We are pleased to inform you that the next LIDC Congress will be held in Bucharest, Romania, from 15 to 18th October 2026.
Further details will follow in due course, but we kindly ask you to already save the date !
Please also find below the draft Question A and Question B, as well as the timeline for the Springer reports :
Question A: “To what extent and in what way have the negotiated procedures (leniency, commitments, settlements and, where applicable, consent decrees) improved the effectiveness of Antitrust Law without unduly conflicting with fundamental principles such as the rights of defense and confidentiality ?”
International Rapporteur : Prof. Dr. Eckart Bueren
Context : Procedures for the public enforcement of antitrust rules are long and very resource intensive. This is because their very ambitious public policy objectives are only matched by the seriousness of their consequences. Moreover, the procedures regularly involve collecting and carefully scrutinizing a huge amount of evidence which needs to then be analyzed through a variety of economic and legal lenses in order to check whether it supports one of the many theories of harm antitrust law is now concerned with.
In this context, negotiated procedures, which result in a quicker restoration of the competitive landscape but under terms which are acceptable to both the competition authorities and the undertakings under investigation, which benefit consumers and also allow for the limited public resources to last for even more antitrust enforcement procedures, appear as very important policy tools. This was, in general, also proven in practice by their wide adoption, once enacted.
A variety of negotiated procedures was gradually made available for the goal of balancing different incentives and objectives: assistance in the detection of antitrust infringements and the gathering of evidence (e.g. leniency), the faster restoration of the competitive landscape (e.g. commitments), the faster resolution of the case and avoiding prolonged annulment litigation (e.g. settlements), or some part of each of these (consent decrees).
However, negotiated procedures, being concluded between the competition authority and the undertakings under investigation, do not generally include a full and exhaustive analysis of the facts and legal arguments pertaining to the infringement and, in some cases, are not subject to review by the courts. Therefore questions arise regarding whether the effectiveness of this type of procedure is up to the standard of effectiveness of antitrust law and how is the public interest served by such procedure being concluded instead of a full investigation being conducted.
Moreover, not only the rights and interests of the general public need to be addressed, but also the rights and interests of the investigated undertakings and of the other persons impacted by the investigation (e.g. author of the complaint, possible claimants of private damages etc.). The need to protect the fundamental rights and principles of all these various parties must be weaved into how these procedures are designed, how they differ from each other and into how they can be used.
Question B: “To what extent does intellectual property law recognize the evolving concept of “art,” including in the context of AI-assisted creation, and how does this shape the limits between the different types of Intellectual Property Rights and their role in enabling innovation, investment and the monetization of creative outputs?”
Context : Next year marks one hundred years since Constantin Brâncuși cast one of his Bird in Space statues, a work that traveled to the United States and prompted the courts to ask: “What is art in the eyes of the law?”
In the century since, both art and our understanding of it have transformed dramatically. Artistic expression has taken countless forms, propelled by technological developments, and is now consumed—and monetized—in ways far removed from those imaginable when the Bird in Space case was argued.
As intellectual property law remains the primary framework for protecting and monetizing artistic expression, it is imperative that it evolves in step with contemporary conceptions of art. IP law must ensure that its incentive producing mechanisms are properly aligned with new dimensions of artistic creation and the technological means of making, disseminating, and consuming art.
At its most ambitious reading, the question seeks to explore how “art” is understood within the protected domain of intellectual property law—whether under creative, utilitarian, or distinctive regimes of protection—the boundaries of that understanding (for example, whether the law should operate with closed or open lists of protected subject matter and where those boundaries should be drawn), and how the relationship between art and the technological means of its production should be defined, particularly in the context of AI assisted creation. Ultimately, it asks how these evolving dynamics will affect artists, businesses, and society at large in terms of fostering innovation, attracting investment, and generating value.