Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2013)404 - Rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the EU

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2013)404 - Rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member ...
source COM(2013)404 EN
date 11-06-2013
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

4.

1.1. General context


Regulation No 1/2003[1] gives effect to the EU rules prohibiting anticompetitive agreements (including cartels) and abuses of dominant positions (‘the EU competition rules’), which are laid down in Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the Treaty’), by setting out the conditions under which the Commission, the national competition authorities (‘NCAs’) and national courts apply these provisions in individual cases.

Regulation No 1/2003 gives the Commission and the NCAs powers to apply Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty[2]. The Commission can impose fines on undertakings that have infringed these provisions[3]. The powers of the NCAs are set out in Article 5 of Regulation No 1/2003. The application of the EU competition rules by the Commission and NCAs is commonly referred to as the public enforcement of EU competition law.

In addition to public enforcement, the direct effect of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty means that these provisions create rights and obligations for individuals, which can be enforced by the national courts of the Member States[4]. This is referred to as the private enforcement of the EU competition rules.

Damages claims for breaches of Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty constitute an important area of private enforcement of EU competition law. It follows from the direct effect of the prohibitions laid down in Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty that any individual can claim compensation for the harm suffered, where there is a causal relationship between that harm and an infringement of the EU competition rules[5]. Injured parties must be able to seek compensation not only for the actual loss suffered (damnum emergens) but also for the gain of which they have been deprived (loss of profit or lucrum cessans) plus interest[6]. Compensation for harm caused by infringements of EU competition rules cannot be achieved through public enforcement. Awarding compensation is outside the field of competence of the Commission and the NCAs and within the domain of national courts and of civil law and procedure.

Compliance with the EU competition rules is thus ensured through the strong public enforcement of these rules by the Commission and the NCAs, in combination with private enforcement by national courts.

5.

1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal


The present proposal seeks to ensure the effective enforcement of the EU competition rules by

(i) optimising the interaction between the public and private enforcement of competition law; and

(ii) ensuring that victims of infringements of the EU competition rules can obtain full compensation for the harm they suffered.

6.

Optimising the interaction between the public and private enforcement of competition law


The overall enforcement of the EU competition rules is best guaranteed through complementary public and private enforcement. However, the existing legal framework does not properly regulate the interaction between the two strands of EU competition law enforcement.

An undertaking that considers cooperating with a competition authority under its leniency programme (whereby the undertaking confesses its participation in a cartel in return for immunity from or a reduction of the fine), cannot know at the time of its cooperation whether victims of the competition law infringement will have access to the information it has voluntarily supplied to the competition authority. In particular, in its 2011 Pfleiderer judgment, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter: ‘the Court’)[7], held that, in the absence of EU law, it is for the national court to decide on the basis of national law and on a case-by-case basis whether to allow the disclosure of documents, including leniency documents. When taking such a decision, the national court should balance both the interest of protecting effective public enforcement of the EU competition rules and of ensuring that the right to full compensation can be effectively exercised. This could lead to discrepancies between and even within Member States regarding the disclosure of evidence from the files of competition authorities. Moreover, the resulting uncertainty as to the disclosability of leniency-related information is likely to influence an undertaking’s choice whether or not to cooperate with the competition authorities under their leniency programme. In the absence of legally binding action at the EU level, the effectiveness of the leniency programmes — which constitute a very important instrument in the public enforcement of the EU competition rules — could thus be seriously undermined by the risk of disclosure of certain documents in damages actions before national courts.

The need to regulate the interaction of private and public enforcement was confirmed in the stakeholders’ responses to the public consultation on the 2008 White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EU antitrust rules (‘White Paper’)[8] and the 2011 consultation on a coherent European approach to collective redress[9]. The May 2012 resolution of the Heads of the European Competition Authorities also stressed the importance of the protection of leniency material in the context of civil damages actions[10]. The European Parliament repeatedly emphasised that public enforcement in the competition field is essential, and called on the Commission to ensure that private enforcement does not compromise the effectiveness of either the leniency programmes or settlement procedures[11].

The first main objective of the present proposal is thus to optimise the interaction between public and private enforcement of the EU competition rules, ensuring that the Commission and the NCAs can maintain a policy of strong public enforcement, while victims of an infringement of competition law can obtain compensation for the harm suffered.

Ensuring the effective exercise of the victims’ right to full compensation

The second main objective is to ensure that victims of infringements of EU competition rules can effectively obtain compensation for the harm they have suffered.

While the right to full compensation is guaranteed by the Treaty itself and is part of the acquis communautaire, the practical exercise of this right is often rendered difficult or almost impossible because of the applicable rules and procedures. Despite some recent signs of improvement in a few Member States, to date most victims of infringements of the EU competition rules in practice do not obtain compensation for the harm suffered.

As long ago as 2005, the Commission identified, in its Green Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules[12] (‘the Green Paper’), the main obstacles to a more effective system of antitrust damages actions. Today, those same obstacles continue to exist in a large majority of the Member States. They relate to

(i) obtaining the evidence needed to prove a case;

(ii) the lack of effective collective redress mechanisms, especially for consumers and SMEs;

(iii) the absence of clear rules on the passing-on defence;

(iv) the absence of a clear probative value of NCA decisions;

(v) the possibility to bring an action for damages after a competition authority has found an infringement; and

(vi) how to quantify antitrust harm.

Besides these specific substantive obstacles to effective compensation, there is wide diversity as regards the national legal rules governing antitrust damages actions and that the diversity has actually grown over recent years. This diversity may cause legal uncertainty for all parties involved in actions for antitrust damages, which in turn leads to ineffective private enforcement of the competition rules, especially in cross-border cases.

To remedy this situation, the second main objective of the present proposal is to ensure that throughout Europe, victims of infringements of the EU competition rules have access to effective mechanisms for obtaining full compensation for the harm they suffered. This will lead to a more level playing field for undertakings in the internal market. In addition, if the likelihood increases that infringers of Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty have to bear the costs of their infringement, this will not only shift the costs away from the victims of the illegal behaviour, but will also be an incentive for better compliance with the EU competition rules.

To achieve that objective, the Commission put forward concrete policy proposals in its 2008 White Paper. In the ensuing public consultation, civil society and institutional stakeholders such as the European Parliament[13] and the European Economic and Social Committee[14] largely welcomed these policy measures and called for specific EU legislation on antitrust damages actions[15].

7.

1.3. Existing provisions in the area of the proposal


– Council Regulation No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101] and [102] of the Treaty

· Pursuant to Article 2, the burden of proving an infringement of Article 101(1) or of Article 102 of the Treaty shall rest on the party alleging the infringement. Should the defending party claim the benefit of Article 101(3) of the Treaty, it shall bear the burden of proving that the conditions of that paragraph are fulfilled. These rules apply both to public enforcement and to actions for compensation for the harm caused by an infringement of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty.

· Article 15(1) provides that, in proceedings for the application of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty, national courts may ask the Commission to transmit to them information in its possession. The Commission Notice on the cooperation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty[16] elaborates on the interpretation and practical application of this provision.

· Article 16(1) provides that when national courts rule on agreements, decisions or practices under Article 101 or Article 102 of the Treaty which are already the subject of a Commission decision, they cannot take decisions running counter to the decision adopted by the Commission. National courts must also avoid giving decisions which would conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings it has initiated. To that effect, the national court may assess whether it is necessary to stay the proceedings pending before it.

– Council Regulation No 44/2001 contains rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters[17]. Under the conditions set out in that Regulation, courts of the Member States have jurisdiction to hear antitrust damages actions, and judgments in such actions are recognised and enforced in other Member States.

– Council Regulation No 1206/2001 regulates the cooperation between the courts of different Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, thus including antitrust damages actions[18].

– Article 6(3) of Regulation No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council contains rules on the law applicable in antitrust damages actions[19].

– Regulation 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council[20] establishes a European procedure for small claims, intended to simplify and speed up litigation concerning small claims in cross-border cases, and to reduce costs.

– Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council requires Member States to provide for a possibility to mediate in all civil and commercial matters, thus including antitrust damages actions[21].

– Article 15(4) of Commission Regulation No 773/2004[22] determines that documents obtained through access to the file of the Commission shall only be used for the purposes of judicial or administrative proceedings for the application of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty. The Commission Notice on access to the file[23] provides for more detailed rules as regards access to the Commission file and the use of those documents.

– The Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (the ‘Leniency Notice’)[24] contains rules on the conditions under which undertakings can cooperate with the Commission in the framework of its leniency programme in order to obtain immunity from or a reduction of its fine in a cartel case. In paragraph 33 it determines that access to corporate statements is only granted to the addressees of a statement of objections, provided that — together with the legal counsels obtaining access on their behalf — they do not make any copy by mechanical or electronic means of any information in the corporate statement and that the information from the corporate statement is solely used for the purposes mentioned in the Leniency Notice. Other parties such as complainants are not granted access to corporate statements. This specific protection of a corporate statement is no longer justified when the applicant discloses its content to a third party. Furthermore, the Commission Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases (the ‘Settlement Notice’)[25] sets out the framework for rewarding cooperation with the Commission in the conduct of proceedings commenced in view of the application of Article 101 of the Treaty in cartel cases ('settlement procedure'). Its paragraph 39 contains rules on the disclosure of settlement submissions to national courts.

Contents

1.

RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS



8.

2.1. Consultation of interested parties


Both the 2005 Green Paper and the 2008 White Paper triggered a broad debate among stakeholders, and a large number of comments were submitted[26]. The public consultations showed broad support for the Commission’s general approach to enabling antitrust damages actions. Respondents welcomed the guiding principle of compensation and the consequential choice not to suggest measures such as US-style class actions, wide pre-trial discovery or multiple damages, which would pursue primarily an objective of deterrence. There was broad acknowledgement of the obstacles that prevent effective redress for victims of infringements of the competition rules. However, different opinions were voiced as to the substantive measures suggested with a view to remedying the problems.

In 2011, the Commission held a public consultation on a coherent European approach to collective redress[27]. In the wake of stakeholders' responses and the position of the European Parliament[28], the Commission opted for a horizontal approach on this matter rather than the inclusion of competition-specific provisions on collective redress in the current proposal. Adopting a horizontal approach allows for common rules on collective redress for all policy fields in which scattered harm frequently occurs and in which it is difficult for consumers and SMEs to obtain damages. As the first step of an horizontal approach on collective redress, the Commission adopted the Communication Towards a European Framework for Collective Redress[29] and a Commission Recommendation on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law.[30]

The Commission also held a public consultation in 2011 on a draft Guidance Paper on the quantification of antitrust harm[31]. This sets out insights into a range of methods used to quantify harm in damages actions and explains the strengths and weaknesses of these methods. Institutional and other stakeholders generally welcomed the idea of issuing non-binding guidance on quantifying harm caused by antitrust infringements[32].

9.

2.2. Collection and use of external expertise


The Commission commissioned external studies for the preparation of the 2005 Green Paper[33], for the 2008 White Paper[34] and for the 2011 draft Guidance Paper on the quantification of antitrust harm[35].

10.

2.3. Impact assessment


The proposed Directive was preceded by an Impact Assessment, which built largely on the findings of the Impact Assessment on the White Paper. In particular, measures that had been excluded in the White Paper because of their likely ineffectiveness or excessive costs were not reconsidered.

The impact assessment report[36] focused on four options for a follow-up initiative aimed at optimising the interaction between public and private enforcement of the EU competition rules and ensuring a more effective legal framework for damages actions for infringements of the EU competition rules across Europe. They ranged from no action at the EU level, through a soft-law approach, to two options for legally binding EU action.

The preferred option — which is the basis of this proposal for a Directive — is considered to be the most cost-efficient way of achieving the set objectives. It takes due account both of the main comments received during the public consultations over the past eight years and of more recent legislative and judicial developments at EU and national level.

2.

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL



11.

3.1. Legal basis of the proposal


The choice of a legal basis for a European measure must be based on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review. Those include the aim and content of the measure. The current proposal is based on both Articles 103 and 114 of the Treaty, because it pursues two equally important goals which are inextricably linked, namely (a) to give effect to the principles set out in Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and (b) to ensure a more level playing field for undertakings operating in the internal market, and to make it easier for citizens and businesses to make use of the rights they derive from the internal market.

Regarding the first objective, the Court has clarified that the full effectiveness of the EU competition rules and, in particular, the practical effect of the prohibitions they contain would be put at risk if it were not open to any person to claim damages for loss caused to him/her by a contract or conduct liable to restrict or distort competition. It considered that damages actions strengthen the working of the EU competition rules and can thus make a significant contribution to maintaining effective competition in the EU[37]. In seeking to improve the conditions under which injured parties can claim damages and to optimise the interaction between the public and private enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, the present proposal clearly gives effect to these provisions. This means that the proposed Directive must be based on Article 103 of the Treaty.

However, that legal basis in itself does not suffice, because both the aim and the content of the proposed Directive transcend this legal basis. Indeed, the aim of the proposed Directive is wider than giving effect to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The current divergence of national rules governing damages actions for infringements of the EU competition rules, including the interaction of such actions with the public enforcement of those rules, has created a markedly uneven playing field in the internal market. These marked differences were already described in a 2004 comparative study[38] and in the 2008 White Paper and its accompanying Impact Assessment. Since then, these differences have increased due to diverging legislative and judicial developments in only a limited number of Member States.

One example of divergence is given by the different national rules applying to access to evidence. With the exception of a few Member States, the lack of adequate rules on the disclosure of documents in proceedings before a national court means that victims of a competition law infringement, who are seeking compensation for the harm suffered, have no effective access to evidence. Other examples concern national rules on passing-on (where existing differences have major implications for the ability of direct/indirect purchasers to effectively claim damages and, in turn, for the defendant’s chances of avoiding compensation for harm caused), the probative value of NCA decisions in subsequent damages actions, and national rules that are relevant to the quantification of antitrust harm (e.g. the existence of a presumption of harm).

Because of this marked diversity of national legislations, the rules applicable in some Member States are considered by claimants to be much more suitable for bringing an antitrust damages action in those Member States rather than in others. These differences lead to inequalities and uncertainty concerning the conditions under which injured parties, both citizens and businesses, can exercise the right to compensation they derive from the Treaty, and affect the effectiveness of such right. Indeed, where the jurisdictional rules allow a claimant to bring its action in one of those ‘favourable’ Member States and where that claimant has the necessary resources and incentives to do so, it is thus far more likely to effectively exercise its EU right to compensation than when it cannot do so. As injured parties with smaller claims and/or fewer resources tend to choose the forum of their Member State of establishment to claim damages (one reason being that consumers and smaller businesses in particular cannot afford to choose a more favourable jurisdiction), the result of the discrepancies between national rules may be an uneven playing field as regards actions for damages and may affect competition on the markets in which these injured parties operate.

Similarly, these marked differences mean that undertakings established and operating in different Member States are exposed to significantly different levels of risk of being held liable for infringements of competition law. This uneven enforcement of the EU right of compensation may result in a competitive advantage for undertakings that have breached Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty, but which do not have their headquarters or are not active in one of the ‘favourable’ Member States. Conversely, uneven enforcement is a disincentive to the exercise of the rights of establishment and provision of goods or services in those Member States where the right to compensation is more effectively enforced. The differences in the liability regimes may thus negatively affect competition and run a risk of appreciably distorting the proper functioning of the internal market.

To ensure a more level playing field for undertakings operating in the internal market and to improve the conditions for injured parties to exercise the rights they derive from the internal market, it is therefore appropriate to increase legal certainty and to reduce the differences between the Member States as to the national rules governing actions for antitrust damages.

The extent to which the approximation of national rules is pursued is not limited to damages actions for breaches of the EU competition rules, but also of national competition rules when they are applied in parallel. In particular, when an infringement that has an effect on trade between Member States also breaches national competition law, actions for damages based on it must comply with the same standards established for breaches of EU competition law.

Approximating national substantive and procedural rules with the aim of pursuing undistorted competition in the internal market and enabling citizens and undertakings the full exercise of the rights and freedoms they derive therefrom is not merely ancillary to the objective of ensuring effective enforcement of the EU competition rules. This conclusion results not only from the aims, but also from the specific provisions of the proposed Directive. The content of the proposed Directive cannot be fully covered by Article 103 of the Treaty because it also modifies the applicable national rules concerning the right to claim damages for infringements of national competition law, even if that is only in respect to anticompetitive behaviour that has an effect on trade between Member States and to which EU competition law thus equally applies[39]. It follows that the scope of the proposed Directive, arising not only from the aims but also from the contents of the instrument, goes beyond giving effect to Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and means that the proposed Directive also has to be based on Article 114 TFEU.

These interdependent, though distinct, aims of the proposed Directive cannot be pursued separately, through the adoption of two different instruments. For instance, it is not feasible to split the proposed Directive into a first instrument, based on Article 103 TFEU, that approximates national rules in damages actions for breaches of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, and a second one, based on Article 114 TFEU, that requires Member States to apply the same substantive and procedural rules to damages actions for breaches of national competition law. This choice cannot be made for substantive and procedural reasons.

From a substantive point of view, the indissociable link between the two independent objectives underpins the concrete measures that pursue them. For instance, the exceptions to disclosure and limitations of liability give full effect to Articles 101 and 102, even in claims based on breaches of national competition law, when this has been applied in parallel to the Treaty provisions. Moreover, because of the need for legal certainty and a level playing field in the internal market, the same rules must apply to breaches of EU competition rules and of national competition law (where these are applied in parallel to the EU rules). From a procedural point of view, and to avoid impairing the institutional balance within the EU legislature, the only way of achieving uniform rules for the two situations is to adopt a single legal instrument in the same procedure.

For these reasons, the contents of the initiative are not split among separate instruments but are addressed jointly in the proposed Directive, which should thus be based on both Articles 103 and 114 of the Treaty.

12.

3.2. Subsidiarity principle (Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union)


The proposed Directive is in line with the subsidiarity principle since its objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, and there is a clear need for, and value in, EU action. A legally binding act at EU level will be better capable of ensuring that full effect is given to Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty through common standards allowing for effective damages actions across the EU, and that a more level playing field is established in the internal market.

More specifically, the proposed Directive can be deemed to comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the following reasons:

· There is a significant risk that effective public enforcement by the Commission and NCAs would be jeopardised in the absence of EU-wide regulation of the interaction between public and private enforcement, and in particular of a common European rule on information from the file of a competition authority being available for the purposes of a damages action. The point can be illustrated most clearly with regard to information that undertakings have voluntarily given to competition authorities under their leniency programme. The unpredictability that follows from the fact that each national court has to decide on an ad hoc basis and according to the applicable national rules whether or not to grant access to this leniency-related information cannot be adequately addressed by — potentially diverging — national legislation. Indeed, since the Commission and the NCAs can exchange information within the ECN, potential leniency applicants are likely to take into account the national legislation which offers the lowest level of protection (for fear that their case may eventually be decided by that NCA). The perceived level of protection of leniency-related information will thus be determined by whichever national legislation offers the lowest level of protection, to the detriment of the applicable rules in other Member States. It is therefore necessary to establish a standard common to all Member States for the interaction between public and private enforcement. This can only be done at the EU level.

· Experience shows that, in the absence of EU legislation, most Member States do not provide, on their own initiative, for an effective framework for compensation for victims of infringements of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty, as repeatedly required by the Court. Since the publication of the Commission’s Green and White Papers, only a small number of Member States have enacted legislation aimed at enabling antitrust damages actions, and even this is usually limited to specific issues and does not cover the whole range of measures envisaged by the current proposal. Despite the few steps taken by some Member States, there is thus still a lack of effective compensation for victims of infringements of the EU antitrust rules. Only further incentives at European level can create a legal framework that gives effective redress and guarantees the right of effective judicial protection as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

· There is currently a marked inequality between Member States in the level of judicial protection of individual rights guaranteed by the Treaty; this may cause distortions of competition and of the proper functioning of the internal market. The result is an evident disparity in even the content of the entitlement to damages guaranteed by EU law. More specifically, a claim under the law of one Member State may lead to full recovery of the claimant’s loss, while a claim for an identical infringement in another Member State may lead to a significantly lower award or even no award at all. This inequality increases if — as is the case at present — only some Member States improve the conditions under which victims of a competition law infringement can claim compensation for the harm suffered. The trans-national dimension of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and their intrinsic link to the functioning of the internal market warrants measures at the EU level.

13.

3.3. Proportionality principle (Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union)


In terms of proportionality, the proposed Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to effectively achieve its objectives, namely to guarantee effective protection of public enforcement of competition law across the EU, and to guarantee access for victims of competition law infringements to a truly effective mechanism for obtaining full compensation for the harm they have suffered, while protecting the legitimate interests of defendants and third parties.

Under the proposed Directive, those objectives are also achieved at the lowest possible cost. The potential costs for citizens and businesses are proportionate to the stated objectives. A first step in this direction was taken with the White Paper by excluding more radical measures (e.g. multiple damages, opt-out class actions and wide-ranging discovery rules). The efforts to strike this balance were broadly welcomed during the public consultations. The safeguards built into the proposed Directive strengthen this balance further by reducing potential costs (especially litigation costs) without jeopardising the right to compensation. Furthermore, certain measures suggested in the White Paper, such as collective redress and rules on the fault requirement, have since been discarded for the purposes of this proposal. Finally, the choice of a Directive as the appropriate instrument is in line with the principle that there should be as little intervention as possible, so long as the objectives are achieved.

14.

3.4. A Directive as the most appropriate legally binding instrument


The objectives of the present proposal can best be pursued through a Directive. This is the most appropriate legal instrument to make the measures work effectively and to facilitate smooth adaptation into the legal systems of the Member States:

– A Directive requires Member States to achieve the objectives and implement the measures into their national substantive and procedural law systems. This approach gives the Member States more freedom when implementing an EU measure than does a Regulation, in that Member States are left the choice of the most appropriate means of implementing the measures in the Directive. This allows Member States to ensure that these new rules are consistent with their existing substantive and procedural legal framework.

– Furthermore, a Directive is a flexible tool for introducing common rules in areas of national law that are crucial for the functioning of the internal market and the effectiveness of damages actions, and for ensuring adequate guarantees throughout the EU, while leaving room for individual Member States to go further, should they so wish.

– Finally, a Directive avoids unnecessary action wherever the domestic provisions in the Member States are already in line with the proposed measures.

15.

4. Detailed explanation of the proposal


4.1. Scope and definitions (Chapter I: Articles 1 – 4)

The proposed Directive seeks to improve the conditions under which compensation can be obtained for harm caused by (a) infringements of the EU competition rules, and (b) infringements of national competition law provisions, where the latter are applied by a national competition authority or a national court in the same case in parallel to the EU competition rules. Such parallel application has its basis in the way in which Regulation No 1/2003 regulates the relationship between Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and national competition laws. Regulation No 1/2003 provides that where national competition authorities or national courts apply national competition law to agreements within the meaning of Article 101 which may affect trade between Member States, they must also apply Article 101. Similarly, where they apply national competition law to any abuse prohibited by Article 102, they must also apply Article 102[40]. In cases where compensation is sought for a violation of both EU and national competition law, it is appropriate for the same substantive and procedural rules to apply to those damages actions. Applying diverging rules on civil liability for a single specific instance of anticompetitive behaviour would not only make it unworkable for judges to handle the case, it would also imply legal uncertainty for all parties involved, and it could lead to conflicting results depending on whether the national court considers the case as an infringement of EU or of national competition law, thus hampering the effective application of those rules. The proposed Directive therefore refers to damages actions for ‘infringements of national or EU competition law’ or jointly ‘infringements of competition law’, whereby ‘national competition law’ is defined narrowly so as to cover only cases where it is applied in parallel to EU competition law.

The proposed Directive sets out rules (i) ensuring that any natural or legal persons harmed by infringements of the competition rules are granted equivalent protection throughout the Union and can effectively enforce their EU right to full compensation through damages actions before national courts; and (ii) optimising the interaction between such damages actions and the public enforcement of the competition rules.

Article 2 recalls the acquis communautaire on the EU right to full compensation. The proposed Directive thus embraces a compensatory approach: its aim is to allow those who have suffered harm caused by an infringement of the competition rules to obtain compensation for that harm from the undertaking(s) that infringed the law.

Article 2 also recalls the acquis communautaire on standing and on the definition of damage to be compensated. The notion of actual loss referred to in this provision is taken from the case-law of the Court of Justice, and does not exclude any type of damage (material or immaterial) that might have been caused by an infringement of the competition rules.

Article 3 recalls the principles of effectiveness and equivalence which must be complied with by national rules and procedures relating to actions for damages.

4.2. Disclosure of evidence (Chapter II: Articles 5 – 8)

Establishing an infringement of the competition rules, quantifying antitrust damages, and establishing causality between the infringement and the harm suffered typically require a complex factual and economic analysis. Much of the relevant evidence a claimant will need to prove his case is in the possession of the defendant or of third persons and is often not sufficiently known or accessible to the claimants (‘information asymmetry’). It is widely recognised that the difficulty a claimant encounters in obtaining all necessary evidence constitutes in many Member States one of the key obstacles to damages actions in competition cases. In so far as the burden of proof falls on the (allegedly) infringing undertaking[41], it too may need to have access to evidence in the hands of the claimant and/or of a third party. The opportunity to ask the judge to order disclosure of information is therefore available to both parties to the proceedings.

The disclosure regime in the proposed Directive builds on the approach adopted in Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights[42]. Its aim is to ensure that in all Member States there is a minimum level of effective access to the evidence needed by claimants and/or defendants to prove their antitrust damages claim and/or a related defence. At the same time, the proposed Directive avoids overly broad and costly disclosure obligations that could create undue burdens for the parties involved and risks of abuses. The Commission has also paid particular attention to ensuring that the proposal is compatible with the different legal orders of the Member States. To this end, the proposal follows the tradition of the great majority of Member States and relies on the central function of the court seized with an action for damages: disclosure of evidence held by the opposing party or a third party can only be ordered by judges and is subject to strict and active judicial control as to its necessity, scope and proportionality.

National courts should have at their disposal effective measures to protect any business secrets or otherwise confidential information disclosed during the proceedings. Furthermore, disclosure should not be allowed where it would be contrary to certain rights and obligations such as the obligation of professional secrecy. Courts must also be able to impose sanctions which are sufficiently deterrent to prevent destruction of relevant evidence or refusal to comply with a disclosure order.

To prevent that the disclosure of evidence jeopardises the public enforcement of the competition rules by a competition authority, the proposed Directive also establishes common EU-wide limits to disclosure of evidence held in the file of a competition authority:

(a) First, it provides for absolute protection for two types of documents which are considered to be crucial for the effectiveness of public enforcement tools. The documents referred to are the leniency corporate statements and settlement submissions. The disclosure of these documents risks seriously affecting the effectiveness of the leniency programme and of settlements procedures. Under the proposed Directive, a national court can never order disclosure of such documents in an action for damages.

(b) Second, it provides for temporary protection for documents that the parties have specifically prepared for the purpose of public enforcement proceedings (e.g. the party’s replies to the authority’s request for information) or that the competition authority has drawn up in the course of its proceedings (e.g. a statement of objections). Those documents can be disclosed for the purpose of an antitrust damages action only after the competition authority has closed its proceedings.

(c) Apart from limiting the national court’s ability to order disclosure, the above protective measures should also come into play if and when the protected documents have been obtained in the context of public enforcement proceedings (e.g. in the exercise of one of the parties’ right of defence). Therefore, where one of the parties in the action for damages had obtained those documents from the file of a competition authority, such documents are not admissible as evidence in an action for damages (documents of category (a) above) or are admissible only when the authority has closed its proceedings (documents of category (b) above).

(d) Documents which fall outside the above categories can be disclosed by court order at any moment in time. However, when doing so, national courts should refrain from ordering the disclosure of evidence by reference to information supplied to a competition authority for the purpose of its proceedings[43]. While the investigation is on-going, such disclosure could hinder public enforcement proceedings, since it would reveal what information is in the file of a competition authority and could thus be used to unravel the authority’s investigation strategy. However, the selection of pre-existing documents that are submitted to a competition authority for the purposes of the proceedings is in itself relevant, as undertakings are invited to supply targeted evidence in view of their cooperation. The willingness of undertakings to supply such evidence exhaustively or selectively when cooperating with competition authorities may be hindered by disclosure requests that identify a category of documents by reference to their presence in the file of a competition authority rather than their type, nature or object (e.g. requests for all documents in the file of a competition authority or all documents submitted thereto by a party). Therefore, such global disclosure requests for documents should normally be deemed by the court as disproportionate and not complying with the requesting party's duty to specify categories of evidence as precisely and narrowly as possible.

(e) Finally, to prevent documents obtained through access to a competition authority’s file becoming an object of trade, only the person who obtained access to the file (or his legal successor in the rights related to the claim) should be able to use those documents as evidence in an action for damages.

To achieve coherence regarding the rules on disclosure and the use of certain documents from the file of a competition authority, it is necessary to also amend existing rules on the conduct of Commission's proceedings laid down in Commission Regulation 773/2004[44], notably as regards access to the Commission's file and use of documents obtained therefrom, and the explanatory Notices published by the Commission[45]. The Commission intends doing so once the present Directive is adopted by the European Parliament and Council.

4.3. Effect of national decisions, limitation periods and joint and several liability (Chapter III: Articles 9 – 11)

16.

4.3.1. Probative effect of national decisions


Pursuant to Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, a Commission decision relating to proceedings under Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty has a probative effect in subsequent actions for damages, as a national court cannot take a decision running counter to such Commission decision[46]. It is appropriate to give final infringement decisions by national competition authorities (or by a national review court) similar effect. If an infringement decision has already been taken and has become final, the possibility for the infringing undertaking to re-litigate the same issues in subsequent damages actions would be inefficient, cause legal uncertainty and lead to unnecessary costs for all parties involved and for the judiciary.

The proposed probative effect of final infringement decisions of national competition authorities does not entail any lessening of judicial protection for the undertakings concerned, as infringement decisions by national competition authorities are still subject to judicial review. Moreover, throughout the EU, undertakings enjoy a comparable level of protection of their rights of defence, as enshrined in Article 48(2) of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. Finally, the rights and obligations of national courts under Article 267 of the Treaty remain unaffected by this rule.

17.

4.3.2. Limitation periods


To give victims of a competition law infringement a reasonable opportunity to bring a damages action, while ensuring an appropriate level of legal certainty for all parties involved, the Commission proposes that the national rules on limitation periods for a damages action:

– allow victims sufficient time (at least five years) to bring an action after they became aware of the infringement, the harm it caused and the identity of the infringer;

– prevent a limitation period from starting to run before the day on which a continuous or repeated infringement ceases; and

– in case a competition authority opens proceedings into a suspected infringement, the limitation period to bring an action for damages relating to such infringement is suspended until at least one year after a decision is final or proceedings are otherwise terminated.

18.

4.3.3. Joint and several liability


Where several undertakings infringe the competition rules jointly — typically in the case of a cartel — it is appropriate that they be jointly and severally liable for the entire harm caused by the infringement. While the proposed Directive builds on this general rule, it introduces certain modifications with regard to the liability regime of immunity recipients. The objective of these modifications is to safeguard the attractiveness of the leniency programmes of the Commission and of the NCAs, which are key instruments in detecting cartels and thus of crucial importance for the effective public enforcement of the competition rules.

Indeed, as leniency recipients are less likely to appeal an infringement decision, this decision often becomes final for them earlier than for other members of the same cartel. This may make leniency recipients the primary targets of damages actions. To limit the disadvantageous consequences of such exposure, while not unduly limiting the possibilities for injured parties to obtain full compensation for the loss suffered, it is proposed to limit the immunity recipient’s liability, as well as his contribution owed to co-infringers under joint and several liability, to the harm he caused to his own direct or indirect purchasers or, in the case of a buying cartel, his direct or indirect providers. Where a cartel has caused harm only to others than the customers/providers of the infringing undertakings, the immunity recipient would be responsible only for his share of the harm caused by the cartel. How that share is determined (e.g. turnover, market share, role in the cartel, etc.), is left to the discretion of the Member States, as long as the principles of effectiveness and equivalence are respected.

The protection of immunity recipients cannot, however, interfere with the victims’ EU right to full compensation. The proposed limitation on the immunity recipient’s liability cannot therefore be absolute: the immunity recipient remains fully liable as a last-resort debtor if the injured parties are unable to obtain full compensation from the other infringers. To guarantee the effet utile of this exception, Member States have to make sure that injured parties can still claim compensation from the immunity recipient at the time they have become aware that they cannot obtain full compensation from the co-cartelists.

4.4. Passing-on of overcharges (Chapter IV: Articles 12 – 15)

Persons who have suffered harm caused by an infringement of the competition rules are entitled to compensation, regardless of whether they are direct or indirect purchasers. Injured parties are entitled to compensation for actual loss (overcharge harm) and for loss of profit. When an injured party has reduced his actual loss by passing it on, partly or entirely, to his own purchasers, the loss thus passed on no longer constitutes harm for which the party that passed it on has to be compensated. However, where a loss is passed on, the price increase by the direct purchaser is likely to lead to a reduction in the volume sold. That loss of profit, as well as the actual loss that was not passed on (in the case of partial passing-on) remains antitrust harm for which the injured party can claim compensation.

If the harm is suffered as a result of an infringement relating to a supply to the infringing undertaking, passing-on could also take place in an upwards direction on the supply chain. This would, for example, be the case when, as a result of a buying cartel, the suppliers of the cartelists charge lower prices, and those suppliers then in turn require lower prices from their own suppliers.

To ensure that only the direct and indirect purchasers that actually suffered overcharge harm can effectively claim compensation, the proposed Directive explicitly recognises the possibility for the infringing undertaking to invoke the passing-on defence.

However, in situations where the overcharge was passed on to natural or legal persons at the next level of the supply chain for whom it is legally impossible to claim compensation, the passing-on defence cannot be invoked. Indirect purchasers may be faced with the legal impossibility of claiming compensation because of national rules on causality (including rules on foreseeability and remoteness). Allowing the passing-on defence when it is legally impossible for the party to whom the overcharge was allegedly passed on to claim compensation would be unjustified, since it would mean that the infringing undertaking is unduly freed from liability for the harm he caused. The burden of proving the passing-on always lies with the infringing undertaking. In the case of an action for damages brought by an indirect purchaser, this implies a rebuttable presumption pursuant to which, subject to certain conditions, a passing-on to that indirect purchaser occurred. As regards the quantification of the passing-on, the national court should have the power to estimate which share of the overcharge has been passed on to the level of indirect purchasers in the dispute pending before it. Where injured parties from different levels of the supply chain bring separate actions for damages that are related to the same competition law infringement, national courts should take due account, as far as allowed under applicable national or EU law, of parallel or preceding actions (or judgments resulting from such actions) in order to avoid under- and over-compensation of the harm caused by that infringement and to foster consistency between judgments resulting from such linked proceedings. Actions that are pending before the courts of different Member States may be considered as related within the meaning of Article 30 of Regulation No 1215/2012[47], meaning that they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. As a consequence, any court other than the court first seized may stay its proceedings or decline jurisdiction if the court first seized has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation of the actions.

Both Regulation No 1215/2012 and this proposed Directive thus seek to encourage consistency between judgments resulting from related actions. To achieve that, the proposed Directive has an even wider scope than Regulation No 1215/2012, as it also covers the situation of subsequent actions for damages relating to the same competition law infringement, brought by injured parties at different levels of the supply chain. These actions can be brought in the same court, in different courts in the same Member State or in different courts of different Member States. In all instances, the proposed Directive encourages the consistency of linked proceedings and judgments.

19.

4.5. Quantification of harm (Chapter V: Article 16)


Proving and quantifying antitrust harm is generally very fact-intensive and costly, as it may require the application of complex economic models. To assist victims of a cartel in quantifying the harm caused by the competition law infringement, this proposed Directive provides for a rebuttable presumption with regard to the existence of harm resulting from a cartel. Based on the finding that more than 9 out of 10 cartels indeed cause an illegal overcharge[48], this alleviates the injured party’s difficulties and costs related to proving that the cartel caused higher prices to be charged than if the cartel had not existed.

The infringing undertaking could rebut this presumption and use the evidence at its disposal to prove that the cartel did not cause harm. The burden of proof is thus placed on the party which already has in its possession the necessary evidence to meet this burden of proof. The costs of disclosure, which would most likely be necessary for the injured parties to prove the existence of harm, are thus avoided.

Apart from the above presumption, antitrust harm is quantified on the basis of national rules and procedures. These must, however, be in line with the principles of equivalence and of effectiveness. The latter, in particular, dictates that the burden and the level of proof may not render the injured party’s right to damages practically impossible or excessively difficult. In terms of quantifying antitrust harm, where the actual situation needs to be compared with a hypothetical one, this means that judges must be able to estimate the amount of harm. This increases the likelihood that victims will actually obtain an adequate amount of compensation for the harm they have suffered.

To make it easier for national courts to quantify harm, the Commission is also providing non-binding guidance on this topic in its Communication on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union[49]. The Communication is accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Paper taking the form of a Practical Guide on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of EU competition law. This Practical Guide explains the strengths and weaknesses of various methods and techniques available to quantify antitrust harm. It also presents and discusses a range of practical examples, which illustrate the typical effects that infringements of the EU competition rules tend to have and how the available methods and techniques can be applied in practice.

20.

4.6. Consensual Dispute Resolution (Chapter VI: Articles 17-18)


One of the primary objectives of the proposed Directive is to enable victims of a competition law infringement to obtain full compensation for the harm suffered. That objective can be achieved either through a damages action in court or through a consensual out-of-court settlement between the parties. To incentivise parties to settle their dispute consensually, the proposed Directive aims at optimising the balance between out-of-court settlements and actions for damages.

It therefore contains the following provisions:

(i) suspension of limitation periods for bringing actions for damages as long as the infringing undertaking and the injured party are engaged in consensual dispute resolution;

(ii) suspension of pending proceedings for the duration of consensual dispute resolution;

(iii) reduction of the settling injured party’s claim by the settling infringer’s share of harm. For the remainder of the claim, the settling infringer could only be required to pay damages if the non-settling co-infringers were unable to fully compensate the injured party; and

(iv) damages paid through consensual settlements to be taken into account when determining the contribution that a settling infringer needs to pay following a subsequent order to pay damages. In this context, ‘contribution’ refers to the situation where the settling infringer was not a defendant in the action for damages, but is asked by co-infringers who were ordered to pay damages to contribute under the rules of joint and several liability.

3.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS



The proposed Directive does not have any budgetary implications.

21.

6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION


22.

6.1. Repeal of existing legislation


No previous legislative act is repealed through this present proposal.

23.

6.2. Review


Article 21 of the proposed Directive requires the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council on its effects at the latest five years after the deadline for transposition into national law.

Once the proposed Directive has been adopted, the Commission will continue to monitor the legal framework for antitrust damages actions in the Member States, focusing primarily on the achievement of the two main objectives of the proposed Directive, i.e.

(i) optimising the interaction between the public and private enforcement of competition law; and

(ii) ensuring that victims of infringements of the EU competition rules can obtain full compensation for the harm they have suffered.

The Commission will assess whether the Directive is successful in removing inefficiencies and obstacles preventing full compensation of victims of antitrust infringements and whether the interaction between public and private enforcement of competition law is functioning smoothly, to guarantee the optimal overall enforcement of EU competition law. As part of this monitoring process, the Commission will continue its dialogue with all relevant stakeholders.

Finally, an ex-post evaluation as regards the need for further modifications will be made once the measures put forward by the Directive are being fully implemented in the Member States, i.e. at least five years after the deadline for transposition of the Directive.

24.

6.3. Explanatory documents


The proposed Directive sets out specific measures to approximate substantive and procedural national rules governing actions for damages for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union. There are several legal obligations stemming from the proposed Directive. Its effective transposition will therefore require that specific and targeted amendments are made to the relevant national rules. In order for the Commission to monitor the correct implementation, it is thus not sufficient for Member States to transmit the text of the implementing provisions, as an overall assessment of the resulting regime under national law may be necessary. For these reasons, Member States should also transmit to the Commission explanatory documents showing which existing or new provisions under national law are meant to implement the individual measures set out in the proposed Directive.

25.

6.4. European Economic Area


The proposed Directive relates to the effective enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty, by optimising the interaction between the public and private enforcement of these provisions as well as by improving the conditions under which victims of competition law infringements can claim damages. The proposed Directive contributes to the proper functioning of the internal market as it creates a more level playing field both for the undertakings that infringe the competition rules and for the victims of this illegal behaviour. Due to these objectives in the fields of competition and the internal market, which form part of the EEA legal rules, the proposal is relevant for the EEA.