nach oben

Erschienen in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Follow-on Actions

verfasst von : Paolo Bertoli

Erschienen in: Language and Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

By the recent enactment and transposition in the EU Member States of Directive 2014/104/EU on antitrust damages actions, the EU has accomplished to couple the existing choice-of-jurisdiction and choice-of-law discipline on follow-on actions with substantive rules. The article discusses the efficiency of the private international law discipline of such actions in light of the overall goal to enhance free and undistorted competition through private enforcement of EU Competition Law rules.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel The Direct Effect of EU Competition Law: From Regulation No 1/2003 to Directive 2014/104/EU

Nächstes Kapitel Contemporary Trends in International Law in Relation to the Protection of Individuals from Multinationals’ Malpractice: Greek Competition Law After the Implementation of EU Directive 2014/104

So far, 25 Member States have communicated to the Commission that they have fully transposed the Directive: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (last updated on 13 September 2017, see http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/directive_en.html). Unless otherwise noted, all the documents cited herein are available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu. See generally Maier-Rigaud (2014), Thiede (2017), Bruzzone and Saija (2017), Comoglio (2017), Wils (2017), Petrucci (2017), De Giorgi (2016), Caiazzo (2016), Giliberti (2016), Geradin (2015), Lianos et al. (2015), Villa (2015), Sansom et al. (2015), Diehl (2015), Vandenborre et al. (2014), Scharaw (2015) and Haasbeek (2015).

Directive 2014/104 is aimed at removing practical obstacles to compensation for all victims of infringements of EU Competition Law. The Directive, inter alia, regulates the following aspects: (i) Access to evidence in follow-on actions. A party needing documents that are not in its custody, possession or control may apply for a court order for the disclosure of those documents. (ii) Proof. Final infringement decision of National Competition Authorities (NCA; just like infringement decisions by the EU Commission) will constitute full proof before civil courts in the same Member State where the infringement occurred (but not of the damages it has caused). Before courts of other Member States, it will constitute at least prima facie evidence of the infringement. However, the Directive sets forth a rebuttable presumption that cartels cause harm in order to facilitate compensation in light of the difficulties usually experienced in proving the harm. (iii) Limitation periods. Victims are generally allowed at least 5 years to bring damages claims, starting from the moment when they knew or could have known that they suffered harm from an infringement. This period is suspended or interrupted if a competition authority starts infringement proceedings, and victims have at least 1 year from the final decision to bring damages actions. (iv) “Passing on” defense. In follow-on cases, cartelists often argue that their customers raised the prices they charge to their own customers (indirect customers) and that, accordingly, compensation to direct customers should be decreased by the amount they passed on to indirect customers. Since it is often hard for indirect customers to prove that they suffered this pass-on, the Directive facilitates their claims by establishing a rebuttable presumption that they suffered some level of overcharge harm, to be quantified judicially. (v) Joint and several liability. Any participant to a cartel, in principle, is held jointly and severally liable towards the victims for the whole harm caused by the infringement, maintaining a contribution vis-à-vis other cartelists for their share of liability. However, to safeguard the effectiveness of leniency programs, this does not apply to infringers who obtained immunity from fines in return for their voluntary cooperation with a competition authority during an investigation; these immunity recipients are normally obliged to compensate only their (direct and indirect) customers.

See the thorough study by Benedettelli (2002), p. 882 ff.

Case C-133/11 Folien Fischer [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:664; Case C-302/13 LAL-Lithuanian Airlines [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2319, para. 27; Case C-352/13 Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:335.

E.g.: Case C-523/10 Wintersteiger [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:220, para. 19 and the case law cited therein.

Case C-68/93 Shevill and Others [1994] ECR I-2355, ECLI:EU:C:1994:226, para. 33; Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10, eDate Advertising [2011] ECR I-10269, ECLI:EU:C:2011:685, para. 42.

Since the place of the harmful event “can either show a connection with the State in which the damage occurred or may occur or show a connection with the State in which the causal event giving rise to that damage took place, in accordance with the case law set out in paragraph 39 above, then the court in one of those two places, as the case may be, can claim jurisdiction to hear such an action, pursuant to point (3) of Article 5 of Regulation No 44/2001, irrespective of whether the action in question has been brought by a party whom a tort or delict may have adversely affected or by a party against whom a claim based on that tort or delict might be made”: judgment Folien Fischer, para. 52.

The Court held that “the transfer of claims by the initial creditor cannot, by itself, have an impact on the determination of the court having jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001”: Case C-147/12 ÖFAB [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:490, para. 58.

Case C-228/11 Melzer [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:305, para. 41.

Cf. Monico (2016), p. 1164.

Case C-364/93 Marinari [1995] ECR I-2719, ECLI:EU:C:1995:289, para. 14; Case C-220/88 Dumez France [1990] ECR I-49, ECLI:EU:C:1990:8, para. 20; Corte di Cassazione (Italian Supreme Court), No 10524/1996; No 1179/2000; No 2060/2003; No 27403/2005; Saravalle (1997), p. 332; Gardella (2004), p. 129; Bariatti (2008), p. 349 ff.; Carbone and Tuo (2016), p. 126; Mankowski (2016), p. 305; Monico (2016), p. 1161.

Case C-189/08 Zuid-Chemie [2009] ECR I-6917, ECLI:EU:C:2009:475, para. 27.

Judgment Cartel Damage Claims, para. 52.

Judgment Cartel Damage Claims, para. 53.

Case C-168/02 Kronhofer [2004] ECR I-6009, ECLI:EU:C:2004:364, para. 19.

E.g., Case C-145/10 Painer [2011] ECR I-12533, ECLI:EU:C:2011:798, para. 77. See Marongiu Buonaiuti (2008) and Biagioni (2011).

See Case C-98/06 Freeport [2007] ECR I-8319, ECLI:EU:C:2007:595, para. 39; Case C-645/11 Sapir and others [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013.228, para. 42.

See judgment Freeport, para. 40; judgment Painer, para. 79; judgment Sapir and others, para. 43.

See Corte di Cassazione (Italian Supreme Court) No 12209/1995; 785/1999; 86/2000; 13627/2001; 14287/2006; Court of Milan, 24 January 2004; Di Blase (1993), p. 26.

Judgment Freeport, para. 54; Corte di Cassazione (Italian Supreme Court), No 25875/2008; Court of Milan, 8 May 2009.

See e.g. Bertoli (2012), p. 29 ff.; Muir Watt (2016), p. 374.

Case C-103/05 Reisch Montage [2006] ECR I-6827, ECLI:EU:C:2006:471, para. 32; and judgment Painer, para. 78.

Judgment Cartel Damage Claims, para. 22.

Judgment Painer, para. 84.

Judgment Cartel Damage Claims, para. 24.

E.g., Case 24/76 Estasis Saloti di Colzani [1976] ECR 1831, ECLI:EU:C:1976:177, para. 7.

Judgment Cartel Damage Claims, para. 63, citing Case C-38/98 Renault [2000] ECR I-2973, ECLI:EU:C:2000:225, para. 23, on which see Bertoli (2005), p. 476 ff.

Judgment Cartel Damage Claims, para. 68, citing Case C-214/89 Powell Duffryn [1992] ECR I-1745, ECLI:EU:C:1992:115, para. 31.

See Bertoli (2017), p. 599 ff.

Bariatti S (2008) Violazione di norme antitrust e diritto internazionale privato: il giudice italiano e i cartelli. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 44:349–362

Benedettelli M (2002) Criteri di giurisdizione in materia societaria e diritto comunitario. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 38:882–922

Bertoli P (2005) Corte di giustizia, integrazione comunitaria e diritto internazionale privato e processuale. Giuffré, Milano

Bertoli P (2012) Profili evolutivi della connessione attributiva internazionale. In: D’Elia G, Tiberi G, Viviani Schlein M (eds) Scritti in memoria di A. Concaro. Giuffré, Milano, pp 29–41

Bertoli P (2017) La “Brexit” e il diritto internazionale privato e processuale. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 53:599–621

Biagioni G (2011) La connessione attributiva di giurisdizione nel regolamento CE n. 44/2001. CEDAM, Padova

Bruzzone G, Saija A (2017) Private e public enforcement dopo il recepimento della direttiva. Più di un aggiustamento al margine?. Mercato, Concorrenza, Regole 19:9–36

Caiazzo R (2016) The legislative decree of implementation of Directive 2014/104/EU on antitrust damages actions. Rivista Italiana di Antitrust 2:104–124

Carbone S, Tuo C (2016) Il nuovo spazio giudiziario europeo in materia civile e commerciale. Il regolamento UE n. 1215/2012. Giappichelli, Torino

Comoglio LP (2017) Note a una prima lettura del d.lgs. N.3 del 2017. Novità processuali e parziali inadeguatezze in tema di danno antitrust. Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile 71:991–1012

De Giorgi E (2016) Risarcimento del danno antitrust: primo commento allo schema di decreto legislativo di attuazione della Direttiva 2014/104/UE. Available via Dirittobancario. http://www.dirittobancario.it/approfondimenti/antitrust-e-concorrenza/risarcimento-del-danno-antitrust-primo-commento-allo-schema-di-decreto-legislativo. Accessed 27 Apr 2018

Di Blase A (1993) Connessione e litispendenza nella convenzione di Bruxelles. CEDAM, Padova

Diehl K (2015) Europe’s new directive on antitrust damages. Glob Competition Litig Rev 8:34 ff

Gardella A (2004) Giurisdizione in materia di illecito: un passo avanti nella localizzazione del danno patrimoniale. Int Lis, 128–132

Geradin D (2015) Collective redress for antitrust damages in the European Union: Is this a reality now?. George Mason Univ Law Rev 22:1079–1101

Giliberti B (2016) Public e private enforcement nell’art. 9, co. I della direttiva antitrust 104/2014. Il coordinamento delle tutele: accertamento amministrativo e risarcimento danni nei rapporti privatistici. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario 26:77–113

Haasbeek L (2015) The directive on antitrust damages actions. In: Raffaelli E (ed) Antitrust between EC law and National law. Bruylant-Giuffrè, Bruxelles-Milan, p 63 ff

Lianos I, Davis P, Nebbia P (2015) Damages claims for the infringement of EU competition law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Maier-Rigaud F (2014) Toward a European directive on damages actions. J Competition Law Econ 10:341–360CrossRef

Mankowski P (2016) Article 7. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels Ibis regulation. De Gruter, Köln, p 305 ff

Marongiu Buonaiuti F (2008) Litispendenza e connessione internazionale. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli

Monico R (2016) Il private antitrust enforcement nello spazio giudiziario europeo. Rivista di diritto internazionale 99:1147–1186

Muir Watt H (2016) Article 8. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels Ibis regulation. De Gruter, Köln, p 374 ff

Petrucci C (2017) Subsidiarity in Directive 2014/104 EU on damages actions for breach of EU competition law. Eur Public Law J 23:395–421CrossRef

Sansom M, Morfey A, Teague P (2015) Recent developments in private antitrust damages litigation in Europe. Antitrust Magazine, p 33 ff

Saravalle A (1997) Conseguenze dell’illecito e danni patrimoniali indiretti: il foro competente. Danno e responsabilità 2(III):332 ff

Scharaw B (2015) Commission proposal for a Directive on antitrust damages and recommendation on principles for collective redress: the road towards ‘private antitrust enforcement’ in the European Union. Eur Competition Law Rev 7:352–360

Thiede T (2017) Fine to follow? Private anti-trust actions in European law. China-EU Law J 5:233–263CrossRef

Vandenborre I, Hoffman Lent K, Goetz T, Frese M (2014) Actions for Antitrust damages in the European union: evaluating the Commission’s directive proposal. Glob Competition Litig Rev 7:1 ff

Villa G (2015) La direttiva europea sul risarcimento del danno antitrust: riflessioni in vista dell’attuazione. Corriere giuridico 32:301–309

Wils WPJ (2017) Private enforcement of EU antitrust law and its relationship with public enforcement: past, present, future. World Comp 40:3–45

Titel: Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Follow-on Actions
verfasst von: Paolo Bertoli
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Language and Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90904-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-90905-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90905-9_6