8. Germany

Act Against Restraints of Competition in the version published on 26 July 2013 (Bundesgesetzblatt (Federal Law Gazette) I, page 1750, 3245), as last amended by Article 2(78) of the Act of 7 August 2013 (Federal Law Gazette I, page 3154).

H.-J. Bunte, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2008, p. 400f.; J. Hoffmann and M.E. Orth et al., § 12 Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in: Terhechte, Internationales Kartell- und Fusionskontrollverfahrensrecht, 2008, § 12, paras 33, 40 et seq.

Council Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1.

Briefly C. Becker, in: Löwenheim, Meessen and Riesenkampff, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2009, § 51 GWB, para 1; generally M. Ibler, in: Maunz and Dürig, Grundgesetz-Kommentar, 69^th supplement 2013, Article 87 GG, paras 249–255.

M. Kling and S. Thomas, Kartellrecht, 2007, pp. 809 et seq.; S. Klaue, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 51 GWB, para 5. It is in dispute to what extent individual instructions by the superordinate German Ministry of Economics are admissible. The majority view answers the question at least partially in the affirmative; see, e.g., R. Bechtold, in: Kartellgesetz: GWB, 7^th ed. 2013, § 52 GWB, para 3; differentiating S. Klaue, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 51 GWB, paras 11 et seq., both with further references; against such instructions arguably V. Emmerich, Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2012, pp. 591 et seq.

J, Hoffmann and M.E. Orth et al., § 12 Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in: Terhechte, Internationales Kartell- und Fusionskontrollverfahrensrecht, 2008, § 51, para 34; H.-J. Bunte, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2008, p. 399f.

Administrative offence proceedings are initiated by the first measure of the competition authority whose evident intention is to take legal actions against somebody because of an administrative offence, G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, Vor § 81 GWB, para 202.

See sec. 47(1) of the OWiG.

G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, Vor § 81 GWB, paras 195 et seqq.

Sections 54 et seqq., 81 et seqq. of the GWB. The two types of procedures are regulated separately in German law, unlike in European competition procedure. For a short overview, see H.-J. Bunte, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2008, pp. 413–419; for a detailed comprehensive description of German competition procedure, see J. Hoffmann and M.E. Orth et al., § 12 Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in: Terhechte, Internationales Kartell- und Fusionskontrollverfahrensrecht, 2008, § 12, paras 1–257.

German Code of Administrative Procedure in the version published on 23 January 2003 (federal law gazette BGBl. I, p. 102), as last amended by Article 2(1) 1 of the law of 14. August 2009 (Federal Law Gazette BGBl. I, p. 2827).

Exceptions apply insofar as it would impede the FCO properly discharging its duties and insofar it is required by legitimate interests of other parties or affected persons in confidentiality, see further K. Schmidt and A. Bach, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 56 GWB, para 10.

Act on Regulatory Offences in the version published on 19 February 1987 (Federal Law Gazette [BGBl.] I, p. 602), as last amended by Article 4(58) of the Act of 7 August 2013 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 3154).

Code of Criminal Procedure in the version published on 7 April 1987 (Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] Part I, pp. 1074, 1319), as last amended by Article 3 of the Act of 23 April 2014 (Federal Law Gazette Part I, p. 410).

For a short English description of the procedure, see Bundeskartellamt, The Bundeskartellamt in Bonn, Organisation, Tasks and Activities, Sept. 2011, p. 26.

Criminal Code in the version promulgated on 13 November 1998 (Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I, p. 3322), as last amended by Article 1 of the Law of 22 December 2010 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2300).

For an in-depth treatment, see G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, Vor § 81 GWB, paras 136 et seqq.

Sec. 21(1)1 of the OWiG; see further G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, Vor § 81 GWB, paras 175 et seqq.

See sec. 40 of the OWiG.

If the public prosecution office should later discontinue the proceedings only in respect of the criminal offence, but there are indications to the effect that the offence may be prosecuted as a regulatory offence, it shall transfer the case back to the administrative authority; sec. 43(1) of the OWiG.

Bekanntmachung Nr. 68/2000 über Richtlinien des Bundeskartellamtes für die Festsetzung von Geldbußen (Bonusregelung), published by the FCO on 17^th April 2000, and afterwards in the German Federal Gazette (Bundesanzeiger) of May 4^th, 2000, No. 84, p. 8336.

See further G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 81, paras 418, 425, 428; for a detailed comparison of the old and the new version of the German leniency programme, see M.M. Ohle and S. Albrecht, Die neue Bonusregelung des Bundeskartellamtes in Kartellsachen, WRP 7/2006, 866 et seqq.

Cf. G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, Vor § 81, para 206 and § 81, para 422. This implies that, if a leniency applicant appeals the FCA’s decision granting him immunity or a reduction of the fine, the court might come to the conclusion that the reward granted by the FCA was in whole or in part unjustified and therefore increase the fine inflicted by the FCA.

The legislator understood this to be a clarification that the FCO may adopt a leniency policy, which had previously been disputed by scholars; see Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Siebten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, BT-Drucks. 15/3640, p. 67. A further amendment in December 2007 (Gesetz zur Bekämpfung von Preismissbrauch im Bereich der Energieversorgung und des Lebensmittelhandels, BGBl. I 2966) clarified that sec. 81(7) of the GWB applies in particular to setting the amount of the fine.

See C. Roxin and B. Schünemann, Strafverfahrensrecht, 27^th ed. 2012, § 14, paras 19 et seq., who are very critical of sec. 46b StGB.

OJ 1996 C 207, pp. 4–6. See Bundeskartellamt, Activity Report 1999–2000 (Bericht des Bundeskartellamts über seine Tätigkeit in den Jahren 1999/2000 sowie über die Lage und Entwicklung auf seinem Aufgabengebiet), BT-Drucks. 14/6300 of June 22^nd 2001, p. 43.

OJ 2006 C 298, pp. 17–22.

Bundeskartellamt, Activity Report 2005–2006 (English version), pp. 11, 14–16.

See ECN Model Leniency Programme 2006, para 15; ECN Model Leniency Programme 2012, para 15.

Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ 2006 C 298, p. 17, paras 16, 19.

See J. Burrichter and E. Ahlenstiel, Integrating Public and Private Enforcement in Europe: Legal and Jurisdictional Issues – The German Perspective, in: Lowe and Marquis, European competition law annual 2011, 2014, pp. 95, 100.

Bundeskartellamt, Tätigkeitsbericht 2011–2012, BT-Drucks. 17/13675, p. 28.

For a detailed discussion, see, e.g., R. Zagrosek, Kronzeugenregelungen im U.S.-amerikanischen, europäischen und deutschen Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, 2006, pp. 117 et seqq., 166 et seqq., 213 et seqq.

Doubting G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 81, para 425.

R. Zagrosek, Kronzeugenregelungen im U.S.-amerikanischen, europäischen und deutschen Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, 2006, pp. 119 et seqq.; G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 81, para 440.

See M.M. Ohle and S. Albrecht, Die neue Bonusregelung des Bundeskartellamtes in Kartellsachen, WRP 7/2006, 866, 870; G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 81, para 440.

See further U. Di Fabio, in: Maunz and Dürig, Grundgesetz-Kommentar, 69^th supplement 2013, Article 2, paras 224 et seq.

With respect to the right to remain silent (Aussageverweigerungsrecht), see, e.g., H. Wrage-Molkenthin and W. Bauer, in: Frankfurter Kommentar zum Kartellrecht, Vorbem. § 81–86 GWB 2005 (Lfg. 71 May 2010), paras 50 et seq.; C. Vollmer, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 81, para 157; Rogall, in: Karlsruher Kommentar zum OWiG, 3^rd ed. 2006, § 30, para 188; P. Schuler, Zur Diskussion um ein Aussageverweigerungsrecht juristischer Personen, JR 2003, 265. With respect to the right as a witness to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions, M. Klusmann, in: Wiedemann, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2008, § 57, para 37; G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, Vor § 81, paras 215 et seqq.

BVerfG BB 1975, 1315.

BVerfGE 95, 220.

Cf. BVerfGE 57, 250=NJW 1981, 1719, 1722; P. Hetzel, Kronzeugenregelungen im Kartellrecht, 2004, p. 266.

On the following, see R. Zagrosek, Kronzeugenregelungen im U.S.-amerikanischen, europäischen und deutschen Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, 2006, pp. 168 et seqq.; P. Hetzel, Kronzeugenregelungen im Kartellrecht, 2004, pp. 266 et seqq.

R. Zagrosek, Kronzeugenregelungen im U.S.-amerikanischen, europäischen und deutschen Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, 2006, p. 179; P. Hetzel, Kronzeugenregelungen im Kartellrecht, 2004, p. 270.

P. Hetzel, Kronzeugenregelungen im Kartellrecht, 2004, p. 260.

See H. Wrage-Molkenthin and W. Bauer, in: Frankfurter Kommentar zum Kartellrecht, Vorbem. § 81–86 GWB 2005 (Lfg. 71 May 2010), paras 5 et seqq., 18 seqq. (however partly still critical); T. Wiesner, Der Kronzeuge im Kartellrecht, 2004, pp. 118 et seqq.; R. Zagrosek, Kronzeugenregelungen im U.S.-amerikanischen, europäischen und deutschen Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, 2006, pp. 213 et seqq.; P. Hetzel, Kronzeugenregelungen im Kartellrecht, 2004, pp. 259 et seqq.

OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of March 23^rd 2006—VI-2 Kart 3/05 OWi=WuW/E DE-R 1733–1749, partly reversed on other grounds by BGH NJW 2007, 3792.

OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of March 30^th 2009—VI-2 Kart 10/08 OWi, 2 Kart 10/08.

G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, Vor § 81 GWB, paras 248, 250.

According to J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, p. 471, the practice of settling administrative offence proceedings began already shortly after the entry into force of the GWB in 1958. K.E.T. De Maiziere, Die Praxis der informellen Verfahren beim Bundeskartellamt, 1986, p. 9, already explains that negotiating the fine had been commonplace for many years. He reports that in the beginning of the 80s, there was, however, an internal order not to make the amount of the fine a subject matter of negotiation any more, though this could occur nevertheless on a case-by-case basis. More recent publications on the matter do not mention such an internal order. Now, the general requirements for settlements set by the courts arguably leave no room for such an order (any more) because the FCO president has no authority to give instructions to the Decision Divisions (on the latter, see S. Klaue, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 51 GWB, para 5).

J. Burrichter and D. Zimmer, Reflections on the Implementation of a ‘Plea Bargaining’/‘Direct Settlement’ System in EC Competition Law, in: Ehlermann and Atanasiu, European Competition Law Annual 2007, 2007, pp. 611, 612.

S. Prange and M.C. Schneider, Um jeden Preis, Handelsblatt No. 37 of February 23^rd 2010, p. 8, 9.

A. Mundt (FCO president), Alternative Instrumente der Kartellbehörden, 44. Innsbrucker Symposium des FIW, 10. März 2011 in Innsbruck, pp. 13 et seq.; see further C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350, 350 et seq.

See Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22.01.2008), pp. 103, 103 et seq.; G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, Vor § 81 GWB, paras 205 et seqq., both with further references and an overview about important requirements; for an in-depth treatment, see G. Pfeiffer and R. Hannich, in: Karlsruher Kommentar zum OWiG, 3^rd ed. 2006, Einleitung, paras 29d-29g. Applying these requirements by analogy is justified by the fact that proceedings in which the GWB is enforced by way of fines are to be classified as administrative offence proceedings (Ordnungswidrigkeitenverfahren).

Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22 January 2008), pp. 103, 104 et seq.; C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350, 351 et seq.; on the prohibition of a waiver of legal remedy, see also ICN Cartel Working Group, Cartel Settlements, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, April 2008, p. 29; for a general overview about the case law, Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, 56^th ed. 2013, Einl. paras 119f et seq.

Federal Law Gazette (BGBl) 2009 part I No. 49 of 03 August 2009, pp. 2353 et seq. See further below: 3. (Negotiated) Agreements on the Further Course and Outcome in Criminal.

Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, BT-Drucks. 16/12310 of 18 March 2009, p. 16.

Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, BT-Drucks. 16/12310 of 18 March 2009, p. 16.

However, a change seems possible with respect to whether an admission/confession is allowed as evidence in proceedings after a settlement has failed. According to the case law of the German Federal Court (BGH) (though not completely uniform) before the statutory regulation of the matter in criminal procedure, the confession/admission could still be used; see H.-H. Kühne, in: Löwe and Rosenberg, Die Strafprozeßordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, 26^th ed. 2006, Einleitung G, para 63; R. Kölbel, Geständnisverwertung bei missglückter Absprache, NStZ 2003, 232, 233, both with further references. By contrast, sec. 257c(4)3 of the StPO new version now stipulates that the defendant’s confession may not be used in such cases. The government’s statement of reasons concerning the Act justifies this with the defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial (Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, BT-Drucks. 16/12310 of 18.03.2009, p. 14; likewise Meyer-Goßner, in: Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, 56^th ed. 2013, § 257c StPO, para 28). Accepting this reasoning, the same should apply in administrative offence proceedings before authorities as one of the aforementioned key requirements of the rule of law or via sec. 46 of the OWiG, C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350 and fn. 67; B. Brenner, “Settlements” in Kartellverfahren des Bundeskartellamtes – Perspektiven und Grenzen, WuW 2011, 590, 594. In any case, however, the FCO seems to have held the opinion already before the reform that a confession cannot be used as evidence after a settlement failed; see ICN Cartel Working Group, Cartel Settlements, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, April 2008, p. 30. For a further change, see below text accompanying fn. 129.

J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 473.

Bundeskartellamt, Case summary from 8 March 2010, Fine proceedings against coffee roasters on account of price fixing (B11–18/08), pp. 3 et seq.

Cf. the description of the FCOs settlement practice in the authority’s Activity Report 2007/2008, p. 35.

Bundeskartellamt, Case summary from 8 March 2010, Fine proceedings against coffee roasters on account of price fixing (B11–18/08), p. 3.

Bundeskartellamt, Merkblatt: Das Settlement-Verfahren des Bundeskartellamtes in Bußgeldsachen.

The German version of this case summary was published on 14 January 2010.

The explanatory notes to the Guidelines for the setting of fines in cartel administrative offence proceedings of 25 June 2013, p. 4 (Re: para 18, Note 2), mention only the latter two documents as the FCO’s guidelines on settlement agreements; this is, however, explained by the fact that the fining guidelines predate the FCOs’ explanatory leaflet on the settlement procedure.

The Bundeskartellamt does not mention details on the course and content of settlements in its case reports.

See in particular C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350 et seqq.

J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 473; on the more recent practice see C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350, 350.

J. Burrichter and D. Zimmer, Reflections on the Implementation of a ‘Plea Bargaining’/‘Direct Settlement’ System in EC Competition Law, in: Ehlermann and Atanasiu, European Competition Law Annual 2007, 2007, pp. 611, 612 et seq.

Cf. Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22.01.2008), pp. 103, 105.

In particular already shortly after a dawn raid, cf. ICN Cartel Working Group, Cartel Settlements, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, April 2008, p. 29; J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 473; generally. Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22 January 2008), pp. 103, 105.

Bundeskartellamt, Tätigkeitsbericht 2007/2008, p. 35; C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350, 353.

Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22.01.2008), pp. 103, 105 et seq.; J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 477.

C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350, 350 et seq., reports that since the end of 2007 almost one third of all settlements have been hybrid cases; J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 476 et seq.

J. Burrichter and D. Zimmer, Reflections on the Implementation of a ‘Plea Bargaining’/‘Direct Settlement’ System in EC Competition Law, in: Ehlermann and Atanasiu, European Competition Law Annual 2007, 2007, pp. 611, 613; Bundeskartellamt, Case summary from 8.3.2010, Fine proceedings against coffee roasters on account of price fixing, (B11–18/08), p. 3.

ICN Cartel Working Group, Cartel Settlements, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, April 2008, p. 30; arguably also J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 473.

J. Burrichter and D. Zimmer, Reflections on the Implementation of a ‘Plea Bargaining’/‘Direct Settlement’ System in EC Competition Law, in: Ehlermann and Atanasiu, European Competition Law Annual 2007, 2007, pp. 611, 613.

Bundeskartellamt, Case summary from 8.3.2010, Fine proceedings against coffee roasters on account of price fixing, (B11–18/08), p. 3; C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350, 354; J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 473; very critical S. Prange and M.C. Schneider, Um jeden Preis, Handelsblatt No. 37 of February 23^rd 2010, pp. 8, 9 (“Blindflug-Verfahren”).

A. Mundt (FCO president), Alternative Instrumente der Kartellbehörden, 44. Innsbrucker Symposium des FIW, 10. März 2011 in Innsbruck, p. 17.

Bundeskartellamt, Case summary from 8.3.2010, Fine proceedings against coffee roasters on account of price fixing, (B11–18/08), p. 3; C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350, 353 et seq.; critical S. Prange and M.C. Schneider, Um jeden Preis, Handelsblatt No. 37 of February 23^rd 2010, pp. 8, 9.

Bundeskartellamt, Case summary from 8.3.2010, Fine proceedings against coffee roasters on account of price fixing, (B11–18/08), p. 3; C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350, 354.

Bundeskartellamt, Case summary from 8 March 2010, Fine proceedings against coffee roasters on account of price fixing, (B11–18/08), p. 4; C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350, 354.

Bundeskartellamt, Tätigkeitsbericht 2007/2008, p. 35, Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22 January 2008), pp. 103, 105; J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 476.

For an overview, see J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 474–477.

Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22 January 2008), pp. 103, 104, 106; J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 475.

J. Burrichter and D. Zimmer, Reflections on the Implementation of a ‘Plea Bargaining’/‘Direct Settlement’ System in EC Competition Law, in: Ehlermann and Atanasiu, European Competition Law Annual 2007, 2007, pp. 611, 613.

Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22 January 2008), pp. 103, 104, 106; ICN Cartel Working Group, Cartel Settlements, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, April 2008, p. 30; J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 477.

ICN Cartel Working Group, Cartel Settlements, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, April 2008, p. 30; Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22 January 2008), pp. 103, 104. The FCO stresses, however, that it is prepared to close or limit proceedings against other parties as part of a settlement only if there are further reasons supporting this.

See ICN Cartel Working Group, Cartel Settlements, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, April 2008, p. 30; J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 474; Bundeskartellamt, Tätigkeitsbericht 2005/2006, p. 35.

J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 474, 476.

See Bundeskartellamt, Case Summary, Retraction of Price Agreement for Colistin Antibiotics, B 3—144/08, available at http://​www.​bundeskartellamt​.​de/​SharedDocs/​Entscheidung/​EN/​Fallberichte/​Kartellverbot/​2009/​B3-144-08.​pdf?​_​_​blob=​publicationFile&​v=​4. With respect to Grünenthal, the FCO also pointed to the extensive cooperation with the investigations.

G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, Vor § 81 GWB, para 210.

J. Burrichter and D. Zimmer, Reflections on the Implementation of a ‘Plea Bargaining’/‘Direct Settlement’ System in EC Competition Law, in: Ehlermann and Atanasiu, European Competition Law Annual 2007, 2007, pp. 611, 613.

Bundeskartellamt, Case summary from 8.3.2010, Fine proceedings against coffee roasters on account of price fixing, (B11–18/08), p. 3; J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 473 et seq. A statement of objections is not required by law as such because sec. § 55(1) of the OWiG does not clearly specify how the person concerned shall be heard; cf. C. Vollmer, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 81 GWB, para 158.

Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22 January 2008), pp. 103, 105; J. Burrichter and D. Zimmer, Reflections on the Implementation of a ‘Plea Bargaining’/‘Direct Settlement’ System in EC Competition Law, in: Ehlermann and Atanasiu, European Competition Law Annual 2007, 2007, pp. 611, 613.

J. Burrichter and D. Zimmer, Reflections on the Implementation of a ‘Plea Bargaining’/‘Direct Settlement’ System in EC Competition Law, in: Ehlermann and Atanasiu, European Competition Law Annual 2007, 2007, pp. 611, 613.

J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 472; J. Burrichter and D. Zimmer, Reflections on the Implementation of a ‘Plea Bargaining’/‘Direct Settlement’ System in EC Competition Law, in: Ehlermann and Atanasiu, European Competition Law Annual 2007, 2007, pp. 611, 613; ICN Cartel Working Group, Cartel Settlements, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, April 2008, p. 30.

Bundeskartellamt, Tätigkeitsbericht 2007/2008, p. 35, where it is indicated that the Decision Division will examine, depending on the timing of the settlement, to what extent it grants further reductions on account of procedural economies, for instance by not prosecuting minor parts of the infringement within the scope of its discretion in taking up a case.

Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22 January 2008), pp. 103, 106.

J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 474–477, in particular p. 475.

J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 475.

Bundeskartellamt, Case summary from 8.3.2010, Fine proceedings against coffee roasters on account of price fixing, (B11–18/08), p. 3; J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 475; likewise already Bundeskartellamt, Tätigkeitsbericht 2005/2006, p. 35. At the same time, however, it still seems to be possible to make the scope of the (prosecuted) infringement a subject of settlement discussions; see suggestive of this C. Vollmer, Settlements in German Competition Law, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(7), 350, 352. As this practice (as far as can be seen) has not been abandoned, it seems doubtful whether the decrease of the upper limit for fine reductions from 15 % to 10 % is effectively associated with lower overall benefits.

See, e.g., N. Kroes, Assessment of and perspectives for competition policy in Europe, Celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, Barcelona, 19th November 2007, SPEECH/07/722, p. 5. (“By introducing a settlement phase, the Commission increases companies’ options to be informed earlier of potential objections and of the evidence supporting them. It is a unique opportunity to be informed of the likely range of fines prior to the adoption of the final decision. On the basis of these facts and documents, the parties will have the opportunity to express their views to the Commission, in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice as mentioned in particular in article 16 of the Commission’s notice. This will allow companies to influence even the contents of the statement of objections and, thereby, of the decision itself.”)

With respect to the European settlement procedure, J. Joshua and K. Hugmark et al., What’s the Deal? Navigating the European Commission’s Settlement Notice, Eur. Antitrust Rev. 2009, 23, 24 et seq.; J. Lawrence and M. O’Kane u. a., Hardcore Bargains: What Could Plea Bargaining Offer in UK Criminal Cartel Cases?, Comp Law 2008, 17, 35.

See with respect to the European settlement procedure J.-F. Bellis, in: Gheur, Alternative enforcement techniques in EC competition law, 2009, pp. 3, 5; Y. van Bael and J.-F. Bellis, Competition law of the European Community, 5^th ed 2010, p. 1173; M. Siragusa and E. Guerri, Antitrust Settlements under EC Competition Law: The Point of View of the Defendants, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 185, 198 et seq.

S. Hirsbrunner, Settlements in EU-Kartellverfahren – Kritische Anmerkungen nach den ersten Anwendungsfällen, EuZW 2011, 12, 15.

See in detail E. Bueren, Verständigungen – Settlements in Kartellbußgeldverfahren, 2011, pp. 297–301.

See C. Stanbrook and J.F. Winterscheid, First Antitrust Settlements Reached with European Commission, International Securitization & Finance Report, Vol 13, No. 14, July 31^st, 2010, p. 5; S.-P. Brankin, The First Cases under the Commission’s Cartel Settlement Procedure: Problems Solved?, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(4), 165, 168 et seq.; A. Ortega González, The Cartel Settlement Procedure in Practice, E.C.L.R. 2011, 32(4), 170, 173; cf. also European Commission, IP/10/586—DRAM; European Commission, IP/10/985—animal feed phosphates; European Commission, IP/11/473—washing powder, p. 2.

A. Mundt (FCO president), Alternative Instrumente der Kartellbehörden, 44. Innsbrucker Symposium des FIW, 10. März 2011 in Innsbruck, p. 16.

For more details, see J. Hoffmann and M.E. Orth et al., § 12 Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in: Terhechte, Internationales Kartell- und Fusionskontrollverfahrensrecht, 2008, § 12, para 235; G. Dannecker and J. Biermann, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, Vor § 81 GWB, para 249.

C. Vollmer, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 82a GWB, para 3; see further C. Barth and S. Budde, Die Stellung des Bundeskartellamtes im gerichtlichen Verfahren, WuW 2010, 377.

J. Burrichter, Settlements in Cartel Cases: Practical Experience in Germany, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 471, 477.

Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, BT-Drucks. 16/12310 of 18 March 2009, pp. 15 et seq.

At least before the statutory regulation of negotiated agreements in criminal procedure, such settlements before the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf seem to have been frequent and quite welcome from the part of the court; see Bundeskartellamt, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22 January 2008), pp. 103, 107.

See R. Zagrosek, Kronzeugenregelungen im U.S.-amerikanischen, europäischen und deutschen Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, 2006, pp. 180 et seqq.

See below 3. (Negotiated) Agreements on the Further Course and Outcome in Criminal.

A. Mundt (FCO president), Alternative Instrumente der Kartellbehörden, 44. Innsbrucker Symposium des FIW, 10. März 2011 in Innsbruck, p. 15.

This is due to the fact that as soon as the settlement decision against a potential witness has become final, the witness loses his right to refuse to answer any questions the reply to which would subject him to the risk of being prosecuted for a criminal offence or a regulatory offence (sec. 55 of the StPO).

A. Mundt (FCO president), Alternative Instrumente der Kartellbehörden, 44. Innsbrucker Symposium des FIW, 10. März 2011 in Innsbruck, p. 16.

See Antitrust: Commission introduces settlement procedure for cartels – frequently asked questions, MEMO/08/458, p. 1; N. Kroes, Settlements in cartel cases, 12th Annual Competition Conference, Fiesole, 19th September 2008, SPEECH/08/445, S. 4; J. Almunia, First cartel decision under settlement procedure – Introductory remarks, Press conference – Berlaymont press room, Brussels, 19 May 2010, SPEECH/10/247, pp. 2 et seq.; K. Mehta and M.L.T. Centella, Settlement Procedure in EU Cartel Cases, Comp. L. Int. 2008, 11; K. Mehta and M.L.T. Centella, EU Settlement Procedure: Public Enforcement Perspective, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 391, 394 et seq., 421; OFT, in: OECD, Policy Roundtables: Plea Bargaining/Settlement of Cartel Cases 2006 (22 January 2008), pp. 137, 139; A. Nikpay and D. Waters, The Emerging Settlements Regime in the UK: The Use of “Settlements” in Competition Act Cases, in: Ehlermann and Marquis, European competition law annual 2008, 2010, pp. 499, 499, 501; M. Motta, On Cartel Deterrence and Fines in the European Union, E.C.L.R. 2008, 29(4), 209, 215.

For an in-depth treatment, see E. Bueren, Verständigungen – Settlements in Kartellbußgeldverfahren, 2011, pp. 354 et seqq.

For possible safeguards on how to achieve this, see E. Bueren, Verständigungen – Settlements in Kartellbußgeldverfahren, 2011, pp. 391 et seqq., in conjunction with pp. 323 et seqq.

B. Brenner, “Settlements” in Kartellverfahren des Bundeskartellamtes – Perspektiven und Grenzen, WuW 2011, 590, 600.

See E. Bueren, Verständigungen – Settlements in Kartellbußgeldverfahren, 2011, pp. 61 et seqq. with further references.

ICN Cartel Working Group, Cartel Settlements, Report to the ICN Annual Conference, Kyoto, Japan, April 2008, p. 30.

J. Faruga, Concurrences 2008, pp. 210, 211 fn. 13; F. Carlin and L. Martin Alegi et al., Cartels & Settlements, http://​competition.​practicallaw.​com/​2-243-6952, pp. 3 et seq.

B. Brenner, “Settlements” in Kartellverfahren des Bundeskartellamtes – Perspektiven und Grenzen, WuW 2011, 590, 598 et seq.

For details, G. Dannecker and N. Müller, in: Wabnitz and Janovsky, Handbuch des Wirtschafts- und Steuerstrafrechts, 4^th ed. 2014, chapter 18, B.III.2. pp. 1026 et seqq., B.IV. pp. 1031 et seqq., with further references also on the scholarly critique on the case law concerning sec. 263 StGB.

The police crime statistics 2012, p. 60, provided by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (Bundesinnenministerium) (available at http://​www.​bmi.​bund.​de/​SharedDocs/​Downloads/​DE/​Broschueren/​2013/​PKS2012.​html), list 115 cases for 2012 and 53 cases for 2011; on previous data, see also F. Wagner-von Papp, Kartellstrafrecht in den USA, dem Vereinigten Königreich und Deutschland,WuW 2009, 1236, 1243–1245, 1248.

S. Beukelmann, BeckOK StPO (28 January 2013), § 153, para 1.

Critical on a widespread application of sec. 153a of the StPO to white collar crime even in case of large damage, C. Roxin and B. Schünemann, Strafverfahrensrecht, 27^th ed. 2012, § 14, paras 14.

For overviews, see M. Bohlander, Principles of German criminal procedure, Oxford 2012, p. 108 et seq.; C. Roxin and B. Schünemann, Strafverfahrensrecht, 27^th ed. 2012, § 14, paras 5 et seqq.

In general public discourse, such resolutions are sometimes also derogatory referred to as “deal”.

The Gesetz zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren of July 29 2009 (BGBl 2009 Teil I No. 49 of 03 August 2009, pp. 2353 et seq.) has regulated negotiated agreements in criminal proceedings statutorily in sections §§ 35a, 44, 160b, 202a, 212, 243, 257b, 257c, 267, 273, 302 of the StPO new version, sec. 78(2) of the OWiG new version. For an overview about the new rules, see E. Nistler, Der Deal – Das Gesetz zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, JuS 2009, 916; M. Jahn and M. Müller, Gesetz zur Regelung der Verständigung m Strafverfahren, NJW 2009, 2625.

On the stages of its development, see Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, 56^th ed. 2013, Einl. paras 119b et seqq.

Very critical, e.g., C. Roxin and B. Schünemann, Strafverfahrensrecht, 27^th ed. 2012, § 14, paras 19–32.

Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, 56^th ed. 2013, § 257c, para 3; M. Bohlander, Principles of German criminal procedure, Oxford 2012, p. 120.

BVerfG judgment of 19 March 2013, 2 BvR 2628/10, BVerfGE 133, 168=NJW 2013, 1058, paras 56–62, 104.

See further Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, 56^th ed. 2013, § 257c, paras 8–14, 16–17b, 19–22.

M. Bohlander, Principles of German criminal procedure, Oxford 2012, p. 120; R. Eschelbach, BeckOK StPO, Stand: 30 September 2013, § 257c, paras 11 et seqq.

R. Eschelbach, BeckOK StPO (30 September 2013), § 257c, para 25; BVerfG judgment of 19 March 2013, 2 BvR 2628/10, BVerfGE 133, 168=NJW 2013, 1058, para 49, summarises the results of an empirical study, commissioned by the Federal Constitutional Court, which found that 38.3 % of the judges surveyed admitted to examine the credibility of a confession made as part of a negotiated agreement either (only) often, sometimes, rarely or never, though the law requires the judge always to do so.

BVerfG judgment of 19 March 2013, 2 BvR 2628/10, BVerfGE 133, 168=NJW 2013, 1058; on this judgment, see C.-F. Stuckenberg, Zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, ZIS 2013, 212; C. Globke, Die Verständigung im Strafprozess nach der Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts oder “Da stelle mer uns mal janz dumm…”, JR 2014, 9.

These are not excluded as part of administrative offence proceedings; see above Sect. 8.2.6.3.

Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Siebten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, Bundestags-Drucks. 15/3640, pp. 34, 51 et seq.

E. Rehbinder, in: Löwenheim, Meessen and Riesenkampff, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2009, § 32b GWB, para 1 et seq.

Cf. Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Siebten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen.

Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, Bundestags-Drucks. 15/3640, p. 34. Originally, this was the only application. With the eighth amendment of the GWB in 2013, the legislator has extended the scope to abuse proceedings in the field of resale price maintenance for newspapers and magazines and to abuse proceedings against water companies, both of which are dealt with in special provisions of the GWB (sec. 30 to sec. 31b of the GWB).

E. Rehbinder, in: Löwenheim, Meessen and Riesenkampff, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2009, § 32b GWB, para 9; on the limitations, see above fn. 13.

See J. Bornkamm, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 32b GWB, paras 7 et seq.

BGH, decision of 10 december 2008, KVR 2/08, Stadtwerke Uelzen, para 16=BGH NJW 2009, 1212 (1213), in an obiter dictum.

See T. Reher and C. Haellmigk, Die kartellrechtliche Rückzahlungsverpflichtung nach § 32 Abs. 2 GWB, WuW 2010, 513; A. Fuchs, Die Anordnung von Wiedergutmachungszahlungen als Inhalt kartellbehördlicher Abstellungsverfügungen nach § 32 GWB?, ZWeR 2009, 176.

See further Bundeskartellamt, Case Summary, Abuse proceedings from 2008 against gas suppliers (“2008 gas price proceedings”)—examination by the Bundeskartellamt of commitments offered by suppliers and gas price developments, available at http://​www.​bundeskartellamt​.​de/​SharedDocs/​Entscheidung/​EN/​Fallberichte/​Missbrauchsaufsi​cht/​2009/​B10-16-08.​html.

See, e.g., Bundeskartellamt Decision of 29^th October 2010, B 10–26/09, WEMAG AG; Bundeskartellamt Decision of 26^th September 2011, B 10–31/10, Städtische Werke Aktiengesellschaft; Bundeskartellamt Decision of 11^th November 2010, B 10–15/09, E.ON Westfalen Weser AG & E.ON Westfalen Weser Vertrieb GmbH.

While the FCO has a margin of discretion whether to accept certain commitments, it must respect the principle of proportionality in making its decision; see E. Rehbinder, in: Löwenheim, Meessen and Riesenkampff, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2009, § 32b GWB, para 7. This means that the FCO must in principle not accept commitments that are excessive. However, the decision whether or not to accept certain commitments is based on a preliminary assessment; this applies also to the assessment of proportionality so that the test will arguably rather be that commitments are not clearly excessive.

See J. Bornkamm, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 32b GWB, para 19.

See J. Bornkamm, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 32b GWB, para 28, 33; A. Bach, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 32b, para 27.

E. Rehbinder, in: Löwenheim, Meessen and Riesenkampff, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2009, § 32b GWB, para 20.

E. Rehbinder, in: Löwenheim, Meessen and Riesenkampff, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2009, § 32b GWB, para 20.

See J. Bornkamm, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 32b GWB, paras 35 et seq., with further references; J. Keßler, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 32b, para 24; A. Bach, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 32b, para 33.

T. Klose, in: Wiedemann, Kartellrecht, 2^nd. ed. 2008, § 51, para 46.

E. Rehbinder, in: Löwenheim, Meessen and Riesenkampff, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2009, § 32b GWB, para 16.

J. Keßler, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 32b, para 24; more generous Klose, in: Wiedemann, Kartellrecht, 2^nd. ed. 2008, § 51, para 46.

E. Rehbinder, in: Löwenheim, Meessen and Riesenkampff, Kartellrecht, 2^nd ed. 2009, § 32b GWB, para 17.

A. Mundt (FCO president), Alternative Instrumente der Kartellbehörden, 44. Innsbrucker Symposium des FIW, 10. März 2011 in Innsbruck, p. 11.

See in detail E. Bueren, Verständigungen – Settlements in Kartellbußgeldverfahren, 2011, pp. 473 et seqq.

A, Mundt (FCO president), Alternative Instrumente der Kartellbehörden, 44. Innsbrucker Symposium des FIW, 10. März 2011 in Innsbruck, pp. 11 et seq.; E. Bueren, Verständigungen – Settlements in Kartellbußgeldverfahren, 2011, pp. 467 et seqq.

See briefly B. J. Georgii, Formen der Kooperation im öffentlichen Kartellrechtsvollzug im europäischen, deutschen und englischen Recht, p. 186.

A. Mundt (FCO president), Alternative Instrumente der Kartellbehörden, 44. Innsbrucker Symposium des FIW, 10. März 2011 in Innsbruck, pp. 11 et seq.

See in detail E. Bueren, Verständigungen – Settlements in Kartellbußgeldverfahren, 2011, pp. 408 et seqq., 425 et seqq.

D. Rubinfeld, Antitrust Damage, in: Elhauge, Research Handbook on the Economics of Antitrust Law, 2012, p. 378.

R. Whish and D. Bailey, Competition Law, 7^th ed. 2012, p. 319; D. Romain and I. Gubbay, The European Antitrust Review 2011, 47, 51. This is not to say that private enforcement had been negligible or even inexistent. However, many actions did and do relate to other remedies than damages (for Germany, see S. Peyer, Private Antitrust Litigation in Germany from 2005 to 2007: Empirical Evidence, 8 J Comp L & Ec 331, esp. 348 et seqq.; concerning the UK B. Rodger, Private Enforcement of Competition Law, the Hidden Story: Competition Litigation Settlements in the United Kingdom, 29 E.C.L.R. 96–116).

On the ground-breaking character of this judgment, see A. Italianer, Public and private enforcement of competition law, 5^th International Competition Conference 17 February 2012, Brussels.

At the time of the judgment Article 85(1) EC.

The national rules must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions.

The rules must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law.

ECJ, case C-453/99, Courage, ECR 2001 I-6297, para 29; Case C-295/04 to C-298/04, Manfredi, ECR 2006 I-6619, paras 62, 71.

The latest reform package at European level comprises, i.a., a Commission proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the EU, COM(2013) 404 final. For a critical review of earlier Commission’s initiatives J. Kloub, White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules: Plea for a More Holistic Approach to Antitrust Enforcement, 5 ECJ 515, especially 516–518, 532–545 (2009).

C. A. Jones, Editorial, After the Green Paper: The Third Devolution in European Competition Law and Private Enforcement, 3 CompLRev 1, 2 (2006).

See further W. Wurmnest, A New Era for Private Antitrust Litigation in Germany? A Critical Appraisal of the Modernised Law Against Restraints of Competition, 6 German L.J. 1173–1190 (2005).

Sec. 33(3)1, in conjunction with (1)3 of the GWB.

Section 33(4) of the GWB.

Bundeskartellamt, Tätigkeitsbericht 2011–2012, BT-Drucks. 17/13675, p. 42; T. Mäger, D. J. Zimmer and S. Milde, Konflikt zwischen öffentlicher und privater Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung – Zum Schutz der Vertraulichkeit von Kronzeugenanträgen, WuW 2009, 885, 886.

German Federal Government, statement about the FCO’s activity report 2011–2012, BT-Drucks. 17/13675, p. VII, para 49.

J. Burrichter and E. Ahlenstiel, Integrating Public and Private Enforcement in Europe: Legal and Jurisdictional Issues – The German Perspective, in: Lowe and Marquis, European competition law annual 2011, 2014, pp. 95, 100.

This issue remains important for companies that obtain “only” second or third order leniency (substantial discount). In at least one case, such a company has indeed been sued for damages before all other cartel members; see J. Burrichter and E. Ahlenstiel, Integrating Public and Private Enforcement in Europe: Legal and Jurisdictional Issues – The German Perspective, in: Lowe and Marquis, European competition law annual 2011, 2014, pp. 95, 99.

German Federal Government, statement about the FCO’s activity report 2011–2012, BT-Drucks. 17/13675, p. VII, para 50.

Bundeskartellamt, Notice no. 9/2006 of the Bundeskartellamt on the immunity from and reduction of fines in cartel cases—Leniency Programme—of 7 March 2006, para 22.

Apart from the two avenues explained in the following, it is at least theoretically possible for cartel victims to obtain evidence directly from a cartel member via a right to information based on sec. 242 BGB; see further M. Dreher, Der Zugang zu Entscheidungen mit Bindungswirkung für den kartellrechtlichen Schadensersatzprozess, ZWeR 2008, 325, 332 et seqq. Furthermore, the court may direct the defendant in an action for damages to produce records or documents, as well as any other material, that are in its possession and to which one of the parties has made reference, sec. 142(1) of the ZPO. However, as far as can be seen, both options have played no significant practical role so far. In particular, the cartel victim cannot obtain access via these avenues if the defendant has not retained a copy of the leniency submission or made it orally at the FCO’s premises.

For a comprehensive overview also on the relevant EU case law, see C. Heinichen, Akteneinsicht durch Zivilgerichte in Kartellschadensersatzverfahren, NZKart 2014, 83.

See OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of 22 August 2012, V-4 Kart 5/11 (OWi) and others, coffee rosters, para II.1=WRP 2012, 1596, 1597 et seq.

OJ 2009 C 297, p. 18.

See Kapp, Das Akteneinsichtsrecht kartellgeschädigter Unternehmen: Bonn locuta, causa finita?, WuW 2012, 474, 480.

AG Bonn, judgment of 18 January 2012, 51 Gs 53/09, Pfleiderer II, NJW 2012, 947.

AG Bonn, judgment of 18 January 2012, 51 Gs 53/09, Pfleiderer II, para II.3.a., NJW 2012, 947; for a very critical view on this line of reasoning, T. Kapp, Das Akteneinsichtsrecht kartellgeschädigter Unternehmen: Bonn locuta, causa finita?, WuW 2012, 474, 477 et seqq.; also doubting whether the abstract reasoning conform with the requirement of the ECJ L. Fiedler and A. B. Huttenlauch, Der Schutz von Kronzeugen- und Settlementerklärungen vor der Einsichtnahme durch Dritte nach dem Richtlinien-Vorschlag der Kommission, NZKart 2013, 350, 352.

OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of 22 August 2012, V-4 Kart 5/11 (OWi) and others, coffee rosters, para II.2.c.bb.(2) and para II.2.c.cc.(2)(a)=WRP 2012, 1596, 1599–1601.

OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of 22 August 2012, V-4 Kart 5/11 (OWi) and others, coffee rosters, para II.2.c.cc.(2)(b)=WRP 2012, 1596, 1601.

C. Heinichen, Akteneinsicht durch Zivilgerichte in Kartellschadensersatzverfahren, NZKart 2014, 83, 85.

Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), decision of 06 March 2014, case 1 BvR 3541/13 et al., para II.1. a) and II.1.b)bb)(1), juris version, paras 18, 25.

The relationship of sec. 142(1) of the ZPO and sec. 432 of the ZPO is in dispute. Some argue that if the third party in the sense of sec. 142(1) of the ZPO is an authority, only sec. 432 of the ZPO applies; see M. Dreher, Der Zugang zu Entscheidungen mit Bindungswirkung für den kartellrechtlichen Schadensersatzprozess, ZWeR 2008, 325, 337; R. Greger, in: Zöller, 30^th ed. 2014, § 142, para 11.

C. Heinichen, Akteneinsicht durch Zivilgerichte in Kartellschadensersatzverfahren, NZKart 2014, 83, 86.

Concerning administrative offence proceedings, in conjunction with sec. 49b of the OWiG.

OLG Hamm, decision of 26 November 2013, III-1 VAs 116/13 and others, NZKart 2014, 107.

OLG Hagen, decision of 26 November 2013, III-1 VAs 116/13 and others, NZKart 2014, 107, 109.

OLG Hagen, decision of 26 November 2013, III-1 VAs 116/13 and others, NZKart 2014, 107, 110.

Bundesverfassungsgericht, decision of 6 March 2014, cases 1 BvR 3541/13 and others.

OLG Hagen, decision of 26 November 2013, III-1 VAs 116/13 and others, NZKart 2014, 107, 108.

Bundesverfassungsgericht, decision of 6 March 2014, cases 1 BvR 3541/13 and others, juris version, para 29; see also BGH NJW 1952, 305 et seq.

BGH NJW 1952, 305 et seq.; C. Heinichen, Akteneinsicht durch Zivilgerichte in Kartellschadensersatzverfahren, NZKart 2014, 83, 91 with further references.

See OLG Hamm, NJW-RR 2009, 420; Mayer, in: Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 7^th ed. 2013, § 24 EGGVG, para 4; C. Heinichen, Akteneinsicht durch Zivilgerichte in Kartellschadensersatzverfahren, NZKart 2014, 83, 92.

COM(2013) 404 final.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 April 2014 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (COM(2013)0404—C7-0170/2013–2013/0185(COD)) (Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading), Provisional edition P7_TA-PROV(2014)0451; see also the Report by the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (rapporteur: Andreas Schwab) from February 2014 (Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, COM(2013)0404—C7-0170/2013–2013/0185(COD)).

Cf. Council of the European Union, New rule to facilitate damages claims for antitrust law violations, 26/3/2014 (English)—Press: 182 Nr: 8136/14, http://​www.​consilium.​europa.​eu/​uedocs/​cms_​data/​docs/​pressdata/​en/​intm/​141926.​pdf.

L. Fiedler and A. B. Huttenlauch, Der Schutz von Kronzeugen- und Settlementerklärungen vor der Einsichtnahme durch Dritte nach dem Richtlinien-Vorschlag der Kommission, NZKart 2013, 350, 353.

BGHZ 155, 214=NJW 2003, 3776, 3797—HABET/Lekkerland; G. Kallfaß, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 40 GWB, paras 7, 23; C. Becker and J. Knebel, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 36, paras 114 et seqq.

C. Becker and J. Knebel, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 36, para 114.

For a detailed report with short descriptions of all cases with commitments from 1975 until the reform in 1998, see Zwölftes Hauptgutachten der Monopolkommission 1996/1997, Bundestags-Drucks. 13/11291 of 17.07.1998, paras 373–390, pp. 238–255; for a brief overview C. Becker and J. Knebel, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 36, para 118.

See J. L. Schulte, in Schulte, Handbuch Fusionskontrolle, 2^nd ed. 2010, paras 656–659; C. Becker and J. Knebel, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 36, para 117 et seq., 120; Zwölftes Hauptgutachten der Monopolkommission 1996/1997, Bundestags-Drucks. 13/11291 of 17.07.1998, para 374 et seq., p. 238. The Federal Court had, however, held that the FCO is generally precluded from prohibiting a concentration after the statutory time limit has expired, even if the contract governed by public law was illegal, except for deliberate deceit by the company concerned, see BGH NJW 1979, 2563, 2564.

See further Monopolkommission, Sondergutachten 63, Die 8. GWB-Novelle aus wettbewerbspolitischer Sicht, 2012, paras 64–69, pp. 28–31.

Defined in sec. 35, 38 of the GWB.

G. Kallfaß, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 40 GWB, para 2.

Bundeskartellamt, The Bundeskartellamt in Bonn, Organisation, Tasks and Activities, Sept. 2011, p. 24.

G. Kallfaß, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 40 GWB, para 32.

Bundeskartellamt, The Bundeskartellamt in Bonn, Organisation, Tasks and Activities, Sept. 2011, p. 24.

G. Kallfaß, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 40 GWB, para 2.

C. Becker and J. Knebel, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 36, para 122.

G. Kallfaß, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 40 GWB, para 15, 18; in a similar vein, Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Achten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (8. GWB-ÄndG), BT-Drucks. 17/9852, p. 19.

For an instructive example from the FCO’s recent practice in this respect, see Krueger, Zusagen in Zusammenschlussfällen und Überwachung ihrer Umsetzung, NZKart 2013, 130, 134.

C. Becker and J. Knebel, in: Münchener Kommentar Deutsches und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 2, 2008, § 36, para 122.

Bundeskartellamt, Bericht des Bundeskartellamtes über seine Tätigkeit in den Jahren 2001/2002, BT-Drucks. 15/1226 of 27.06.2013, p. 22.

V. Emmerich, Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2012, p. 542; E.-J. Mestmäcker and W. Veelken, in: Immenga and Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht: GWB, 4^th ed. 2007, § 40 GWB, para 61; more strict H. Bergmann and C. Burholt, in: Kölner Kommentar zum Kartellrecht Vol. 2, 2014, § 40 GWB, para 82 and J. L. Schulte, in Schulte, Handbuch Fusionskontrolle, 2^nd ed. 2010, para 667, who argue that while the FCO has a certain discretion, it must not prohibit a concentration if it is certain that prohibition criteria can be removed via conditions or obligations.

Similarly G. Kallfaß, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 40 GWB, para 34.

BGH WRP 2010, 937, 948 et seq.—Phonak/GN Store; G. Kallfaß, in: Langen and Bunte, Kartellrecht Vol. 1, Deutsches Kartellrecht, 12^th ed. 2014, § 40 GWB, para 33.

BGHZ 166, 165=NJW-RR 2006, 836, 842—DB Regio/üstra.

BGHZ 166, 165=NJW-RR 2006, 836, 842—DB Regio/üstra.

BGHZ 166, 165=NJW-RR 2006, 836, 842 et seq.—DB Regio/üstra.

Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Achten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (8. GWB-ÄndG), BT-Drucks. 17/9852, p. 30.

For an exemplary overview of the FCO’s recent practice, see B. Krueger, Zusagen in Zusammenschlussfällen und Überwachung ihrer Umsetzung, NZKart 2013, 130, 132 et seqq.; a comprehensive list of merger cases between 1999 and 2008 where conditions or obligations were imposed is available in J.L. Schulte, in: Schulte, Handbuch Fusionskontrolle, 2^nd ed. 2010, para 675.

Sec. 36(2)No. 2 of the VwVfG.

Sec. 36(2)No. 2 of the VwVfG.

Sec. 36(2)No. 4 of the VwVfG.

http://​www.​bundeskartellamt​.​de/​EN/​AboutUs/​Publications/​Furtherdocuments​/​furtherdocuments​_​node.​html.

See further Krueger, Zusagen in Zusammenschlussfällen und Überwachung ihrer Umsetzung, NZKart 2013, 130, 131.

BGHZ 166, 165=NJW-RR 2006, 836, 837—DB Regio/üstra.

Bundeskartellamt, 09.03.2009, B 1-243/08, Werhan & Nauen, pp. 10 et seqq.; critical H. Bergmann and C. Burholt, in: Kölner Kommentar zum Kartellrecht Vol. 2, 2014, § 40 GWB, para 90.