LCF26 | Competition Law Beyond the Courts: The Rise of Arbitration

LCF26 | Competition Law Beyond the Courts: The Rise of Arbitration

🎙 Lear - Economic Consultancy 👥 294 📅 October 1, 2026 ⏱ 57 min 👁 1 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-10-01
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

arbitrationcompetition lawmediationinvestment arbitrationeconomic evidence

Summary

This panel discussion, hosted by Lear Economic Consultancy, explores the growing role of arbitration in resolving competition law disputes. The speakers—Daria Pastori, Luis Paradel Trios, and Emilio Pao Vano—bring practical expertise in litigation, arbitration, and EU competition law. The session begins by clarifying the difference between arbitration (binding, contentious) and mediation (consensual, non-binding), and notes that both are forms of alternative dispute resolution encouraged by the EU Private Enforcement Directive. A key theme is the indispensable role of economic analysis in both arbitration and litigation, particularly for proving damages and market definition. The conversation then shifts to investment arbitration, highlighting conflicts where investors claim legitimate expectations against states that withdraw incentives to comply with EU state aid rules, as illustrated by the Mikula case. The panel addresses the tension between arbitral procedures and the tools provided by the Private Enforcement Directive, such as document production and the evidentiary value of antitrust authority decisions. They argue that arbitrators can achieve similar outcomes through negative inferences, even absent coercive powers. Practical considerations for corporations are discussed, including the efficiency, confidentiality, and finality of arbitration versus court litigation. The session concludes that arbitration is a viable and increasingly used mechanism for private competition law disputes, though public enforcement remains exclusive to authorities.

209 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The video provides valuable practical insights into the intersection of arbitration and competition law. The speakers argue persuasively that arbitration is a well-suited forum for private antitrust disputes, emphasizing the importance of economic evidence in proving both liability and quantum. The inclusion of a real case (Mikula v. Romania) effectively illustrates the conflict between investment protection and state aid rules. The arguments are presented coherently, with each expert building on the previous points. The discussion is substantive and avoids superficiality, offering concrete procedural and strategic considerations. The panel’s collective experience lends credibility to their claims, though the arguments would be strengthened by referencing specific academic literature or empirical data.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The rigor of the discussion rests on the professional expertise of the panelists rather than on citation of external sources. While the content is consistent with established legal frameworks, the lack of explicit references to legal texts, cases, or economic studies limits its verifiability. The title accurately captures the subject matter, which is clearly focused on the rise of arbitration in competition law. The discussion is well-structured and stays on topic throughout. No comments were provided for analysis, so audience feedback cannot be assessed.

208 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content: the panel discusses the increasing role of arbitration in resolving competition law disputes outside courts.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

Panel of experienced legal practitioners and academics discussing arbitration in competition law. The discussion is informed and practical, but no specific sources are cited, relying on the speakers' expertise. Overall, high reliability due to professional backgrounds.

Key Moments

Cited Sources

Contribution & Novelties

The video provides a unique practitioner-focused perspective on the use of arbitration in competition law disputes, clarifying the boundaries between public enforcement and private arbitration. It highlights the practical challenges and solutions in incorporating economic analysis into arbitral procedures, which is often underexplored in academic literature. The discussion of investment arbitration conflicts with state aid rules offers current and relevant examples.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • ICSID Convention — The main legal framework for investment arbitration, relevant to the Mikula case and state-investor disputes.
  • EU state aid rules — Official overview explaining the legal basis for the state’s withdrawal of incentives, contextualizing the conflict discussed.
  • The role of economic experts in arbitration — Discusses how economic analysis is used in arbitral proceedings, echoing the panel’s emphasis on economic expertise.

129 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows balanced scores across information quality, technical level, and reliability, with a slight dip in quantitative detail. This reflects a discussion that is professionally sound and well-structured but lacks deep technical formalism or original data, emphasizing practical expertise over scholarly depth.

Reliability 7/10