Legal competition experts

Prof. Avv. Davide Maresca is currently managing partner of the Maresca & Partners law firm in Brussels and Genoa, where he has gained specific experience in the field of state aid, competition and regulation of transport infrastructures.

Il Prof. Avv. Davide Maresca è attualmente managing partner dello studio legale Maresca&Partners a Bruxelles e Genova, dove ha maturato specifica esperienza in materia di aiuti di stato, concorrenza e regolazione delle infrastrutture di trasporto.

The Firm has always paid a great deal of attention to the discipline dictated by the European Union in the matters of liberalization of services, privatizations, transport, labor, the environment, consumers, competition and, in general, the internal implementation of the most important Community policies.

Particularly important is the activity performed before the European Commission and the European Courts (Court of Justice and Court of First Instance) as well as the corporate consultancy activity regarding conduct compliant with EU regulations. The Firm constantly follows the procedures it is invested with before the institutions of the European Union using a dedicated structure in Brussels.

The firm boasts a consolidated experience in competition matters both internally and at community level. The activity was concentrated in the treatment of numerous cases of abuse of a dominant position, agreements / cartels and concentrations. On many occasions our lawyers have dealt with liberalized economic sectors as well as the IT sector (in particular the production, trade and use of software) and infrastructures.

Particular relevance is represented by the state aid and internal market activity, with reference to the free movement of services, goods and capital, as well as the award of public contracts and concessions.

In assisting M&A and privatization operations, in addition to the corporate aspects, the Firm pays particular attention to the prevention and resolution of situations actually or potentially distorting competition.

Lo Studio dedica da sempre moltissima attenzione alla disciplina dettata dall’Unione europea nelle materie della liberalizzazione dei servizi, delle privatizzazioni, del trasporto, del lavoro, dell’ambiente, dei consumatori, della concorrenza e, in generale, dell’attuazione interna delle più importanti politiche comunitarie.

Particolare rilevanza ha l’attività prestata davanti alla Commissione europea e alle Corti europee (Corte di giustizia e Tribunale di primo grado) nonchè l’attività di consulenza societaria in ordine ai comportamenti conformi alla disciplina comunitaria. Lo Studiosegue costantemente le procedure di cui è investito davanti alle istituzioni dell’Unione europea avvalendosi si una struttura dedicata a Bruxelles.

Lo Studio vanta una consolidata esperienza nella materia della concorrenza tanto a livello interno quanto a livello comunitario. L’attività si è concentrata nella trattazione di numerosi casi di abuso di posizione dominante, intese/cartelli e concentrazioni. In molte occasioni i nostri avvocati si sono occupati di settori economici oggetto di liberalizzazione nonchè del settore dell’informatica (in particolare della produzione, commercio e utilizzazione di software) e delle infrastrutture.

Particolare rilevanza è rappresentata dall’attività in materia di aiuti di stato e mercato interno, con  riferimento alla libera circolazione dei servizi, delle merci e dei capitali nonché all’aggiudicazione degli appalti pubblici e delle concessioni.

Nell’assistenza ad operazioni di M&A e di privatizzazioni, oltre agli aspetti societari, lo Studio dedica particolare attenzione alla prevenzione ed alla risoluzione di situazioni effettivamente o potenzialmente distorsive della concorrenza.


Via Assarotti, 17, 16122 Genova GE
Rue de la science 14b – 1040, Bruxelles
Tel +39010813677 – +39010814718 – +32486976743
Fax +39010873336


“Market” is any area within which the meeting between supply and demand for goods and services takes place and the exchange of them through the price mechanism, determined precisely by this meeting: operators decide independently and individually their behavior, in particular, the prices and quantities of sales and purchases, such that the overall market performance, in terms of global prices and quantities, is the result of the countless decentralized decisions taken by the actors operating there and their interactions. The term “competition” can have two meanings and both presuppose the notion of market set out: one of them refers to the conduct of companies, the other to a particular structural conformation of the market. The first meaning is that which recalls rivalry, competition and struggle between companies, which implement independent behavior in order to increase their position on the market, to the detriment of rivals. The second, however, consists of the situation characterized by a large number of operators on the market, each of which offers such a small share of the same product or service that it is not able to individually influence the price level following a change in the quantity offered.

For the polysemy of the term “market” see, in particular, M.R. FERRARESE, Law and market, Turin, 1992, p. 17 ss., Which sorts the variety of meanings into four categories: a) market as place; b) market as ideology; c) market as a paradigm of social action; d) market as an institution.

Summarizes the characteristics of the market economy model: a) free market of production factors (raw materials, capital and labor); b) freedom of private economic initiative; c) organization of the private enterprise according to the principle of capital sovereignty; d) free play of competition; e) consumer sovereignty.


Romano Pisciotti browsing the web….about antitrust

USA: The National Law of Unfair Competition

Unfair competition criminal act Romano Pisciotti
Unfair competition

Romano Pisciotti recommends this book about business competition, infringement of the Law and antitrust:

Harvard Law Review Romano pisciotti docet
Harvard Law Review

Charles Bunn
Harvard Law Review
Vol. 62, No. 6 (Apr., 1949), pp. 987-1001
Published by: The Harvard Law Review Association
DOI: 10.2307/1336314
Stable URL: