Jules Stuyck

Jules Stuyck

Tiensestraat 41 - box 3425
3000 Leuven
Belgium
room: 05.09
tel: +32 16 32 53 24


contact

Jules Stuyck (°31 July 1948 in Tienen), got his law degree at KU Leuven (1965-1970). He obtained his Ph.D. in 1975 on "Aggressive Sales Methods" at the KU Leuven. He made several research visits to the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual property in Münich. In 1987 he became a professor at the KU Leuven, Faculty of Law where he taught European Law and Consumer Law. Since 1987 he became also a professor of European Law at the Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Since 2000 he has been a visiting professor of EU Competition Law at the Central European University of Budapest and since 2008 visiting professor of European Consumer Law and European law at Université Panthéon-Assass Paris II. Until 2007 he was a professor of Economic law at the Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics, KU Leuven. During the academic years 1990-1991 and 1994-1995, he was holder of the Jean Monnet Chair at the University of Bonn, Zentrum für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht; and during the academic year 1998-1999, the Jacques Delors Chair, Alma Universities (Liège, Hasselt, Aachen, Maastricht). From 1989 until 1994, he was professor at the College of Europe, where the taught “Introduction au droit des C.E.” (dominante économique). He has been the director of the Centre for European Economic Law and the Study Centre for Consumer Law from the start in 1990. In September 2013 he retired and became an emeritus professor. Jules Stuyck is a member of the Brussels bar since 1984. He is partner with the law firm Liedekerke, where he heads the department of European and competition law. He frequently represents clients in the European Courts. He is on the editorial or advisory board of several Belgian and international legal journals and he is a member of the European Commission’s Expert Group on European Contract Law (established in 2011).  Recent publications include the third edition of a book on commercial practices in Belgium (Handelspraktijken, in Beginselen van Belgisch Privaatrecht, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2013) and the second edition of a French language contribution on European consumer law in the Jurisclasseur Europe. Several other publications, notably in the field of European consumer law, are in preparation.

 

query=user:U0015074 year:[2006 TO 2026] &institution=lirias&from=1&step=20&sort=scdate
showing 1 to 20 of 134
Items per page 10 |20 |50
Sort newest first |author |title |popularity
  • journal-article
    Stuyck, Julien;Keirsbilck, Bert; 2019. De nieuwe Belgische wet met betrekking tot misbruik van economische afhankelijkheid, onrechtmatige bedingen en oneerlijke marktpraktijken tussen ondernemingen: een eerste commentaar. SEW: Tijdschrift voor Europees en Economisch Recht; 2019; iss. 9; pp. 374 - 394
    LIRIAS2936833
    description

    Publisher: Uitgeverij Paris
    Published
  • journal-article
    Micklitz, Hans-W;Stuyck, Jules; 2019. Foreword. Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law; 2019; Vol. 24; iss. 1; pp. 1 - 2
    LIRIAS3677094
    description

    Publisher: Ubiquity Press
    Published
  • book
    Stuyck, Jules;Keirsbilck, Bert; 2019. Handelspraktijken en contracten met consumenten. Publisher: Wolters Kluwer; Mechelen
    LIRIAS2936827
    description


    Published
  • chapter
    Stuyck, Jules; 2017. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: Full Harmonisation, Scope and Key Notions. MARKETING AND ADVERTISING LAW IN A PROCESS OF HARMONISATION; 2017; Vol. 70; pp. 65 - 84 Publisher: HART PUBL
    LIRIAS1624249
    description


    Published
  • chapter
    Stuyck, Jules; 2017. The Role of Preliminary References in the Uniform Application of EU Competition Law. CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF EU COMPETITION LAW: SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES; 2017; Vol. 9; pp. 177 - 191 Publisher: SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
    LIRIAS1541404
    description


    Published
  • report
    Terryn, Evelyne;Willet, Chris;Keirsbilck, Bert;Stuyck, Jules;Rott, Peter; 2017. Study for the Fitness Check of EU and Marketing Law.
    LIRIAS1683388
    description


    Published
  • bookreview
    Stuyck, Jules; 2016. European Consumer Access to Justice Revisited. Common Market Law Review; 2016; Vol. 53; iss. 2; pp. 578 - 580 Publisher: Kluwer Law International
    LIRIAS1416624
    description


    Published
  • other
    2016. Codex Economisch Recht. Publisher: Wolters Kluwer; Mechelen
    LIRIAS1836355
    description


    Published
  • journal-article
    Stuyck, Jules; 2015. THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE UNFAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICES DIRECTIVE. Common Market Law Review; 2015; Vol. 52; iss. 3; pp. 721 - 752
    LIRIAS1416636
    description

    Publisher: Kluwer Law International
    Published
  • other
    2015. Codex Economisch Recht 2015. Publisher: Wolters Kluwer België; Mechelen
    LIRIAS1836356
    description


    Published
  • journal-article
    Stuyck, Jules; 2015. Damages for the Loss Caused by a Cartel: The Causal Link Comments on the Kone Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU. European Review of Private Law; 2015; Vol. 23; iss. 3; pp. 459 - 470
    LIRIAS3077381
    description

    Publisher: Kluwer Law International
    Published
  • book
    Stuyck, Jules;Colaert, Veerle;Terryn, Evelyne;De Pourcq, Sofie;Goddaer, Joke;Incalza, Thomas;Syx, Eugenie;Vandemaele, Sanne;Vansteenbeeck, Michaël; 2015. Commercial and Economic Law in Belgium. Publisher: Kluwer Law International; Alphen aan Den Rijn
    LIRIAS1836143
    description


    Published
  • thesis-dissertation
    Parlak, Suleyman; 2014. The defence of passing-on and indirect purchaser standing as components of private enforcement of EC antritrust rules..
    LIRIAS1844831
    description
    Doctoral Thesis in Law The defence of passing-on and Indirect Purchaser Standing as Components of Private Enforcement of EU Antitrust Rules Summaries The present work investigated one of the most complex and controversial issues in the field of private enforcement of antitrust rules, the passing-on defence and indirect purchaser standing. The research question that guided us throughout this work was: “how should the passing-on defence be designed in order to (i) guarantee full compensation to both the direct and indirect purchasers; (ii) to prevent that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is unjustly enriched; and (iii) to prevent the multiple liability and over-deterrence of the defendant?” This work attempted to answer these questions. In doing so, it explored the US private antitrust enforcement policy, the Supreme Court’s case law, State law and court practice, the legislative proposals regarding the passing-on defence and indirect purchaser standing, and academic literature. In antitrust cases the assistance of economists to help to overcome one of the complex issues in designing private enforcement, i.e. quantifying damages and calculating the degree of passing-on, is inevitable. This research provided therefore an overview of the degree of complexity of the methods which can be used to calculate the passing-on by relying on conclusions and statements of economists. Against this, the current situation of private enforcement of private enforcement in Europe is analyzed. It explored first the antitrust enforcement policy. Then an overview and analysis of the ECJ’s long standing case law on the development of EU law principles, rights and remedies is provided. These developments are the milestones in the course of horizontal liability and the right to claim damages from other individuals under EU law. After this analysis, it then sought to explore the ECJ’s case law on the extra-contractual liability of the EU and Member States and horizontal liability of individuals for damages. Consequently, the ECJ’s case law, selected Member States’ (Germany, England, Belgium and the Netherlands) on tort law has been investigated. Then, the Member States’ restitution law based on unjust enrichment and undue payment is considered. Subsequently, the Commission’s Green, White and Draft Directive on the issues of passing-on defence and indirect purchaser standing are analyzed. Finally, general conclusions and additional proposed options are provided. PART I Passing-on defence and indirect purchaser standing in the United States of America The stated purpose of this part was to explore the problem of passing-on by relying on the US Supreme Courts case law, state law and conclusions and statement of economists. Chapter 1 focused primarily on private antitrust enforcement policy in the US. It revealed that the US courts and antitrust agencies, as part of their interpretation and enforcement of federal antitrust laws adopted an optimal deterrence and efficiency-oriented approaches. In order to achieve these aims, not only the legislator but also the Supreme Court and the lower courts have imposed limitations on standing and to recover damages for antitrust infringements as embodied in Article 4 of the Clayton and Article 1 of the Sherman Acts. The most radical limitation is the rejection of passing-on defence in Hanover Shoe and the indirect purchaser standing in Illinois Brick. These two seminal decisions have received phenomenal attention and led to a split between Federal and State courts. Chapter 2 focused exclusively on passing-on defence. This chapter started with defining the passing-on defence and explaining its purpose, operation and effect. This chapter had further two aims. First, it aimed to explain why the defence gives rise to controversy, divided the academics and court and why the Supreme Court eventually rejected the defence. Second, it aimed to analyze the Supreme Court’s Hanover Shoe decision and the academic response and criticism to the Court’s decision. The Supreme Court’s reasoning behind the rejecting the defence was that the task of establishing passing-on would require convincing proof of “virtually unascertainable figure”, prove “insurmountable” and render the already complex antitrust damages actions completely unmanageable. As stated by the Supreme Court: “we are not impressed with the argument that sound laws of economics require recognizing this passing-on defence”. The Supreme Court’s analysis rests on three, well grounded, premises, (i) it is difficult to establish that the buyer has raised his price in response to the overcharge. Second, it is an insurmountable task to proof that the first buyer could not or would not have raised its prices or maintained supra-competitive prices had the alleged overcharges ceased. Finally, the same difficulty applies in proving that that the first purchaser did not lose sales or profit margin thereafter. Chapter 3 focused exclusively on the Supreme Court’s Illinois Brick case where it rejected the indirect purchaser standing. This chapter aimed to explain the Court’s reasoning in rejecting the indirect purchaser standing and its exceptions to the indirect purchaser rule. It revealed that the Court barred also indirect purchasers from bringing “pass-on” antitrust claims under the federal antitrust claims. The Supreme Court rejected standing in Illinois Brick on three grounds: (i) symmetry with Hanover Shoe; (ii) considerations of efficiency and (iii) effectiveness. The Court feared for multiple liability of the defendant. Presumably, the difficulties of proof apply also for the offensive use of passing-on. The Supreme Court also found that indirect purchasers are less likely than direct purchasers to institute actions to recover illegal overcharges. The Court feared further that, even in case if procedural devices are introduced to bring all potential claimants in one single action: “the difficulties likely to be encountered in management of [such] a class action” would make the procedure equally inadequate. The Court feared, further that apportioning the recoveries among all of the potential will “add whole new dimensions of complexity to treble-damage suits and seriously undermine their effectiveness”. Chapter 4 was concerned with deciphering the legislative response to the Supreme Court’s Illinois Brick decision. This chapter revealed that the Court’s decision received a lot of criticism. The force of the criticism has driven the legislator to intervene by proposing legislation to overturn these decisions. In 1978, 1983 and 1990-1991 the Congress attempted to overturn the decision but failed to do so. The First Task Force, which has been constituted by the American Bar Association, proposed combining all the claims arising from a violation in one single forum (under one jurisdiction). They argued that this is the only practical alternative to avoid the concerns of the Supreme Court in Illinois Brick. An opt-in regime, aggregating and allocating damages for the whole class in one single forum is proposed. The minority, however, did not agree with these proposals which resulted in a minority report. They argued for an opt-out regime. They argued that, otherwise the claims of all injured persons will be subjected to any favourable or adverse judgment on liability. Instead, the minority proposed a ‘bifurcated procedure’ as a solution. Under this procedure, the defendant‘s violation and aggregate total damages will be determined first, following which defendants would be dismissed from the case. The minority describes the second stage as follows: If an award was made, the various claimant groups would then litigate between themselves their respective rights to share in the aggregate total and any sums remaining undistributed at the conclusion of the proceedings would be given to the state governments in the geographic areas affected. However, this procedure is criticized for being too revolutionary. The minority proposed further a class-wide damages assessment. The calculation of damages consists of a two-step procedure of first determining the aggregate damages to the class and then distributing the damage award proportionally among class member. The Congress’ new attempt to overturn the decision also failed in 1983. The Task Force criticized the proposed legislation because it failed to deal with the fundamental conflict in policy which the Supreme Court has twice resolved, first in Hanover Shoe and then in Illinois Brick. However, the Supreme Court also recognized, as a practical matter, that compensation objectives must sometimes give way to manageability and fairness. In other words, the decisions in Hanover Shoe and Illinois Brick rest at bottom on the inescapable and very real practical problems which are likely to arise in indirect purchaser suits: (i) tracing overcharges; (ii) over-complexity; (iii) possible double recovery; (iv) inconsistent judgments and (v) dilution of interest in enforcing antitrust claims. The Task Force is convinced that the Supreme Court’s Illinois Brick decision to bar indirect purchaser claims was founded on valid concerns. Chapter 5 presents itself as another important cornerstone of this thesis. This chapter provided an extensive analysis of the state responses to the Illinois Brick decision. The problems surrounding the passing-on defence and indirect purchaser standing not only divided the academics but also the courts. Some state courts (and the legislator) have clearly accepted vis-à-vis the Supreme Court, the indirect purchaser standing and the defence of passing-on. Others state courts (and legislator) rejected the passing-on defence but allowed the indirect purchaser standing through Illinois Brick repealers. These states have one common feature: the courts in these states have showed that the Supreme Court’s overstated concerns are not a reason to reject the indirect purchaser standing and passing-on defence. Here, the courts managed to overcome the Supreme Court’s concerns for rejecting both the passing-on defence and indirect purchaser standing. Chapter 6 is finally concerned with the current dual system of antitrust enforcement of the US. The objective of this chapter is to provide a clear understanding of two conflicting views of the US Supreme and state courts regarding the indirect purchaser standing and passing-on defence. Dual enforcement system as currently exists in the US has not only led to inconsistent judgments and uncoordinated litigations in multiple forums. Duplicative federal direct purchaser and state indirect purchaser litigation imposes undue burdens on the judicial system and the parties, wastes resources, increases the risk of duplicative recoveries, skews the parties‘ incentives to settle and hinders efficient global settlements. The Task Force argues that concerns about inconsistent judgments and uncoordinated litigation in multiple forums might be addressed by consolidating in a single court all direct and indirect purchaser actions arising out of the same anticompetitive conduct. However, the Task Force stresses that consolidation alone will not avoid multiple liability. Therefore, the Task Force urges the Congress to provide a mechanism to apportion damages among direct and indirect purchasers. They argue that in the absence of such legislation, consolidation may simply complicate direct purchaser litigation and thereby impair deterrence. PART II Passing-on defence and indirect purchaser standing in Europe Having established the US law on private enforcement, which undoubtedly constitutes a valuable source of inspiration for Europe, the second part focuses on EU and Member State law. Part II considers whether the defence of passing-on and intrinsically linked to it the indirect purchaser standing do or should form part of the EU and national Member States law (Germany, England, Belgium, England and the Netherlands). The focus of chapter 1 is on the antitrust enforcement policy in the EU. The dilemma that emerges, as a policy matter, with regard to the allowance or rejection of passing-on defence andindirect purchaser standing leads to the next question: which objectives, that is deterrence, compensation, efficiency, effectiveness and fairness are most valuated in Europe? The basis of this discussion is that unless a deterrence approach is adopted, the passing-on defence and indirect purchaser standing forms part of EU law. This chapter revealed that both the ECJ and the Commission regard full compensation of all the victims of antitrust infringements as the primary objective of private enforcement. In Europe, as opposed to US, it is generally accepted that any damages award to the victim of any tort should provide for equitable restitution and should not serve as a source of enrichment. Full compensation of all the victims implies further that there can be no a priori as to the standing of all the victims to claim for damages. The ECJ opened the door in Courage and Manfredi to any individual to claim for damages as long as the conditions for tort liability are fulfilled, i.e. proof of infringement, harm and causal link. Chapter 2 provided an extensive analysis of the ECJ’s long standing case law on the development of EU law principles, rights and remedies. These developments are the ‘milestones’ in the course of horizontal liability and the right to claim damages from other individuals under EU law. Analysis of the EU right to damages continues in Chapter 3. This chapter focused exclusively on the ECJ’s twin judgments, i.e. Courage and Manfredi, where it held that there is an EU right to damages for breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, which national Member States must respect. This chapter revealed that it is by all means certain that indirect purchasers do have standing but passing-on defence is an unsolved issue under EU law. Chapter 4 explored the ECJ’s case law on extra-contractual liability of the EU and Member States. The intention was to draw a general picture of the principles, as established by the ECJ, which also may be used as precedents in the field of private enforcement. Chapter 5 was concerned with the conditions which must be fulfilled to establish horizontal liability for breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. This chapter focused, in particular, on national laws of the Member States in order to analyze how the conditions for horizontal liability (e.g. heads of damages, causation) are applied and whether the national laws offers an effective protection of EU law and comply with the EU principles of effectiveness and equivalence. Chapter 6 formed another vital building block for this work. This chapter is divided in four parts and had a twofold purpose. These four parts discussed what the law (in Germany, England, Belgium and the Netherlands) in relation to the defence of passing-on and indirect purchaser is or should be. The view (passing-on defence and indirect purchaser standing allowed) formed in chapters 1, 2, 3 and reiterated here is that the defence is valid and forms part of the law of tort. The second purpose was to find out whether there is any law (case law) on the legal treatment of these issues in these Member States. Chapter 7 and 8 focused on the ECJ’s response to the passing-on defence in restitution cases. The ECJ dealt here with the passing-on defence in the context of extra-contractual liability of the EU and monetary liability of the Member States. The ECJ recognized the defence but did not demand it. The focus of chapter 9 was on the essence of passing-on defence in the law of restitution based on unjust enrichment. This chapter is divided in three major parts, i.e. English, Belgian and Dutch law. The intention was to show that the defence of passing-on forms an integral part of the law of restitution based on unjust enrichment. One common feature of these Member States is that unjust enrichment law is compensatory in character. This feature has important consequences for the defence for two reasons. First, the plaintiff should only be entitled to restitution of the defendant’s enrichment where the claimant has suffered loss. Second, restitution will be denied when the claimant has made good his loss by passing it on. An additional objective of this chapter is to show that the defence of passing-on does not play a role in the undue payment cases. Chapter 10 discussed the European Commission’s initiatives, Green, White and Draft Directive. Finally, general conclusions and proposed options are provided.

