Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disclosure rules of the Antitrust Damages Directive: finding the balance between public and private enforcement

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

The paper investigates to what extent the principles of private and public enforcement are adhered to in antitrust damages actions. The Antitrust Damages Directive eliminated the uncertainty created in the wake of the Pfleiderer judgment and reasonably limited national judges’ scope of discretion. Competition authorities tend to rely very heavily on leniency procedures so paradoxically it is in the claimants’ interest to prevent access to and disclosure of leniency documents in follow-on actions. The paper argues that the rules applied for contemporary documents can be regarded as the major weakness of the Directive.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 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 Text with EEA relevance [2014] OJ L 349/1.

  2. De Sousa e Alvim [7], p. 246.

  3. Galič [10], p. 101.

  4. Ibid., p. 102.

  5. Ibid.

  6. Waelbroeck/Slater/Even-Shoshan [18], p. 1.

  7. Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents [2011] OJ L 145/43.

  8. For a review of access under Regulation 1/2003 or the Transparency Regulation see: Butorac Malnar [5], pp. 137–142.

  9. Ibid., p. 142.

  10. Ibid.

  11. Gulińska [11], pp. 161–162.

  12. Case C-360/09 Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt, EU:C:2011:389.

  13. Opinion of Advocate General Mazák in Case C-360/09 Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt, EU:C:2011:389, (hereafter, Opinion of Advocate General Mazák), para. 33.

  14. Ibid., para. 36.

  15. Case C-453/99 Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan, EU:C:2011:389. 27.

  16. Opinion of Advocate General Mazák, para. 39.

  17. Ibid., para. 46.

  18. Ibid., para. 44.

  19. Ibid., para. 47.

  20. Judgment in the Case C-360/09 Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt, EU:C:2011:389 (hereafter, Pfleiderer judgment), para. 27.

  21. Ibid., para. 29.

  22. Ibid., para. 31.

  23. Pace [16], p. 252.

  24. Ibid., p. 254.

  25. Miks [14], p. 8.

  26. Pace [16], p. 253.

  27. Almunia [1].

  28. Miks [14], p. 8.

  29. Case COMP/F/38.899—Gas Insulated Switchgear.

  30. [2012] EWHC 869 (Ch) in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division (hereafter, National Grid judgment).

  31. National Grid judgment, para. 36.

  32. Ibid., para. 26.

  33. Ibid., para. 34.

  34. Ibid., para. 35.

  35. Cassels/Jones/Pike [6].

  36. Ibid.

  37. Ibid.

  38. Case C-536/11 Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG, EU:C:2013:366.

  39. In Austria it is the Austrian Cartel Court which makes decisions in cartel cases and this Court is operates in the frame of Oberlandesgericht Wien.

  40. Judgment in Case C-536/11 Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG, EU:C:2013:366 (hereafter, Donau Chemie judgment), para. 5.

  41. Ibid., para. 6.

  42. Para. 39(2) of the Federal Law against Cartels and other Restraints of Competition (Bundesgesetz gegen Kartelle und andere Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen).

  43. Donau Chemie judgment, para. 11.

  44. Ibid., para. 32.

  45. Ibid., para. 33.

  46. Ibid., para. 34.

  47. Ibid., para. 49.

  48. Henry [13].

  49. Gulińska [11], p. 169.

  50. Judgment in case T-437/08 CDCHydrogene Peroxide Cartel Damage Claims v European Commission, EU:T:2011:752 (hereafter, CDC judgment), para. 1.

  51. Ibid., para. 2.

  52. The Regulation has been revised after the judgment.

  53. CDC judgment, para. 48.

  54. Ibid., para. 49.

  55. Ibid., para. 62.

  56. Ibid., para. 60.

  57. Ibid., para. 62.

  58. Ibid., para. 69.

  59. Ibid., para. 70.

  60. Ibid., para. 72.

  61. Ibid., para. 77.

  62. Brown [4].

  63. Pace [16], p. 249.

  64. Recital 14 of the preamble of the Directive.

  65. Gulińska [11], p. 163.

  66. Ibid.

  67. COM (2008) 165 final, White Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, p. 5.

  68. Galič [10], p. 105.

  69. Art. 5(1) of the Directive.

  70. Thiede [17].

  71. Hegymegi-Barakonyi/Horányi [12], p. 184.

  72. Forrester [9], p. 73.

  73. Galič [10], p. 99.

  74. Hegymegi-Barakonyi/Horányi [12], p. 7.

  75. Recital 23 of the preamble of the Directive.

  76. Art. 5(2) of the Directive.

  77. Art. 5(3) of the Directive.

  78. Art. 5(4) of the Directive.

  79. Recital 18 of the preamble of the Directive.

  80. Art. 5(6) of the Directive.

  81. Galič [10], p. 106.

  82. Recital 32 of the preamble of the Directive.

  83. See also: Demedts [8], pp. 216–217.

  84. For the definition see: Art. 2(16) of the Directive.

  85. For the definition see: Art. 2(18) of the Directive.

  86. Case T-456/10 Timab Industries and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) v European Commission, EU:T:2015:296.

  87. Ibid., para. 65.

  88. Recital 26 of the preamble of the Directive.

  89. Resolution of Meeting of Heads of the European Competition Authorities of 23 May 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/leniency_material_protection_en.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2018.

  90. Ibid., p. 1.

  91. Ibid., p. 2.

  92. Wright [19], pp. 14–15.

  93. Art. 6(6) of the Directive.

  94. Gulińska [11], p. 172.

  95. Butorac Malnar [5], p. 145.

  96. Art. 7(1) of the Directive.

  97. Pfleiderer judgment, para. 31.

  98. Timab judgment, para. 46.

  99. Donau Chemie judgment, para. 25.

  100. Gulińska [11], p. 171.

  101. Hegymegi-Barakonyi/Horányi [12], p. 8.

  102. See for the categories: Art. 6(5) of the Directive.

  103. Art. 7(2) of the Directive.

  104. Recital 25 of the preamble of the Directive.

  105. Gulińska [11], p. 173.

  106. Galič [10], p. 109.

  107. Butorac Malnar [5], p. 146.

  108. European Commission MEMO: Antitrust: Commission proposal for Directive to facilitate damages claims by victims of antitrust violations—frequently asked questions, Brussels, 17 April 2014, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-310_en.htm, accessed 14 April 2018.

  109. Butorac Malnar [5], p. 147.

  110. Art. 6(9) of the Directive.

  111. Butorac Malnar [5], p. 144.

  112. Art. 8(1) of the Directive.

  113. Bien/Negri/Idot/Petrasincu/Kroes/Franck/Osti/Prieto/Wagner-von Papp/Remien/Bernhard/Paul [3], p. 20.

  114. Art. 8(2) of the Directive.

  115. This risk was stressed by the Commission in the Impact Assessment Report on Damages actions for breach of the EU antitrust rules, accompanying the proposal for the Directive at para. 34.

  116. Balasingham [2], p. 151.

  117. Butorac Malnar [5], pp. 148–149.

  118. For statistics about the imposed fines in cartel cases in the EU see: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/statistics/statistics.pdf.

  119. Brown [4].

  120. Galič [10], p. 104.

  121. Butorac Malnar [5], p. 144.

  122. Morfey/Hausfeld/Petrasincu [15], p. 3.

References

  1. Almunia, J.: New challenges in mergers and antitrust. IBA annual competition conference. SPEECH/11/581

  2. Balasingham, B.: The EU Leniency Policy: Reconciling Effectiveness and Fairness. International Competition Law Series, vol. 70 (2017). Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bien, F., Negri, M., Idot, L., Petrasincu, A., Kroes, F., Franck, J., Osti, C., Prieto, C., Wagner-von Papp, F., Remien, O., Bernhard, J., Paul, T.: In: Implementation of the EU Damages Directive into Member State Law, Concurrences N∘3-2017, Conference, September 12, 2017, pp. 1–67 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, C.: Access to documents under Reg 1049/2001 and private enforcement of EU competition law—the CDC Hydrogene Peroxide judgment (2012). Accessed 19.11.2018. Available at https://eutopialaw.com/2012/01/18/access-to-documents-under-reg-10492001-and-private-enforcement-of-eu-competition-law-the-cdc-hydrogene-peroxide-judgment/

  5. Butorac Malnar, V.: Access to documents in antitrust litigation—EU and Croatian perspective. In: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, vol. 2015, 8(12) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cassels, T.K., Jones, K., Pike, R.: Access to documents held by regulatory authorities (2012). Accessed 16.04.2018. Available at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6e30fc2c-85c7-4882-9517-eb4c225cf03b

  7. De Sousa e Alvim, M.: The new EU directive on antitrust damages—a giant step forward? ECLR. Eur. Compet. Law Rev. (A4/15.444), 6/2015, 245–248 (2015)

  8. Demedts, V.: The Future of International Competition Law Enforcement. An Assessment of the EU’s Cooperation Efforts. Brill Nijhoff, Boston (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Forrester, I.S.: The role of the CJEU in interpreting Directive 2014/104/EU on antitrust damages actions. ERA Forum 18, 67–77 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Galič, A.: Disclosure of documents in private antitrust enforcement litigation. In: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, vol. 2015, 8(12) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gulińska, A.: Collecting evidence through access to competition authorities’ files—interplay or potential conflicts between private and public enforcement proceedings? In: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, vol. 2015, vol. 8(12) (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hegymegi-Barakonyi, Z., Horányi, M.: Közjogi kontra magánjogi jogérvényesítés. In: Boytha, Gy. (ed.) Versenyjogi jogsértések esetén érvényesíthető magánjogi igények. HVG-ORAC, Budapest (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Henry, D.: EU’s top court rules that blanket ban on access to leniency documents is not permitted (2013). Accessed 20.12.2018. Available at https://www.mwe.com/en/thought-leadership/publications/2013/06/eus-top-court-rules-that-blanket-ban-on-access-t__

  14. Miks, A.: Az engedékenységi iratok kezelésével kapcsolatos legújabb fejlemények. Versenytükör 2012(1), 4–15 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Morfey, A., Hausfeld, M.D., Petrasincu, A.: Private enforcement: an overview of the leading cases and opinions. 25.01.2018, e-Competitions Bulletin Private enforcement, Art. N° 85639, 3 (2018)

  16. Pace, L.F.: The Court of Justice ‘Antitrust enforcement negative harmonisation framework’ and the CDC and Pfleiderer judgments: ‘Another brick in the wall’. In: Cortese, B. (ed.) EU Competition Law. Between Public and Private Enforcement (2013). Wolters Kluwer Law & Business

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Waelbroeck, D., Slater, D., Even-Shoshan, G.: Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules. Comparative Report (2004). Accessed 16.07.2018. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/comparative_report_clean_en.pdf

  19. Wright, K.: The ambit of judicial competence after the EU antitrust damages directive. Leg. Issues Eur. Integr. 43(1), 15–40 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for International Relations, Hungarian Academy of Justice, National Office for the Judiciary, Budapest, Hungary

    László Bánk Varga

  2. Academy of European Law (ERA), Trier, Germany

    László Bánk Varga

  3. District Court of Szombathely, Szombathely, Hungary

    Bálint Gábor Kovács

  4. District Court of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Angéla Gábri

  5. Budapest District Court for the IV. and XV. Districts, Budapest, Hungary

    Blanka Szupera

Authors
  1. László Bánk Varga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bálint Gábor Kovács
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angéla Gábri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Blanka Szupera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to László Bánk Varga.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The article is a significantly revised version of the authors’ paper submitted to Semi-final C of the THEMIS Competition organised by the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) in June 2018. The content of the article is entirely academic and does not in any way reflect the position of ERA, or that of Hungary’s National Office for the Judiciary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Varga, L.B., Kovács, B.G., Gábri, A. et al. Disclosure rules of the Antitrust Damages Directive: finding the balance between public and private enforcement. ERA Forum 20, 141–157 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00552-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00552-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation