Faculty of Education, Social Sciences and Law

School of Law

Contact Details

Dr Mihail Danov

Associate Professor

I joined the Law School in May 2015. Before moving up to Leeds, I was a senior lecturer at Brunel University London.

Research Interests

My research interests are in private international law and competition law. My monograph “Jurisdiction and Judgments in Relation to EU Competition Law Claims” was published in December 2010. In 2010-2012, I coordinated the successful completion of a funded research project (JLS/2009/JCIV/AG/0034-30-CE-0350182/00-68) which resulted in a project book on Cross-Border EU Competition Law Actions (June 2013). At present, I am part of a research consortium working on a project (JUST/2013/JCIV/AG/4635) on Cross-Border Litigation in Europe. The latter project, which is coordinated by the University of Aberdeen, attracted over €730,000.00 in support from the European Commission Civil Justice programme.

Teaching

I am the module leader for:

  • Private International Law
  • Conflict of Laws in Business Transactions
  • Central Issues in Arbitration.

PhD Supervision

I am interested in supervising research students in the areas of private international law and competition law.

Key Publications

Books

  • Danov M, Becker F, Beaumont P, Cross-Border EU Competition Law Actions (Hart Publishing, 2013)

    This book, written within the framework of a research project funded by the European Commission Civil Justice Programme, identifies the ways in which cross-border EU competition law actions can best be handled in Europe.

  • Danov M, Jurisdiction and Judgments in Relation to EU Competition Law Claims (Hart Publishing, 2010)

    This book sets out the way that, through enhanced private antitrust enforcement reform, private international law has a pivotal role in EU competition law disputes with an international element.

Journal articles

  • Danov M, ‘Global competition law framework: A private international law solution needed’, Journal of Private International Law, 12.1 (2016), 77-105
    DOI: 10.1080/17441048.2016.1150103, Repository URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/98923/

    There are a significant number of national competition law systems which prohibit anti-competitive behaviour. The cross-border nature of many antitrust/competition law infringements leaves no doubt that parallel and related competition law proceedings will arise. Competition laws enjoy public policy character, and as a result are regarded as mandatory provisions of the forum. The extra-territorial application of mandatory antitrust law provisions does suggest that different sets of competition laws may be applicable depending on where the competition law proceedings are taking place. Since there may often be a conflict of competition laws, there are complex issues which must be addressed in a global context. This article demonstrates that a private international law tool, which aims to preserve the diverse national competition law cultures, may be used as a new mode of governance in a global context. Such an instrument could/should take account of the competition laws of the countries that have legitimate interests to regulate the relevant business activities. Given the high costs for achieving harmonised competition laws in a global context, agreeing upon a private international law instrument with a view to coordinating cross-border competition law proceedings may be a more realistic objective to be pursued by the international community.

  • Beaumont P, Danov M, ‘The EU Civil Justice Framework and Private Law: ‘Integration through [Private International] Law’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2015
    Repository URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/94414/

    The diverse nature of substantive private law systems across Europe has amplified the development of an EU Civil Justice system based on harmonised EU private international law (PIL) mechanisms. However, the process of European integration and the free movement of people, goods, capital and services in an enlarged and diverse Union poses the question whether the current framework allows litigants to obtain an effective remedy in cross-border cases. The authors argue that the problems of jurisdiction, choice of law and recognition and enforcement of judgments will be recurrent for courts and litigants, and this may adversely affect the level of litigiousness. After analysing several types of cross-border cases brought before the English courts in the European context, the authors make a case that there is a need for an appropriately conducted comparative study to collect empirical evidence which explains the cross-border litigation pattern and assesses the effectiveness of the PIL instruments adopted at Union level. It is concluded that devising an appropriate institutional architecture for the interpretation and application of PIL legislative instruments is key to the creation of a genuine European area of justice as there cannot be rights without appropriate remedies.

  • Danov M, Becker F, ‘Governance Aspects of Cross-Border EU Competition Law Actions’, Journal of Private International Law, 10.3 (2014), 359-401
    DOI: 10.5235/17441048.10.3.359, Repository URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/94415/

    The authors have aimed to produce a theoretical model which considers the choice of governance design of cross-border EU competition law actions. To this end, they have analysed the current litigation pattern (and litigants’ strategies). On this basis, the specific issues which arise in cross-border EU competition law actions have been identified with a view to proposing an appropriate course for any reform in the area. A mix of research methods have been used - in addition to employing traditional library based legal research methods, opinions of legal practitioners from England and Germany and policy-makers from Brussels have been considered. The article demonstrates that, given the diverse nature of the European Union, a new mode of governance should be used by the EU legislator in order to close the EU competition law enforcement gap. The authors suggest that Regulation 1/2003 should incorporate a specifically designated private international law mechanism which promotes inter-jurisdictional regulatory competition in the area of EU competition law dispute resolution, and produces efficient enforcement results in a multi-level system of governance. It has been submitted that some of the specific problems that arise may be best addressed by appropriately drafted private international rules which address inter alia the low mobility of consumers and SMEs.

  • Danov M, ‘EU Competition Law Enforcement: Is Brussels I suited to dealing with all the challenges?’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 61.1 (2012), 27-54
    DOI: 10.1017/S0020589311000637

    There are arguments indicating that Brussels I could be applicable to cross-border competition law proceedings before a National Competition Authority located in one Member State and private EU competition law proceedings before another Member State court. However, an analysis of the current private international law framework appears to indicate that Brussels I is not well suited to deal with the difficulties that could arise in this context. Given the fact that, in the new proposal for a regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments there is no indication that special jurisdictional bases for competition law actions in the successor to Brussels I are on anyone's agenda, an option for a reform may be setting up a new and special regulation to be applicable with regard to EU competition law claims only.

  • Danov M, ‘The Brussels I Regulation: Cross-Border Collective Redress Proceedings and Judgments’, Journal of Private International Law, 6.2 (2010), 359-393
    DOI: 10.5235/174410410792166520

    The absence of any special provision in the Brussels I Regulation for collective redress actions indicates that those claims should be treated in the same way as the other actions that are within the scope of the Regulation. This article provides an analysis of how the European and domestic policy favouring collective redress actions can be implemented under the existing provisions for jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under the Brussels I Regime. Some suggestions are made to indicate how Brussels I could be reformed to facilitate effective collective redress proceedings in Europe.

© Copyright Leeds 2016