Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Uneven and Unsure Playing Field for Competition Damages Claims in the EU: Shortcomings and Failures of Directive 2014/104/EU and Its Implementation

  • Opinion
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Notes

  1. See CJEU – Courage v. Crehan C-453/01, EU:C:2001:465 (paras. 26 and 27); and Vantaan kaupunki v. Skanska C-724/17, EU:C:2019:204 (para. 45).

  2. OJEU L139/1.

  3. Commission Staff Working Document, “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of 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 EU, SWD (2020) 338 final” (hereinafter “Report on the implementation of Damages Directive”).

  4. See “Guidelines for national courts on how to estimate the share of overcharge which was passed on to the indirect purchaser” (OJEU C267/4) and “Communication on the protection of confidential information by national courts in proceedings for the private enforcement of EU competition law” (OJEU C242/1).

  5. See, for example, Maria Bergström, Marios Iacovides and Magnus Strand (eds.) Harmonising EU Competition Litigation, Hart (2016); Magnus Stand “Labours of Harmony: unresolved issues in competition damages” ECLR 38/5 (2017), pp. 203–208; Sebastian Peyer “The Antitrust Damages Directive – much ado about nothing?” in Mel Marquis and Roberto Cisotta (eds.) Litigation and Arbitration in EU Competition Law, Elgar (2015), pp. 33–46; and “Compensation and the Damages Directive” European Competition Journal 12/1 (2016), pp. 87–112.

  6. See Barry Rodger, Miguel S. Ferro and Marcos (eds.) The EU Antitrust Damages Directive Transposition in the Member States; and “A panacea for Competition law damages actions in the EU? A comparative view of the implementation of the EU Antitrust Damages Directive in sixteen Member States” Maastricht Journal of European & Comparative Law 26/4 (2019), pp. 480–504; Magnus Strand, Vladimir Bastidas and Marios C. Iacovides, EU Competition Litigation. Transposition and First Experiences of the New Regime, Hart (2019).

  7. “Report on the implementation of Damages Directive”, p. 3 (“the number of damages actions before national courts for competition law infringements had significantly increased after the adoption of the Proposal for the Directive”).

  8. OJEU L 351/1. See, for example, CJEU – Hydrogen Peroxide C-352/13, EU:C:2015:335.

  9. See, for example, CJEU C-451/18 – Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v. DAF Trucks N.V., EU:C:2019:635; and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Norway HR-2019-2206-A (case No. 19-023426SIV-HRET).

  10. In the trucks cartel damages claims in Spain, the Supreme Court has already issued more than 60 orders regarding the allocation of suits among different commercial courts. See, for example, the preliminary ruling lodged by Commercial Court 2 of Madrid, RH v. AB Volvo and Others, C-30/20 (OJEU C-161/15); and several judgments of courts in Germany: OLG Bavaria 1 AR 30/19 and 1 AR 110/19; and LG Dortmund 8 O 42/18.

  11. See Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law (OJEU L201/60).

  12. See EU Commission, “Report on the implementation of the Commission Recommendation of 11/6/13 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law”, COM(2018) 40 final.

  13. See Ashurst Report 2004, pp. 42–47; Green Paper, COM(2005) 672 final, pp. 8–9 (Staff Working Paper, pp. 188–220); and White Paper, COM/2008/0165 final, p. 4 (Staff Working Paper, pp. 28–32, 38–64 and 241–267).

  14. OJEU L-409/1.

  15. See Ashurst Report 2004, pp. 90–94; Green Paper, COM(2005) 672 final, 9; White Paper, COM/2008/0165 final, p. 9.

  16. See LG Stuttgart 30 O 72/18 and 45 O 17/12; LG Munich I 37 O 18505/17 and 37 O 18934/17.

  17. For example, the claim of Observatório da Concorrência v. Sport TV is going to start only six years after it was filed (Lisbon Judicial Court, OdC v. Sport TV, case No. 7074/15.8T8LSB).

  18. See, for example, “Truck Maker Challenges Cartel Lawsuit Funding Deals” Law360 26/1/202. See Court of Appeals of England and Wales, UK Trucks Claim Limited v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV et al., C3/2020/0060, and Road Haulage Association Limited v. Man SE et al., C3/2020/0138.

  19. C-637/17 – Cogeco (EU:C:2019:263) with an startling reading by the Lisbon Court (judgment of 27 August 2019, Cogeco v. Sport TV et al., proc. 5754/15.7T8LSB); and by the Lisbon Court of Appeals (judgment of 5 November 2020, 5754/15.7T8LSB).

  20. See request for preliminary ruling by Audiencia Provincial de León, AB Volvo and DAF Trucks N.V. v. RM (C-267/20) OJEU C-320/8.

  21. See CJEU – Otis Gmbh v. Land Oberösterreich et al. C-435/18 (EU:C:2019:1069) paras. 22–27

  22. See CJEU – Skanska C-724/17 (paras. 38–40, 46 and 51).

  23. See CJEU – Courage C-453/01 (paras. 29 and 31); Manfredi et al. C-295-298/04 (EU:C:2019:1069) paras. 60–63; Pfleiderer C-360/09 (EU:C:2011:389) paras. 28–29; Europese Gemeenschap v. Otis et al. C-199/11 (EU:C:2012:684) paras. 41–43; Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v. Donau Chemie et al. C-536/11 (EU:C:2013:366) para. 23; Kone AG et al. v. ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG C-557/12 (EU:C:2014:1317) paras. 22–24; and Skanska C-724/17 (paras. 25–27).

  24. See CJEU – Manfredi C-295-298/04 (paras. 95–97), this is codified in Art. 3.2 of the Damages Directive.

  25. Ashurst Report 2004, p. 125.

  26. “Practical Guide on Quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Arts. 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, accompanying the Communication from the Commission on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Arts. 101 or 102 of the TFEU”, SWD (2013), p. 205.

  27. In the context of the trucks cartel damages litigation, see the request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona, Sumal, S.L. v. Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L., C-882/19 (OJEU C-87/7).

  28. CJEU – Kone C-557/12.

  29. Lack of tradition in some Member States has already led to doubts in their interpretation, see the preliminary ruling to the CJEU requested by the Barcelona Commercial Court 7 in Order of 21 February 2020, PACCAR Inc; DAF Trucks N.V & DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH (proc. 596/19) concerning Art. 5 of the Damages Directive.

  30. Especially given what the CJEU affirmed in C-360/09 Pfleiderer and also that, according to the same court, there is still room for Regulation (CE) 1049/2001 (OJEU L-145/43) to be applicable (C-365/12P Commission v. EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, EU:C:2014:112).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Law, IE Law School, Madrid, Spain

    Francisco Marcos

Authors
  1. Francisco Marcos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco Marcos.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Comments by professors Barry J. Rodger and Miguel Sousa Ferro are gratefully acknowledged. In accordance with ASCOLA’s Declaration of Ethics the author has to disclose that he serves as academic consultant in CCS Abogados, a law firm representing a large number of plaintiffs in damages claims in the “trucks cartel” case in Spain. 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marcos, F. The Uneven and Unsure Playing Field for Competition Damages Claims in the EU: Shortcomings and Failures of Directive 2014/104/EU and Its Implementation. IIC 52, 468–476 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01046-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01046-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation