secrecy, Anonymity, Whistle-blowing practiceAbstract
The article examines the critical importance of procedural fairness and the preservation of defendants' rights in competition law enforcement, based on examples from both the European Union (EU) and Uzbekistan. It refers to the recent OECD Recommendation on Transparency and Procedural Fairness in Competition Law Enforcement, as well as Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which emphasises the concepts of openness, independence, and the right to defence. Administrative processes in Uzbekistan describe procedural fairness principles, with a particular emphasis on the ability to be heard and participate in proceedings. The study finishes with a comparative analysis, emphasising the similar dedication to due process and protecting rights in competition procedures in both nations, but also highlighting contrasts in approaches to confidentiality and business secrecy.
References
1. Закон Республики Узбекистан «О конкуренции», https://lex.uz/docs/6518383#6522124
2. Постановление Пленума Верховного суда Республики Узбекистан от 24.12.2019 № 24 https://lex.uz/docs/4711315
3. Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union (18.12.2000). OJ 2000/C 364/01 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
4. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1–25 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32003R0001
5. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1–25 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32003R0001
6. Competition Policy & Competitive Neutrality, Note by the Secretariat, OECD, DAF/COMP(2015)13/FINAL
7. Решение Судебной коллегии по административным делам Верховного суда Республики Узбекистан по делу № 3-1003-2003/5458 от 24.08.2022
8. C-413/14 P, Judgment of 6 September 2017, Intel v Commission, EU:C:2017:632
9. Case T-235/18, Qualcomm v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2022:358
10. Case 145/83. Judgment of the Court of November 7 1985. Stanley George Adams v Commission of the European Communities.
11. I. S. Forrester (2009), Due Process in EC Competition Cases; a Distinguished Institution with Flawed Procedures, 34 E.L. Rev. 817.
12. Bernatt, Maciej and Botta, Marco and Svetlicinii, Alexandr, The Right of Defense in the Decentralized System of EU Competition Law Enforcement: A Call for Harmonization from Central and Eastern Europe (July 1, 2018). World Competition: Law and Economics Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2018
13. OECD (2022), An Introduction to Competition Law and Policy in Uzbekistan, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/daf/competition/an-introduction-to-competition-law-and-policy-inuzbekistan.pdf
14. Philip Lowe (DG Competition). (2009). Due process in antitrust. CRA Conference on Economic Developments in Competition Law. Brussels. p. 2 Due process and fines (europa.eu)
15. Pachnou D. (2022). Due Process in Competition Law Enforcement. The New OECD Recommendation on Transparency and Procedural Fairness in Competition Law Enforcement. OECD https://www.pymnts.com/cpi_posts/due-process-in-competition-law-enforcementthe-new-oecd-recommendation-on-transparency-and-procedural-fairness-in-competition-law-enforcement/#:~:text=The%20Recommendation%20establishes%20duties%20of,and%20privileged%20information%3B%20and%20judicial
16. Andersson H. (2022). Hear Me Out! Failing to Respect the Parties’ Right to be Heard May Come at a High Price. https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2022/08/18/hear-me-out-failing-to-respect-the-parties-right-to-be-heard-may-come-at-a-high-price/
17. Killick J. and et al. (2022) EU General Court quashes Qualcomm antitrust fine for “exclusivity payments”, and censures the EU Commission for multiple due process and substantive errors. https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2022/06/21/eu-general-court-quashes-qualcomm-antitrust-fine-for-exclusivity-payments-and-censures-the-eu-commission-for-multiple-due-process-and-substantive-errors/
