Competition law enforcement, whether by public officials, private parties and consumers or the courts, has to resolve informational and resource asymmetries. Current EU competition law establishes an interface between government enforcement action and private litigation. For the EU Commission, informational asymmetries will be primarily addressed under positive comity agreements with other countries and its leniency programme. For private parties, the success of a stand-alone or follow-on action for damages critically depends on disclosure of documents. The Court of Justice of the European Union attempts to strike a balance between disclosure and the Commission’s preference for confidentiality. Nonetheless, the EU law concept of effectiveness and equivalence of competition law enforcement does not supersede national law rules on procedure or liability of private parties. The Court of Justice applies a negative harmonisation strategy towards national laws. Where appropriate, the paper will assess enforcement practice under U.S. law.

竞争执法，无论是由政府官员、私人团体和消费者还是法院执行，都必须解决信息和资源不对称问题。现行欧盟竞争法在政府执法行动和私人诉讼之间建立了联系。对于欧盟委员会来说，信息不对称问题将主要通过与其他国家的积极礼让协议及其宽大处理计划来解决。对于私人当事人来说，单独或后续损害赔偿诉讼的成功关键取决于文件的披露。欧盟法院试图在披露与委员会对保密的偏好之间取得平衡。尽管如此，欧盟法律关于竞争执法的有效性和等同性的概念并不取代关于私人当事人的程序或责任的国家法律规则。法院对国家法律采取消极协调策略。在适当的情况下，本文将评估美国法律下的执法实践。