Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The CJEU Case Law After Preliminary Ruling on Behalf of Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Language and Law

  • 574 Accesses

Abstract

The Court of Justice of the European Union case law on private enforcement of EU Competition Law will be examined in order to explain the developments on the topic until the enactment of specific legislative instruments such as Directive 2014/104/EU. In this context, some leading cases are analysed, with particular regard to those that have led to further elaboration of jurisprudence or doctrine, as the decisive judgments Courage Ltd v. Crehan, Masterfoods Ltd. v. HB Ice Cream, Ltd. and Vincenzo Manfredi v. Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA, consolidating the previous case law. In all the case law compliance with the characteristics of the European legal order shall be specified too. The relevance of the direct effect will be highlighted, since it might be problematic in the case of the Directive. Most of this case law has been the result of questions referred for a preliminary ruling directly to the Court of Justice from the courts of the Member States. These courts are responsible for complying with the EU measures to settle disputes at a national level between natural or legal persons in mainly civil or commercial matters.

The financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and the European Commission is gratefully acknowledged (Research Projects A step forward in the consolidation of the European judicial area and its practical application in Spain: from the perspective of civil and criminal procedures, DER2015-71418-P and JUST-2015-JCOO-AG, 723198, and Training action for legal practitioners: linguistic skills and translation in EU Competition Law, HT.4582-6). Also my special thanks to Professor Luis Velasco San Pedro, Professor of Commercial Law at the University of Valladolid, for his bibliographical recommendation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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 (OJ L 349, 5.12.2014, p. 1), also known as “damages directive” or Directive on damages actions. See Ioannidou (2015), p. 182. See specifically at the time Editorial comments (2014), pp. 1333–1342. For Spanish comments, see: Ordoñez Solís (2015), available via http://www.elderecho.com/ and extensively Ruiz Peris (2016).

  2. 2.

    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 1, 4.1.2001, p. 1), giving place to so-called “modernisation of Community procedural rules”. See, eg, Liu (2009). In Spain basic references by Fernández Torres and Fuentes Navarro (2013), pp. 289–317 arguing for the application of an “uncentralized model on application of competition rules” (p. 289).

  3. 3.

    See generally in Spain Velasco San Pedro et al. (2011), pp. 143–187; Dune (2014).

  4. 4.

    On the role of the CJEU case law in relation to the construction of the private enforcement theory of EU Competition Law see in Spain Torres Sustaeta (2014), p. 129 ff.

  5. 5.

    Slot and Farley (2017), p. 194.

  6. 6.

    On the effect erga omnes of preliminary ruling judgments see Jimeno-Bulnes (2013a), p. 205; in extenso, Jimeno Bulnes (1996), p. 455 ff. In CJEU case law see: Case 28/62-30/62 Da Costa en Schaake [1963] ECR 31, ECLI:EU:C:1963:6; Case 283/81 CILFIT [1982] ECR 3415, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335.

  7. 7.

    See Horsely (2013), pp. 931–964 reproducing the debate existing in the literature between judicial activism and judicial restraint defenders. Also analysis providing examples by Rosas et al. (2013). Final critical comments on judicial activism by Cappelletti (2015), pp. 311–322. In Spain Fidalgo Gallardo (2016).

  8. 8.

    Cosimo (2011). First CJEU case mentioning such need of dialogue between judges on behalf of judicial cooperation between CJCE and national courts Case 16/65 Schwarze [1965] ECR 877, ECLI:EU:C:1965:117. See in the literature Von Danwitz (2010), pp. 143–147.

  9. 9.

    Schwarze judgment, cit., para. 3.

  10. 10.

    Case C-105/12, Taricco [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:555. See criticism by Perlo (2017), pp. 739–768.

  11. 11.

    Case 23/67, SA Brasserie de Haecht [1967] 407,ECLI:EU:C:1967:54.

  12. 12.

    Case C-453/99, Courage and Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, ECLI:EU:C:2001:465.

  13. 13.

    Case C-344/98, Masterfoods Ltd v. HB Ice Cream, Ltd. [2000] ECR I-11369, ECLI:EU:C:2000:689.

  14. 14.

    Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04, Manfredi and others [2006] ECR I-6619, ECLI:EU:C:2006:461.

  15. 15.

    Case C-360/09, Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt [2011] ECR I-5161, ECLI:EU:C:2011:389.

  16. 16.

    Case C-199/11, Otis and others [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:684.

  17. 17.

    Case C-536/11, Donau Chemie [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:366.

  18. 18.

    Case C-557/12, Kone AG and Others v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:1327.

  19. 19.

    In fact the preliminary ruling procedure is known as ‘the jewel in the Crown of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice’; see Smulders and Eisele (2012), pp. 112–127.

  20. 20.

    The most important judgments are: Case C-510/11P, Kone Oyj [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:696; Case T-342/11, Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (CEEES) and Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio v European Commission [2014] ECLI:EU:T:2014:60; Case C-365/12P, EnBW Energie [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:112; Case T-341/12, Evonik Degussa [2015] ECLI:EU:T:2015:51; Case T-677/13, Axa Versicherung [2015] ECLI:EU:T:2015:473; Joined Cases C-164/15P and 165/15P, Aer Lingus [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:990; Case T-480/15, Agria Polska [2017] ECLI:EU:T:2017:339; Case C-517/15P, AGC Glass Europe [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:598.

  21. 21.

    See on the topic, eg, Robin-Olivier (2014), pp. 165–188; also generally Prinssen and Schrauwen (2002) and Pescatore (2015).

  22. 22.

    Case 26/62, van Gend & Loos [1963] ECR 1, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1. On its impact see, eg, Chalters and Barroso (2014), pp. 105–134 and Rasmussen (2014), pp. 136–163; more critical Weiler (2014), pp. 94–103. In opposition Derlén and Lindholm (2014), pp. 667–687.

  23. 23.

    It is the case of Spain by Royal Decree Law 9/2017 of 26 May 2017, available via Spanish Official Journal. https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2017-5855. (Accessed 16 Jan 2018).

  24. 24.

    (Ground B) 5. On the autonomy of EU Law introduced by prior Van Gend en Loos case see criticism by Klamert (2017), p. 815.

  25. 25.

    (Ground B) 5 again. This is the so-called vertical direct effect by contrast to the horizontal direct effect recognised by the CJEU in later case law such as Defrenne, where the invocation of the rights recognised by the Treaties before national jurisdictions takes place not only in the relations between the State and the individuals, but also between individuals themselves (Case 43/75, Defrenne [1976] ECR 455 ECLI:EU:1976:56). For a basic explanation on such difference see information provided by Eur-Lex database at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al14547 (Accessed 23 Jan 2018). Nevertheless, see recent criticism related to this comparison between effect direct and subjective rights for individuals by Pfeiffer (2017), pp. 665–695, especially at pp. 689 ff. proposing a parallel theory to the effect direct opposite to Van Gend en Loos case law.

  26. 26.

    Ground B) 4. See in relation to Spanish jurisdiction specifically Benavides Velasco (2005), p. 282 regarding the application of Articles 81 and 82 TEC at the time.

  27. 27.

    See in Spain Berenguer Fuster (2011), p. 52, also considering such judgment as first case where the CJEU at the time declared the direct effect of EU Competition Law rules.

  28. 28.

    Ezrach (2016), p. 96.

  29. 29.

    Case 127/73 BRT [1974] ECR 313, ECLI:EU:C:1974:6.

  30. 30.

    Ground 5. Regarding the relation between Competition and dominant position see classic literature such as Waelbroeck (1989), pp. 481–490. We recall the definition of dominant position provided for by the CJEU case in Hoffman-La Roche as “position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and ultimately of the consumers” (Case 85/76 Hoffman-La Roche [1979] ECR 461, ECI:EU:C:1979:36, para. 38).

  31. 31.

    P. 328.

  32. 32.

    See, eg, comments by Kjolbey (2002), p. 175.

  33. 33.

    Commission Decision 98/531/EC of 11 March 1998 (OJ L 246, 4.9.1998, p. 1). The administrative proceeding is taken under Article 3 of the Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 (first Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty) (OJ L 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204).

  34. 34.

    Case T-65/98 Van der Bergh Foods [2003] ECR II-4653, ECLI:EU:T:2003:281.

  35. 35.

    See in Spain, Castillo de la Torre (2001), pp. 29–44; also specifically Calvo Caravaca, Suderow (2015), p. 117, where the authors explain the functioning of “two different proceedings and diverse normative sets”.

  36. 36.

    Schwarze judgment, para. 3. Also in Van Gend en Loos the Court of Justice declared that “the considerations which may have led a national Court or tribunal to its choice of questions as well as the relevance which it attributes to such questions in the context of a case before it are excluded from review by the Court of Justice” (ground A) 4.

  37. 37.

    Among different comments: Fernández Vicién and Moreno-Tapia (2002); critical Reich (2005), pp. 35–66.

  38. 38.

    Ground 23, 24, 26 and 29, respectively. As a consequence the Court of Justice entails that national Court must impede “unjust enrichment of those benefited for such private actions” (para. 30). Both principles of equivalence and effectiveness were enounced in prior CJEU case law such as Case C-261/95, Palmisani [1997] ECR I-4025, ECLI:EU:C:1997:351: “the conditions, in particular time-limits, for reparation of loss or damage laid down by national law must not be less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims (principle of equivalence) and must not be framed so as to make it virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation (principle of effectiveness)” (para. 27). In the Spanish literature in relation to Directive 2014/104 EU see Iglesias Buhigues (2016), pp. 99–108.

  39. 39.

    Also known as “indirect purchaser rule”, its origin is placed in the US Antitrust Law; see specifically Velasco San Pedro and Herrero Suárez (2011), pp. 595 ff. in relation to the American origin of offensive passing-on actions, and pp. 584 f. in relation to the standing of indirect purchasers. Also interesting on the topic Commission documents such as Ashurst Report—Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition (2004), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/study.html (Accessed 30 Jan 2018), Green Paper—Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, COM (2005) 672 final and White paper on damages actions for reach of the EC antitrust rules, COM (2008) 165 final; see comments by Torres Sustaeta (2014), pp. 28 ff.

  40. 40.

    See Castillo de la Torre and Gippini Fournier (2017), p. 22 in relation to different standards of proof applied in actions for annulment against the Commission Decision related to infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

  41. 41.

    Paras. 33 and 32, respectively. It means that the evaluation by national Court not only must include economic parameters but also the “rule of reason” as it was established by the US Supreme Court; see Torres Sustaeta (2014), p. 142.

  42. 42.

    See comments in Spain by Carpagnano (2007).

  43. 43.

    Castellanos Ruiz (2011), p. 622, stressing the differences on evidence for both actions. In Spain as a result of Directive 2014/104/EU see Casado Navarro (2016), pp. 427–450; in relation to both actions Olmedo Peralta (2015), pp. 171–188.

  44. 44.

    Mention to BRT and Courage cases among others is done in para. 39. Here paras. 38 and 58 are replicated.

  45. 45.

    See on the topic in Spain Vaquero López (2011), pp. 683–691.

  46. 46.

    Para. 97. As ruled, “in the absence of Community rules governing that field, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to set the criteria for determining the system of damages for harm caused by an agreement or practice prohibited under Article 81 EC, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed. Therefore…, if it is possible to award particular damages, such as exemplary or punitive damages in domestic actions similar to actions founded on the Community competition rules, it must also be possible to award such damages in actions founded on Competition rules. However Community law does not prevent national courts from taking steps to ensure that the protection of the rights guaranteed by Community law does not entail the unjust enrichment of those who enjoy them” (ruling 5).

  47. 47.

    See specifically Cristina Tudor (2011), pp. 567–578, exposing several models such as the mentioned Ashurst Report and others.

  48. 48.

    See De Smijter and O’Sullivan (2006), pp. 23–26 in relation to Commission Green Paper on damages actions for breach of antitrust rules prior enounced.

  49. 49.

    Also known at the time just as EU legislation by comparison to the Treaties, which represent the EU Constitution; see Robinson (2017), pp. 229–256. In Spain Gutiérrez Zarza (2002), pp. 1626–1633.

  50. 50.

    See conclusion by Couronne (2010), p. 308, although no uniform national procedural rules have been reached between Member States.

  51. 51.

    See comments by Völcker (2012), pp. 695–720.

  52. 52.

    See official website http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/EN/. See specifically Fiebig (2014), pp. 373–408.

  53. 53.

    See Martínez Moriel (2013), pp. 61–74. Also interesting on the topic Pérez Carrillo (2011), pp. 433–444 and Süderow (2011), pp. 535–550.

  54. 54.

    Paras. 20 and 23. See enthusiastic approach on such leniency procedures by Blake and Schnichels (2004), pp. 7–13; more critical Marvao (2016), pp. 1–27. About European and national policy in Spain Cantero Gamito (2011), pp. 695–707 as well as Jeleztcheva Jeleztecheva and Ruiz Muñoz (2011), pp. 719–734.

  55. 55.

    Para. 48. See in the literature on the topic of fair trial ex Article 47 of the CFREU, eg, Galera Rodrigo (2015), pp. 7–29 and in Spain Faggiani (2014); also recently Milione (2017), pp. 659–674.

  56. 56.

    See comments by Botta (2013), pp. 1105–1117; also Canapa and Hager (2013), pp. 113–119.

  57. 57.

    As here the Court of Justice justifies, the information to which the defendants in the main proceedings refer have not been provided to the national Court by the Commission, the latter having also explained that it has relied only on the information available in the non-confidential version of the decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC (para. 73); for this reason it is concluded that no breach of the principle of equality of arms takes place.

  58. 58.

    See for example comments by Dworschak and Maritzen (2013), pp. 829–844.

  59. 59.

    See basic references in Fürlinger (2017), also comments about other national competition authorities are here included.

  60. 60.

    Para. 39 (2) Kartellgesetz (2005) available via https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/kartg/paragraf/39 and para. 219 Zivilprozeßordnung available via https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/zpo/paragraf/219 (Accessed 29 Jan 2018), both regulations are still in force.

  61. 61.

    Para. 21 quoting paras. 39 in Manfredi case and 26 in Courage case.

  62. 62.

    Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629, ECLI:EU:C:1978:49, para. 16 and Case C-213/89 Factortame Ltd and others [1990] ECR 2433, ECLI:EU:C:1990:257, para. 19.

  63. 63.

    Para. 24 referring to para. 95 in Manfredi case.

  64. 64.

    Para. 26 quoting para. 23 in Pfleiderer case. In previous para. 25 it has been stated that “in the absence of EU rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from EU law”.

  65. 65.

    Paras. 30 and 34 quoting paras. 30 and 31 in Pfleiderer case.

  66. 66.

    “The rules applicable to actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from the direct effect of EU law must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness)” in para. 27 according to Courage case, para. 29, and Manfredi case, para. 62.

  67. 67.

    “The principle of equivalence under European Union law does not preclude a national provision that makes grant of access to documents before a national Court, and which have been gathered within competition law proceedings involving the application of European Union competition law to third persons who are not parties to those competition law proceedings, subject, without exception, to the condition that all the parties to the competition law proceedings must give their consent thereto, when the rule applies in the same way to purely national competition law proceedings but differs from national provisions applicable to third party access to judicial documents in the context of other types of proceedings, in particular contentious and non-contentious civil proceedings and criminal proceedings” (para. 71 (2)).