    Published
  • journal-article
    Stuyck, Jules; 2014. Prijsvergelijkingenin de detailhandel: ze moeten niet altijd up-to-date zijn. Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Handelsrecht / Revue de Droit Commercial Belge ; 2014; iss. 4; pp. 388 - 393
    LIRIAS1844518
    description

    Publisher: Larcier
    Published
  • journal-article
    Stuyck, Jules; 2014. Much ado about nothing? Een nieuwe etappe in de justitiële saga rond de sperperiodes. Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Handelsrecht / Revue de Droit Commercial Belge ; 2014; iss. 4; pp. 395 - 400
    LIRIAS1844519
    description

    Publisher: Larcier
    Published
  • chapter
    Stuyck, Jules; 2014. Do We Need 'Consumer Protection' for Small Businesses at the EU Level?. VARIETIES OF EUROPEAN ECONOMIC LAW AND REGULATION: LIBER AMICORUM FOR HANS MICKLITZ; 2014; Vol. 3; pp. 359 - 370 Publisher: SPRINGER INT PUBLISHING AG
    LIRIAS1416620
    description


    Published
  • editedbook
    2014. Commercial practices. Publisher: Larcier; Brussel
    LIRIAS1844505
    description


    Published
  • book
    Stuyck, Jules; 2013. Beginselen van Belgisch Privaatrecht, Handels- en economisch recht, Handelspraktijken. Publisher: Kluwer; Mechelen
    LIRIAS1844545
    description


    Published
  • journal-article
    Stuyck, Jules; 2013. Het aankondigen van uitverkopen mag niet vooraf tot bepaalde situaties beperkt worden. Consumentenrecht / Droit de la Consommation ; 2013; iss. 98; pp. 5 - 17
    LIRIAS1844546
    description

    Publisher: Larcier
    Published
  • book
    Stuyck, Jules; 2013. 1993 - Twenty Years Later. The Evolution of Consumer Law in the European Union. Publisher: Intersentia; Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland
    LIRIAS1844547
    description


    Published