Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Private Damages Actions Under EU Competition Policy: An Exploration of the Ongoing Sea Change in Respect of Such Actions Concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU Infringements

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The EU has an established history of public enforcement concerning antitrust infringements under what are now Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Yet, until recently, this has not been true in respect of private compensatory damages actions in relation to the said articles. Hence, these actions are now seen as reinforcing the existing deterrent provided by pubic enforcement fines. This paper focuses upon the ongoing sea change that aims to enable and encourage compensatory damages claims in relation to harm caused by breaches of 101 and 102 TFEU. It reveals that both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Commission have played pioneering roles in advancing this sea change. It further asserts that, although the rulings of the CJEU have created a hybrid architecture that makes possible private actions in relation to the said breaches under Member state procedural laws before national courts, the architecture itself is problematic as it fails to guarantee that Member states’ procedural rules have a high degree of uniformity, thereby failing to guarantee a regulatory level playing field across the Union concerning the said damages actions. Moreover, not only is the architecture problematic, but it needed further development in respect of rules and requirements in several key areas, such as the right of evidential disclosure, the limitation period issue, collective redress and the quantification of harm, so as to facilitate and encourage claims. The Commission was aware of these concerns, and this paper explores its response. The issues could have been addressed by the establishment of a set of EU procedural rules which national courts would apply in the said actions but the Commission decided upon a different way forward. Working with the said hybrid architecture, and through the vehicle of the 2014 Directive 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, the Commission has amended and created rules and requirements which will form part of Member states’ domestic procedural law—and therefore will be applied by national courts—in order to establish a more level regulatory playing field across the Union which should facilitate and encourage private compensatory damages actions for harm caused by EU antitrust breaches. Of course, a more level playing field means that differences will still remain. Moreover, it will be some time before the success of the Directive can be gauged, and further measures may be required in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Case C-453/99 Courage Ltd v Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, paragraph 29.

  2. Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 OJ L 349, 5.12.2014, pp. 1–19.

  3. Supra n. 2, paragraph 9.

  4. Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 1/24, pp. 1–22 (2004).

  5. European Commission Staff Working Paper accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council, Report on the functioning of Regulation 1/2003, {COM (2009)206 final}, pp. 1–97, paragraph 13.

  6. Council Regulation (EC) No 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 L 0001, 04/01/2003, pp. 0001–0025, Recital 7.

  7. Case 26–62 NV Algemene Transport—en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963, II—The First Question, B—On the Substance of the Case.

  8. Case 127–73 Belgische Radio en Televisie v SV SABAM and NV Fonior. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel—Belgium.—BRT-I [1974] ECR—00051, paragraph 16. See also: Case C-282/95 P. Guérin automobiles v Commission of the European Communities [1997] ECR I-01503, paragraph 39.

  9. Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic [1991] ECR 1-05357.

  10. Ibid n. 9, paragraph 32.

  11. Ibid n. 9, paragraph 33.

  12. Ibid n. 9, paragraphs 35 and 37.

  13. Case C-128/92 Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven H. J. Banks & Co. Ltd v British Coal Corporation [1993] ECR 1994 I-01209, paragraph 43.

  14. Ibid n. 13, paragraph 43.

  15. Ibid n. 13, paragraph 45.

  16. Supra n. 1, Case C-453/99 Courage v Crehan.

  17. Supra n. 1, paragraph 7.

  18. Supra n. 1, paragraph 25.

  19. Supra n. 1, paragraph 26.

  20. Supra n. 1, paragraph 27.

  21. See, for example, European Commission, Green Paper—Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, COM/2005/0672 final, section 1.1.

  22. Supra n. 1, paragraph 29.

  23. Supra n. 2, Recital 4.

  24. Supra n. 1, paragraph 29.

  25. Supra n. 2, Recitals 7 and 8.

  26. Supra n. 6, Article 3(1).

  27. Supra n. 5, paragraph 152.

  28. Supra n. 2, Recital 10.

  29. Supra n. 1, paragraph 12.

  30. Supra n. 1, paragraph 26.

  31. Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Manfredi and Others v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA and Others [2006] ECR I-06619, paragraph 60.

  32. Supra n. 28, paragraph 61.

  33. Supra n. 2, Recitals 3 and 13, and Article 3(1).

  34. Supra n. 2, Article 13.

  35. Supra n. 2, Article 2(23).

  36. Supra n. 2, Article 2(24).

  37. Supra n. 2, Article 12(1).

  38. This is based upon the exemplar of actual loss given in Supra n. 2, Recital 39.

  39. Supra n. 2, Recital 39.

  40. Supra n. 2, Article 3(2) and Recital 40.

  41. Supra n. 2, Recital 12.

  42. Supra n. 2, Recital 41.

  43. Supra n. 2, Article 14.

  44. Supra n. 21, Section 2.3.

  45. See, for example, European Commission Report on Competition Policy 2007 COM (2008) 368 FINAL, Section 1.1, paragraph 3.

  46. Supra n. 28, paragraph 86.

  47. Supra n. 28, paragraph 85.

  48. Supra n. 28, paragraph 87.

  49. Supra n. 28, paragraph 87.

  50. Supra n. 28, paragraphs 92 and 93.

  51. Supra n. 28, paragraph 94.

  52. Supra n. 2, Recital 13.

  53. Supra n. 2, Article 3.

  54. See, for example, European Commission White Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules COM (2008) 165 final, Section 2.2.

  55. Supra n. 2, Article 9(1).

  56. Supra n. 2, Article 9(2).

  57. Supra n. 2, Article 5(1).

  58. Supra n. 2, Article 5(1).

  59. Supra n. 2, Article 5(2).

  60. Supra n. 2, Article 5(2).

  61. Supra n. 2, Recital 16.

  62. Supra n. 2, Article 5(8).

  63. Supra n. 2, Article 5(4).

  64. Supra n. 2, Recital 18.

  65. Supra n. 2, Article 6(1).

  66. Supra n. 2, Recital 23.

  67. Supra n. 2, Article 6(5).

  68. European Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, pp. 17–22, paragraphs 8, 23 and 24.

  69. Case C-536/11 2013 Bundeswettbewerbshörde v Donau Chemie and Others Judgment of the Court of 6 June 2013, ECR I-00000, paragraph 46.

  70. Ibid n. 66, paragraph 46.

  71. Ibid n. 66, paragraph 47.

  72. Ibid n. 66, paragraph 48.

  73. Supra n. 66, paragraph 43. See also: Case C-360/09 Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt [2011] ECR I-5161, paragraph 31.

  74. European Commission Press Releases, `Antitrust: Commission fines six LCD panel producers €648 million for price fixing cartel’, IP/10/1685, Brussels, 8 December 2010, page 1. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_Ip-10-1685_en.htm.

  75. Supra n. 51, Section 2.9 Interaction between leniency programmes and actions for damages.

  76. Supra n. 2, Recital 26.

  77. Supra n. 51, Section 2.9 Interaction between leniency programmes and actions for damages.

  78. Supra n. 2, Article 6(6).

  79. Supra n. 51, Section 2.1 Standing: indirect purchasers and collective redress.

  80. Supra n. 51, Section 2.1 Standing: indirect purchasers and collective redress.

  81. European Commission Recommendation on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law, 26.7.2013, OJ L 201/60, Recital 12.

  82. Supra n. 51, Section 2.1 Standing: indirect purchasers and collective redress.

  83. Supra n. 78, See Sections III and V.

  84. Supra n. 78, Recital 24.

  85. Supra n. 78, Recital 25.

  86. Supra n. 2, Recital 13.

  87. Supra n. 2, Recital 45.

  88. Supra n. 2, Article 17(1).

  89. Supra n. 2, Article 17(1).

  90. Supra n. 2, Recital 41.

  91. Supra n. 2, Recital 42.

  92. Supra n. 28, paragraph 77.

  93. Supra n. 2, Recital 36.

  94. Supra n. 28, paragraph 78.

  95. Supra n. 28, paragraph 80.

  96. Supra n. 2, Article 10(2).

  97. Supra n. 2, Article 10(3).

  98. Supra n. 2, Article 10(4).

  99. Supra n 2, Article 10(4).

  100. Supra n. 2, Article 18(1).

  101. Supra n. 2, Article 18(2).

  102. Supra n. 2, Article 18(3).

  103. Supra n. 2, Recital 48.

  104. Supra n. 78, paragraph 26.

  105. Supra n. 2, Article 11(1).

  106. Supra n. 2, Recital 37.

  107. Supra n. 2, Article 11(4) and (5).

  108. Supra n. 2, Recital 38.

  109. Supra n. 2, Article 11(4).

  110. Supra n. 2, Article 19(2).

  111. Supra n. 2, Recital 51.

  112. Supra n. 2, Recital 51.

  113. Supra, n. 2, Article 11(2).

  114. Supra n. 2, Article 11(3a).

  115. Supra n. 2, Article 11(3b).

  116. My italics.

References

  • Case 26–62 Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963.—NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration.

  • Case 127–73 Belgische Radio en Televisie and société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs v SV SABAM and NV Fonior. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel–Belgium.—BRT-I [1974] ECR—00051.

  • Case C-128/92 Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 27 Oct 1993.—H. J. Banks & Co. Ltd v British Coal Corporation [1994] ECR I-01209.

  • Case C-282/95 P. Judgment of the Court of 18 March 1997.—Guérin automobiles v Commission of the European Communities [1997] ECR I-01503.

  • Case C-453/99 Judgment of the Court of 20 Sept 2001.—Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Bernard Crehan v Courage Ltd and Others [2001] ECR I-6297.

  • Case C-360/09 Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2011.—Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt [2011] ECR I-5161.

  • Case C-536/11 Judgment of the Court of 6 June 2013.—Bundeswettbewerbshörde v Donau Chemie and Others [2013] ECR I-00000.

  • Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, 29.1.2004, OJ L 24/1, pp. 1–22 (2004).

  • Council Regulation (EC) No 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 L 0001, 04/01/2003, pp. 0001–0025.

  • Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 OJ L 349, 5.12.2014, pp. 1–19.

  • European Commission, Green Paper—Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, COM/2005/0672 final.

  • European Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, pp. 17–22.

  • European Commission Report on Competition Policy 2007 COM (2008) 368 FINAL.

  • European Commission White Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules COM (2008) 165 final.

  • European Commission staff working paper accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council, Report on the functioning of Regulation 1/2003, {COM (2009) 206 final}.

  • European Commission Press Releases, `Antitrust: Commission fines six LCD panel producers €648 million for price fixing cartel’, IP/10/1685, Brussels, 8 December 2010, pp. 1–2. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_Ip-10-1685_en.htm.

  • European Commission Recommendation on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law, 26.7.2013, OJ L 201/60.

  • Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Judgment of the Court of 19 November 1991—Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic [1991] ECR 1-05357.

  • Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Judgment of the Court of 13 July 2006—Vincenzo Manfredi and Others v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA and Others [2006] ECR I-06619.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leigh Davison.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davison, L. Private Damages Actions Under EU Competition Policy: An Exploration of the Ongoing Sea Change in Respect of Such Actions Concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU Infringements. Liverpool Law Rev 37, 81–104 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-016-9183-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-016-9183-1

Keywords

Navigation