About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


20 Colum. J. Eur. L. Online Supplement 283 (2014)

handle is hein.journals/cjelos20 and id is 1 raw text is: IMPOSING THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF SANCTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 260(2) TFEU: FAIRNESS V. PREDICTABILITY, OR HOW TO BRIDGE THE GAPS Alexander Kornezov* 1. IN TR O D U C TIO N ............................................................................................... 2 84 II. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION'S METHODOLOGY ............................................ 286 A . Periodic Penalty Paym ent ................................................................ 286 B . L u m p S u m ........................................................................................ 2 87 III. HOW DOES THE COURT CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF THE FINANCIAL SA N C TIO N S ? ............................................................................................... 2 8 8 A . The Form ula-Based M ethod ............................................................ 289 B. Determining the Amount of the Fine on Grounds of Fairness ......... 292 C. Drawing the Lines of Case Law Together ....................................... 294 1. Is One of the M ethods Dominant? ............................................. 294 2. Patterns of A pplication .............................................................. 295 3. Are the Two M ethods Compatible? ........................................... 298 IV . FAIRNESS V. PREDICTABILITY ...................................................................... 298 A. Underlying Principles and Drawbacks of the Formula-Based M e th o d ............................................................................................. 2 9 8 B. Underlying Principles and Drawbacks of the Fairness Method ....... 300 V. THE SCOPE OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTION: A KEY TO BRIDGING THE GAPS?. 301 A. The Scope of the Court's Jurisdiction under Article 260 TFEU ....... 301 B. Unlimited Jurisdiction v. Review of Legality .................................. 302 C . P ossible Solutions ............................................................................ 303 V I. C O N C LU SIO N S .............................................................................................. 306 CASE LAW * R6f6rendaire (Law clerk) at the Court of Justice of the EU. The opinions expressed in this article are personal and do not reflect in any way those of the institution for which the author works. 283