Taming BIG TECH – A shift in Paradigm and Its Implications for the Principle of ne bis in idem
Keywords:
Ne bis in idem, EU Competition Law, Article 101/102 TFEU, DMA, §19a GWB, parallel proceedings, prohibition of double jeopardyAbstract
With the adoption and entry into force of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) at the EU level as well as national laws targeting similar issues (e.g., the German §19a GWB), questions concerning the consequences of parallel proceedings (PP) pursuant to the competition provisions and – in its broadest sense – ‘digital regulatory law’ become more and more pressing. Potential conflicts with the principle of ne bis in idem are thus about to occur in various different constellations. Against the bigger picture of diverging approaches to competition law and/or regulation in the digital sphere, this article depicts the current legal framework regarding the prohibition of double jeopardy in EU (competition) law. It then identifies scenarios of possible PPs of the different (EU and national) provisions mentioned and exemplifies potential frictions by means of hypothetical case studies. The latter shall be further scrutinized according to the law as it stands and illustrate the different strands of arguments on how to deal with such conflicts. The aim of this article is thus to show that while the current legal framework is workable, the decisive element in many potential scenarios of PPs surrounds the notion of the idem, that is, more precisely, the element of the identity of the facts. A corollary of this finding is that there are pivotal questions to be clarified with respect to the objectives of the two regimes, namely the traditional competition provisions on the one hand and the DMA or DMA-like provisions at the national level on the other hand.
References
Zelger, B. (2025). Taming BIG TECH – A shift in paradigm and its implications for the principle of ne bis in idem. World Competition, 48(1), 51–80.
Engel, A., Groussot, X., & Holmberg, E. (2024). The Digital Markets Act and the principle of ne bis in idem: A revolution in the enforcement of EU competition law? In A. Engel, X. Groussot, & G. T. Petursson (Eds.), New directions in digitalisation: Perspectives from EU competition law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (pp. 187–218). Springer.
Petr, M. (2024). Digital Markets Act and competition law: Is there an issue of ne bis in idem? Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 17(30), 155–170.
Peters, V., & Kozak, M. (2025). Double jeopardy of Article 102 TFEU and the DMA – The challenges of a multi-level enforcement system. Utrecht Law Review, 21(2), 95–110.
Ribera Martínez, A. (2023). An inverse analysis of the Digital Markets Act: Applying the ne bis in idem principle to enforcement. European Competition Journal, 19(1), 86–115.
Case C-117/20, bpost v. Autorité belge de la concurrence. (2022). Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber).
Case C-151/20, Nordzucker AG v. Bundeskartellamt. (2022). Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber).
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 265, 1–66.
Case 14/68, Walt Wilhelm and Others v. Bundeskartellamt. (1969). Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Case 15/61, Gutman v. Commission. (1965). Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P, Aalborg Portland and Others v. Commission. (2004). Court of Justice of the European Union.
Case C-17/10, Toshiba Corporation and Others v. Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže. (2012). Court of Justice of the European Union.
Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, Gözütok and Brügge. (2003). Court of Justice of the European Union.
Case C-486/14, Piotr Kossowski v. Bundesamt für Justiz. (2016). Court of Justice of the European Union.
Van Bockel, B. (2016). The ne bis in idem principle in EU law. Wolters Kluwer.
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. (2003). Official Journal of the European Union, L 1, 1–25.
Case T-141/08, E.ON Energie AG v. European Commission. (2010). General Court of the European Union.
German Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB) (as amended), § 19a (2021).
Case C-524/15, Luca Menci v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS). (2018). Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber).
Case C-129/16, Karel Van Esbroeck v. Openbaar Ministerie. (2005). Court of Justice of the European Union.
