Following two previous reports relating to "Personal Injury Awards in EU and EFTA Countries" this text undertakes further research into the subject. The report provides a guide to an understanding of the personal injury awards system in both the European Union (EU) and European Free Trading Area (EFTA), and looks at the changes that have taken place since 1991. The research compares the levels of compensation awarded to individuals within the member states and sets out recommendations for future procedures. Schedules, tables, graphs and commentary in the report demonstrate findings of each country's method of calculation and the compensation levels which could be expected by two types of hypothetical victim. The information provides a comparison of levels of compensation awarded for personal injury in each of these member countries. As yet, no provision has been made for harmonization of levels of awards in the EC and there are no draft directives or intended draft directives aimed at bringing about uniformity. Research shows that compensation awards vary considerably from country to country, which has an obvious bearing on legal advice to clients concerning where claims should be heard. Levels of award everywhere are influenced by the age and financial status of the injured party, but such factors are weighted differently in each country. In addition, awards for any one type of injury vary between jurisdictions. In order to offer a client the best possible advice on where to sue; a lawyer must be able to compare the levels of awards in the various countries. Large discrepancies between Italian and French awards are revealed as a consequence of the tragic Mont Blanc tunnel fire: Italian awards in fatal cases, depending on the personal status of the victim, are three to four times higher than the equivalent French awards. The text covers 20 jurisdictions, including a separate section on Scotland. It looks in detail at the methods of calculation in each member state by reference to schedules, tables, graphs and commentary on each country's system and the compensation levels which could be expected by two types of hypothetical victim. Potential awards to a married male doctor with two children are compared with those to an unmarried female legal secretary for 14 types of injury in each of these countries. For example, an unmarried female legal secretary with an injury that results in blindness will collect #610,469 in Italy, which is the largest award for that injury in the EU, and #100,000 in Austria, which is one of the smallest. If the legal secretary died, she would be worth 140 times more in Italy than in England. The text has added: exchange rate analyses and inflation comparisons across Europe; further categories of common injuries, namely, deafness, the concept of repetitive strain for several EU & EFTA countries and a schedule for stress (for England and Wales only); block graphs to cover more injuries; and an analysis of the changes which have taken place since the original survey and the survey for the second edition (1994) were carried out.

Over the last three years, the anti-trust environment in Europe has undergone major changes, as the so called process of modernisation gathers pace. In May 2004, the European Commission lost its exclusive jurisdiction to deal with restrictive agreements and dominance. As a result EU Member States' national competition authorities acquired the power to implement European competition rules, as embodied in Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. This decentralisation of power means that companies operating in several Member States must be aware of each jurisdictions' relevant competition rules to ensure full compliance. Those wishing to complain about anti-competitive practices can now choose between different national competition authorities. Being able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different competition regimes is therefore important for both those who wish to ensure compliance and those who want to complain about anti-competitive activities. However by outsourcing the burden of implementing the anti-trust rules, some wonder whether the EU's competition regime has taken a step closer to the US regime. Since 1 May 2004 we have been waiting for an explosion of cases in the national courts based on breaches of the competition rules. To date this has not happened. Is this because of obstacles such as the lack of treble damages, class actions and contingency fees? As a result of the above changes, advising on competition issues in Europe requires not only an understanding of the competition rules in each jurisdiction, but also an understanding of how the national courts deal with competition cases. The second edition of "A Practical Guide to National Competition Rules across Europe" aims to address these issues. Firstly it provides practical information on the competition regimes (including merger control) in each of the EU member states as well as Norway and Switzerland. Secondly it analyses the civil procedure rules in each jurisdiction and considers the extent to which competition litigation is likely to increase in the future. Each country chapter has been prepared by experienced competition lawyers. The second edition of the guide also includes a comparable analysis of the competition rules in Europe with those in other jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United States. Marjorie Holmes is an experienced competition lawyer and litigator and Lesley Davey, a competition lawyer, both from Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP, draw on the information provided in each of the country chapters to reach interesting and important conclusions and recommendations.