-
1.
The criterion of credible demonstration in Sec. 33g Competition Act must be interpreted autonomously. It is sufficient if, based on concrete evidence, there is a certain probability that the plaintiff is the holder of a claim for damages under antitrust law; an overwhelming probability is not required.
-
2.
A commitment pursuant to Sec. 32b Competition Act and the statements of the Federal Cartel Office in the Commitment Decision can, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, be used as an indication of the credible demonstration of behaviour in breach of antitrust law required under Sec. 33g Competition Act.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Editor’s note: We assume this should be correctly II. instead of I.
Editor’s note: We assume this paragraph should be numbered III. instead of II.
Editor’s note: We assume this paragraph should be numbered 2. instead of 1.
Editor’s note: We assume this paragraph should be C. instead of B.
Editor’s note: We assume this paragraph should be IV. instead of II.
Author information
Consortia
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Official headnotes. Translated from the German by David Wright.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Competition Act, Secs. 32b, 33. “Sales Cooperation in Local Rail Passenger Transport [Vertreibskooperation im SPNV]”. IIC (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01465-5
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01465-5