  68. 68.

    See comments by Monti (2014), pp. 464–475.

  69. 69.

    See on the topic Svetlicinil and Botta (2016), pp. 399–411, comparing both legal systems also in relation to the Kone case. In Spain Olmedo Peralta (2014), pp. 107–130 arguing in favour of the non-contractual liability in private enforcement of competition rules after the Kone case.

  70. 70.

    At the time Article 1295 Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (ABGB), today amended, available at: https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/abgb/paragraf/1295 (Accessed 29 Jan 2018).

  71. 71.

    The Advocate General concludes that Article 101 TFEU “preclude(s) the interpretation and application of domestic legislation enacted by a Member State which categorically excludes, for legal reasons, any civil liability of undertakings belonging to a cartel for loss resulting from the fact that an undertaking not party to the cartel, benefiting from the protection of the cartel’s practices, set its prices higher than would otherwise have been expected under competitive conditions” (para. 90 textually reproduced by CJEU ruling).

  72. 72.

    Ezrach (2016), p. 606.

  73. 73.

    See extensively on the topic of the preliminary ruling’s non contentious nature Jimeno Bulnes (1996), pp. 145 ff.

  74. 74.

    Case T-171/07 Kone Oyj [2011] ECR II-5313, ECLI:EU:T:2011:365.

  75. 75.

    Commission Decision of 21 February 2007 (OJ C 75, 26.3.2008, p. 19).

  76. 76.

    See on the topic, eg, Albors Llorens (2002), p. 135 in relation to action for annulment. In Spain specifically Soldevilla Fragoso (2014), pp. 385–404.

  77. 77.

    See on the topic related to Competition Law Piroddi (2011), pp. 447–462.

  78. 78.

    Para. 23, ruled on the basis of Articles 31 of the Regulation No 1/2003 and 261 TFEU. The latter provides that “Regulations adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, and by the Council, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaties may give the Court of Justice of the European Union unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the penalties provided for in such regulations”.

  79. 79.

    Paras. 26 and 28 respectively. On the topic of judicial review of EU Competition rules’ infringement see Castillo de la Torre and Gippini Fournier (2017), p. 265.

  80. 80.

    Commission Decision C(2011) 2994 final of 28 Apr 2011, not reported.

  81. 81.

    Today appropriate title and acronym are Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, CNMC; more information available CNMC. https://www.cnmc.es/en (Accessed 29 Jan 2018). In relation to the new denomination see in the literature Carlón Ruiz (2014).

  82. 82.

    Paras. 58, 59 and 66 respectively.

  83. 83.

    “It is necessary to reject the applicants’ argument based on the case law of the Court of Justice, according to which the full effectiveness of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU requires that each person may claim damages for the loss caused by an infringement of those rules (Case Courage and Crehan, para. 26, and Joined Cases Manfredi and Others, para. 60). Since that case law relates to the implementation of those provisions on the initiative of a person who has suffered the damage, it is not possible to infer from it that, in the context of the implementation of those provisions on the initiative of a competition authority, which has only limited resources, a penalty would be imposed in all cases in which an undertaking does not comply with a commitment made binding under Article 9(1) Regulation No 1/2003” (para. 92).

  84. 84.

    Case T-344/08 EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg [2012] ECLI:EU:T:2012:242. See comments by Maillo González-Orús (2014), pp. 287–290.

  85. 85.

    Commission Decision SG.E.3/MV/psi D (2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008, not reported.

  86. 86.

    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 (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).

  87. 87.

    Para. 64 quoting prior CJEU case law on the topic.

  88. 88.

    Para. 104 quoting Courage, Manfredi, Pfleiderer and Donau Chemie cases.

  89. 89.

    Para. 107. As said, “the risk of facilitating access to the leniency file to third parties harmed by the cartel may lie in the fact that the cartelists no longer have sufficient incentives to request clemency” and “without these incentives, the cartel may not be detected or administratively sanctioned, which in turn would make any claim for damages much more difficult”; see Maillo González-Orús (2014), p. 289.

  90. 90.

    Para. 106 quoting the Donau Chemie case (para. 33).

  91. 91.

    Paras. 129, 130 and 132, last one with reference to the Donau Chemie case (paras. 32 and 44).

  92. 92.

    See e.g. Kantza and Picod (2015), pp. 159–165.

  93. 93.

    Decision C(2006) 1766 final, case COMP/38.620, of 3 May 2006, known as PHP Decision (Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate), not reported.

  94. 94.

    Para. 110 quoting prior CJEU case law such as the Courage, Manfredi and Otis cases.

  95. 95.

    Case C-162/15P Evonik Degussa [2017] ECLI:EU:T:2017:205. The Opinion of Advocate General Spuzner was delivered on 21 July 2016.

  96. 96.

    Case T-465/12, AGC Glass Europe and Others [2015] ECLI:EU:T:2015:505.

  97. 97.

    Commission Decision C(2012) 5179 final of 6 August 2012, not reported.

  98. 98.

