In this issue, the Journal of Antitrust Enforcement introduces a new section discussing recent developments in competition law enforcement. This first commentary session explores the significance of the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) holding in Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority. This ruling is the first word of the CAT on the admission of new evidence in appeal proceedings based on rule 21(2) of the CAT Rules 2015. Renato Nazzini and Despoina Mantzari explore the ruling and its policy and practical implications, each from a different perspective offering both a positive and negative account. Nazzini’s comment explores the asymmetric rule set by the ruling in a two-tier administrative system concluding that ‘the approach of the CAT in Ping is, essentially, correct’, while Mantzari’s observations focus on the balance between the rights of defence and effective competition law enforcement arriving at the conclusion that ‘it is not for the CAT to usurp the role of the CMA as the primary fact-finder’. It is still rather early stages to evaluate the impact of the judgment, but the debate will continue and is likely to be fierce.

中文翻译：

---

英国竞争上诉法庭在 Ping v Competition and Markets Authority 案中的裁决

在本期中，《反垄断执法杂志》新增了一个部分，讨论竞争执法的最新发展。第一次评论会议探讨了英国竞争上诉法庭 (CAT) 在 Ping Europe Ltd 诉竞争和市场管理局案中的重要性。该裁决是 CAT 关于根据 2015 年 CAT 规则第 21(2) 条在上诉程序中接纳新证据的第一个字。Renato Nazzini 和 Despoina Mantzari 探讨了该裁决及其政策和实际影响，每个人都来自不同的提供正面和负面帐户的视角。Nazzini 的评论探讨了裁决在两级行政系统中设定的不对称规则，结论是“Ping 中 CAT 的方法基本上是正确的”，而 Mantzari 的观察侧重于辩护权和有效竞争法执法之间的平衡，得出的结论是“不应由 CAT 篡夺 CMA 作为主要事实发现者的角色”。评估判决的影响仍处于早期阶段，但争论将继续，并且可能会非常激烈。