    Para. 66, quoting cases such as Courage (paras. 26 and 27) and Commission v EnBW (para. 104).

  99. 99.

    Para. 68, quoting again the case Commission v EnBW case (para. 106) as well as the Donau Chemie case (para. 33).

  100. 100.

    Para. 69, with reference to the Commission v EnBW case (para. 107) as well as Case T-534/11 Schenker AG [2014] ECLI:EU:T:2014:854 (para. 95).

  101. 101.

    Para. 101 quoting two judgments pronounced by the Court of Justice on appeal: Joined Cases C-39/05P and C-52/05P Turco [2008] ECR I-4713, ECLI:EU:C:2008:374; Case C-280/11P Access Info Europe [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:671. Article 4(2) of the Regulation No 1049/2001 expressly provides the exception to public access of European institutions’ documents when “disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property; Court proceedings and legal advice; and the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure”.

  102. 102.

    See annotation by Skovgaard Olykke (2017), pp. 93–98.

  103. 103.

    Case T-432/12 Aer Lingus [2015] ECLI:EU:T:2015:78; Case T-500/12 Ryanair [2015] ECLI:EU:T:2015:73.

  104. 104.

    Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (OJ L 119, 30.4.2013, p. 30).

  105. 105.

    Para. 105. We recall that Recital 4 of the Directive 2014/104/EU provides that “the right in Union law to compensation for harm resulting from infringement of Union and national competition law requires each Member State to have procedural rules ensuring the effective exercise of that right” according to Articles 19(1) TFEU and 47 CFREU.

  106. 106.

    Commission Decision C(2015) 4284 final, of 19 June 2015 (Case AT.39864 .BASF), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec.../39864_575_5.pdf (Accessed 31 Jan 2018); Case T-480/15 Agria Polska [2017] ECLI:EU:T:2017:339.

  107. 107.

    Case C-373/17P Agria Polska [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:756.

  108. 108.

    Moreover it is remembered that “actions for damages before national courts, in the same way as the action of the Commission and the national competition authorities, can make a significant contribution to the maintenance of effective competition in the EU” (para. 84) according to Courage case.

  109. 109.

    Case C-637/17, OJ C 32, 29.1.2018, p. 14.

  110. 110.

    See Rassu (2017), p. 168, suggestion possible direct effects even before the transposition; on the opposite to Korkea-aho (2015), pp. 70–88. In Spain specifically Alonso García (2017), pp. 13–24, who also believes the question has not yet been solved by the CJEU case law.

  111. 111.

    See San Martin Calvo in this book.

  112. 112.

    See English version available at http://www.mjusticia.gob.es/cs/Satellite/Portal/es/servicios-ciudadano/documentacion-publicaciones/publicaciones/traducciones-derecho-espanol (Accessed 2 Feb 2018) under payment. See in Tobío Rivas (2013–2014), pp. 630–634 as well as Herrero Suárez (2016), pp. 150–183 in relation to the Spanish Bill at the time. In relation to the approved law see ie specific issue La defensa (privada) de la competencia. El notario del siglo XXI, (74), 2017.

  113. 113.

    See Herrero Suárez (2016), p. 160; also specifically Ferrándiz (2017).

  114. 114.

    See generally Jimeno-Bulnes (2013b), pp. 409–459.

  115. 115.

    On the pre-eminence of public enforcement Herrero Suárez (2016), p. 151; Torres Sustaeta (2014), p. 80; on the pre-eminance of private enforcement: Tobío Rivas (2013–2014), p. 84.

  116. 116.

    See at a whole in relation to national administrative proceedings Tobío Rivas (2013–2014).

  117. 117.

    See Nascimbene (2013), pp. 573–583, including several proposals de lege ferenda, such as the creation of specific agencies and even a specific European Court with the aim to separate investigative and decision-making tasks as well as to reduce the duration of proceedings.

  118. 118.

    Remember prior Agria Polska case, above mentioned, at least till the appeal is solved by the Court of Justice and other opinion be delivered.

  119. 119.

    See for example Slot and Farley (2017), pp. 196 ff.

References

  • Albors Llorens A (2002) EC competition law and policy. William Publishing, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso García R (2017) La interpretación del Derecho nacional en función de la entrada en vigor de las Directivas y de su fecha límite de transposición. Revista Española de Derecho Europeo 64:13–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Benavides Velasco P (2005) Aplicación de las normas de defensa de la competencia por la jurisdicción ordinaria. La competencia atribuida a los Juzgados de lo Mercantil. In: Font Galán J, Pino Abad M (eds) Estudios de Derecho de la Competencia. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 273–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Berenguer Fuster L (2011) La aplicación privada del Derecho de la Competencia. In: Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid, pp 51–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake S, Schnichels D (2004) Leniency following modernisation: safeguarding Europe’s leniency programmes. Competition Policy Newsl 2:7–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Botta M (2013) Commission acting as plaintiff in cases of private enforcement of EU Competition Law: Otis – Case C-199/11, Europese Gemeenshap v Otis NV and others, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012. Common Mark Law Rev 50(4):1105–1117

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo Caravaca AL, Suderow J (2015) El efecto vinculante de las resoluciones de las autoridades nacionales de competencia en la aplicación privada del Derecho antitrust. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 7(II):114–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Canapa C, Hager P (2013) Right of European Union to claim compensation before a national court against the member of a cartel: Case C-199/11, Europese Gemeenshap v Otis NV and Others, Judgement of 6 November, not yet reported. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 20(1):113–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantero Gamito M (2011) Los programas de clemencia en la lucha antitrust. In: Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid, pp 695–707

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelletti M (2015) Is the European Court of Justice ‘running wild’? Eur Law Rev 40:311–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlón Ruiz M (ed) (2014) La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia. Aranzadi, Cizur Meno, Navarra

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpagnano M (2007) El private enforcement del Derecho comunitario de la competencia en acción: análisis crítico de la decision del Tribunal de Justicia en los asuntos acumulados C-295/298/04. Available via InDret. http://www.indret.com. Accessed 5 May 2018

  • Casado Navarro A (2016) La Directiva 2014/104/UE sobre acciones por daños en materia de competencia; una apuesta por las follow-on actions. In: Ruiz Pérez JI (ed) La compensación de los daños por infracción de normas de competencia tras la directiva 2014/104/UE. Directiva y propuesta de transposición. Thomson Reuters Aranzadi Cizur Menor. Navarra, pp 427–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellanos Ruiz E (2011) Competencia judicial internacional en las acciones de reparación de daños por infracción del Derecho antitrust. In: Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid, pp 619–651

    Google Scholar 

  • Castillo de la Torre F (2001) Decisiones de la Comisión en maeria de política de la competencia ante los tribunales nacionales: la sentencia Masterfoods. Gaceta jurídica de la Unión europea y de la competencia 213:29–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Castillo de la Torre F, Gippini Fournier E (2017) Evidence, proof and judicial review in EU Competition Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chalters D, Barroso L (2014) What Van Gend en Loos stands for. Int J Const Law 12(1):105–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosimo ED (2011) Repetita… iuvant? Sulla priorità interpretativa nell’ ordinamento giuridico dell’ Unione. Il dialogo fra le corti e la question prioritaire de constitutionnalité al vaglio della Corte di Giustizia. Revista General de Derecho Público Comparado. Available via http://www.iustel.com. Accessed 5 May 2018

  • Couronne V (2010) L’autonomie procédurale des États members de l’Union européenne à l’épreuve du temps. Cahiers de droit europeen 46(3–4):273–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Cristina Tudor E (2011) La cuantificación de daños y perjuicios en la aplicación privada del derecho europeo de la competencia. In: Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid, pp 567–578

    Google Scholar 

  • De Smijter E, O’Sullivan D (2006) The Manfredi judgment of the ECJ and how it relates to the Commission’s initiative on EC antitrust damages actions. Competition Policy Newsl 3:23–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Derlén M, Lindholm J (2014) Goodbye van Gend en Loos, hello Bosman? Using network analysis to measure the importance of individual CJEU judgments. Eur Law J 20:667–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dune N (2014) The role of private enforcement within EU Competition Law. Camb Yearb Eur Legal Stud 16:143–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworschak S, Maritzen L (2013) Einsicht - der ersten Schritt zur Besserung? Zur Akteneinsicht in kronzeugendokumente nach dem Donau Chemie-Urteil des EuGH. Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 63:829–844

    Google Scholar 

  • Editorial Comments (2014) One bird in the hand… The Directive on damages actions for breach of the competition rules. Common Mark Law Rev 51:1333–1342

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezrach A (2016) EU Competition Law: an analytical guide to the leading case, 5th edn. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Faggiani V (2014) El derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva y a un proceso con todas las garantías en la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Revista General de Derecho Constitucional- Available via Iustel. http://www.iustel.com. Accessed 5 May 2018

  • Fernández Torres I, Fuentes Naharro M (2013) La aplicación de los artículos 101 y 102 TFUE. El Reglamento No. 1/2003. In: Signes de Mesa JI, Fernándz Torres I, Fuentes Naharro M (eds) Derecho de la Competencia. Civitas & Thomson Reuters, Madrid, pp 289–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Vicién C, Moreno-Tapia I (2002) A step forward in the enforcement of community competition law by Member State judges: the Courage case. Available via InDret. http://www.indret.com. Accessed 5 May 2018

  • Ferrándiz P (2017) Discovery en reclamaciones de daños por prácticas restrictivas de la competencia (el nuevo artículo 283 bis LEC). Diario La Ley 9052. Available via http://diariolaley.laley.es. Accessed 2 Oct 2017

  • Fidalgo Gallardo C (2016) El proceso de desplazamiento de la autoridad normativa en los ordenamientos europeos, desde los legislativos nacionales a las instituciones de la Unión Europea. El TJUE como estrella emergente en el firmamento de la Unión. Revista General de Derecho Procesal. Available via Iustel. http://www.iustel.com. Accessed 5 May 2018

  • Fiebig AR (2014) The German Federal Cartel Office and the application of competition law in reunified Germany. Univ Pa J Int Law 14:373–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Fürlinger S (2017) Austria: the Federal Competition Authority. The European Middle Easter and African Antitrust Review. Available at https://globalcompetitionreview.com/insight/the-european-middle-eastern-and-african-antitrust-review-2018/1145609/austria-federal-competition-authority. Accessed 29 Jan 2018

  • Galera Rodrigo S (2015) The right to a fair trial in the European Union: lights and shadows. Revista de Investigaçoes Constitucionais 2(2):7–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez Zarza MA (2002) Fuentes comunitarias del Derecho procesal español. La Ley: revista jurídica española de doctrina, jurisprudencia y bibliografía 3:1626–1633

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrero Suárez C (2016) La transposición de la directiva de daños antitrust. Reflexiones a raíz de la publicación de la propuesta de ley de transposición de la directiva. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 8(I):150–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Horsely T (2013) Reflections on the role of the Court of Justice as the ‘motor’ of European integration: legal limits to judicial making. Common Mark Law Rev 50:931–964

    Google Scholar 

  • Iglesias Buhigues JL (2016) Principios de efectividad y equivalencia en la Directiva 2014/104/UE. In: Ruiz Peris JI (ed) La compensación de los daños por infracción de normas de competencia tras la directiva 2014/104/UE. Directiva y propuesta de transposición. Thomson Reuters, Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, Navarra, pp 99–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidou M (2015) Consumer involvement in private EU Competition Law enforcement. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeleztcheva Jeleztecheva M, Ruiz Muñoz M (2011) La política de clemencia en la UE y algunos aspectos ético-jurídicos sobre su aplicación. In: Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid, pp 719–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimeno Bulnes M (1996) La cuestión prejudicial del artículo 177 TCE. J.M.Bosch Editor, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimeno-Bulnes M (2013a) La cuestión prejudicial. In: Pardo Iranzo V (ed) El sistema jurisdiccional de la Unión Europea. Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, Navarra, pp 173–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimeno-Bulnes M (2013b) American criminal procedure in a European context. Cardozo J Int Comp Law 21:409–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantza C, Picod F (2015) Concurrence - programme de clémence - publication des décisions constatant une infraction - droits des victimes de pratiques anticoncurrentielles Trib. UE, 28 janvier 2015, (2 arrêts) Evonik Degussa / Commission, aff. T-341/12 et AKZO e.a. / Commission, aff. T-345/12. Revue des affaires européennes 25:159–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjolbey L (2002) Case C-344/98, Masterfoods v. HB Ice Cream. Common Mark Law Rev 391:175–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klamert M (2017) The autonomy of the EU (and of EU law): through the kaleidoscope. Eur Law Rev 42:815–830

    Google Scholar 

  • Korkea-aho E (2015) Legal interpretation of EU framework directives: a soft law approach. Eur Law Rev 40:70–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu H (2009) Liner conferences in competition law. Springer, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Maillo González-Orús J (2014) Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, de 27 de febrero de 2014, asunto C-365/12P, Comisión Europea contra EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG v European Commission. Acceso a información documental de instituciones en procedimientos de libre competencia. Ars Iuris Salmanticensis 22:287–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Moriel I (2013) La protección de la información aportada en el contexto de una solicitud de clemencia ante las acciones civiles de daños y perjuicios. Gaceta jurídica de la Unión Europea y de la competencia 32:61–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Marvao C (2016) The leniency programme and recidivism. Rev Ind Organ 48:1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milione C (2017) La interpretación del artículo 47 CDFUE como expresión de la labor hermenéutica del Tribunal de Luxemburgo en la construcción de un estándar europeo de protección de los derechos. Teoría y realidad constitucional 39:655–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monti G (2014) Umbrella pricing as a sword. Case C-557/12, Kone AG and Others v ÖOB-InfrastrukturAG, Judgment of 5 June 2014. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 213:464–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimbene B (2013) Fair trial and the rights of the defence in antitrust proceedings before the commission: a need for reform? Eur Law Rev 38:573–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmedo Peralta E (2014) Daños derivados de la subida de precios bajo el paraguas de un cártel (umbrella pricing). Una lectura jurídica del nuevo paso en la aplicación privada del Derecho de la Competencia. Revista del Derecho de la Competencia y de la distribución 15:107–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmedo Peralta E (2015) La reclamación de daños sufridos por los consumidores como conscuncia de un cartel (private enforcement): follow-on actions vs stand alone actions. In: Miranda Serrano LM, Pagador López J, Pino Abad M (eds) La protección de los consumidores en tiempos de cambio: ponencias y comunicaciones del XIII Congreso de la asociación Sainz de Andino. Iustel, Madrid, pp 171–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Ordoñez Solís D (2015) La Directiva 2014/104/UE, la aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia y el contexto jurisprudencial de su transposición en España. El Derecho. Available via http://www.elderecho.com/ Accessed 1 May 2015

  • Pérez Carrillo EF (2011) Acceso a los documentos y transparencia: elementos para facilitar la reclamación de daños y perjuicios derivados de infracciones del derecho a la libre competencia en la Unión Europea. In: Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid, pp 433–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlo N (2017) L’affaire Taricco: la voie italienne pour preserver la collaboration des juges dans l’Union europénne. Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 534:739–768

    Google Scholar 

  • Pescatore P (2015) The doctrine of ‘direct effect’: an infant disease by Community Law. Eur Law Rev 40:135–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer O (2017) Un possible malentendu en droit de l’Union européenne: l ‘droit subjectif’ comme condition de l’effet direct. Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 53:665–695

    Google Scholar 

  • Piroddi P (2011) Reparación de daños y perjuicios por el incumplimiento de las normas de competencia y el derecho a un juicio justo en virtud del artículo 6 (1) CEDH. In: Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid, pp 447–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinssen JM, Schrauwen A (eds) (2002) Direct effect. Rethinking a classic of EC legal doctrine. European Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen M (2014) Revolutionizing European Law: a history of the Van Gend en Loos judgment. Int J Const Law 12:136–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Rassu F (2017) L’invocabilité des directives européennes et son incidence sur l’ordre juridique italien. Revue du Droit de l’Union Européenne 26:167–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N (2005) The ‘Courage’ doctrine: encouraging or discouraging compensation for antitrust injuries. Common Mark Law Rev 42:35–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Robin-Olivier S (2014) The evolution of direct effect in the EU: stocktaking, problems, projections. Int J Const Law 2:165–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson W (2017) EU legislation. In: Karpen U, Xanthaki H (eds) Legislation in Europe: a comprehensive guide for scholars and practitioners. Hart, Oxford, pp 229–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosas A, Levits E, Bots Y (eds) (2013) The Court of Justice and the construction of Europe: analysis and perspectives on sixty years of case-law/ La Cour de Justice et la construction de la Europe: analysis et perspectives de soixante ans de jurisprudence. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Peris JI (ed) (2016) La compensación de los daños por infracción de normas de competencia tras la directiva 2014/104/UE; directiva y propuesta de transposición. Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, Navarra

    Google Scholar 

  • Skovgaard Olykke G (2017) Commission v Aer Lingus and Commission v Ryanair - Joined Cases C-164/15 P and C-165/15 P. Eur State Aid Law Q 16:93–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slot JS, Farley M (2017) An introduction to competition law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Smulders B, Eisele K (2012) Reflections on the institutional balance, the community method and the interplay between jurisdictions after Lisbon. Yearb Eur Law 31:112–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soldevilla Fragoso S (2014) El Tribunal General y el Derecho de la Competencia. In: Martinez Lage S, Pedraz Calvo M, Ordoñez Solís D (eds) El Derecho europeo de la competencia y su aplicación en España. Liber Amicorum en homenaje a Santiago. Wolters Kluwer & La Ley, Madrid, pp 385–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Süderow J (2011) El acceso a las pruebas en expedientes de la Comisión Europea y los límites establecidos por su programa de clemencia. In: Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid, pp 535–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Svetlicinil A, Botta M (2016) ‘Umbrella pricing’ in private enforcement of EU Competition Law and US Antitrust Law: another transatlantic divergence? Eur Law Rev (41):399–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobío Rivas AM (2013–2014) Reparación por daños derivados de un ilícito ‘antitrust’ y acceso a la documentación que forma parte de un procedimiento ante una autoridad nacional de competencia. Actas de Derecho Industrial y Derecho de Autor 34:630–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres Sustaeta MV (2014) La aplicación del Derecho de la Competencia en Europa. Intereses en juego y vías de tutela. Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, Navarra

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaquero López C (2011) Sobre la posibilidad de reconocimiento en España de ‘daños punitivos’como consecuencia de la infracción de Derecho Comunitario de la Competencia. In: Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid, pp 51–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasco San Pedro L, Herrero Suárez C (2011) La ‘passing-on defence’, ¿un falso dilema. In: Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid, pp 593–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasco San Pedro LA, Alonso Ledesma C et al (eds) (2011) La aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia. Lex Nova, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Völcker SB (2012) Case C-360/09, Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2011. Common Mark Law Rev 49:695–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Danwitz T (2010) Kooperation der Gerichtsbarkeiten in Europa. Zeitschriftfür Rechtspolitik 43:143–147

    Google Scholar 

  • VV.AA (2017) La defensa (privada) de la competencia. El notario del siglo XXI (74)

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelbroeck M (1989) Meeting competition: is this a valid defence for a firm in a dominant position?. In: Starace et al (eds) Divenire sociale e adeguamento del diritto: studi in onore di Francesco Capotorti. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 481–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler JHH (2014) Van Gend en Loos: the individual as subject and object and the dilemma of European legitimacy. Int J Const Law 12:94–103

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Burgos, Burgos, Spain

    Mar Jimeno-Bulnes

Authors
  1. Mar Jimeno-Bulnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mar Jimeno-Bulnes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Economics and Culture, University of Insubria, Como, Italy

    Silvia Marino

  2. Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

    Łucja Biel

  3. Faculty of Law, Department of Foreign Languages, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Martina Bajčić

  4. Department of Foreign Languages, Translation & Interpretation, Ionian University, Corfu, Greece

    Vilelmini Sosoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jimeno-Bulnes, M. (2018). The CJEU Case Law After Preliminary Ruling on Behalf of Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law. In: Marino, S., Biel, Ł., Bajčić, M., Sosoni, V. (eds) Language and Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90905-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90905-9_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90904-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90905-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation