The Type of Liability in Private Enforcement in Selected CEE Countries Relating to the Implementation of the Damages Directive (original) (raw)
Related papers
LSN: Enforcement (Topic), 2016
In the vast majority of European countries, private antitrust enforcement falls under general rules of civil law. One of the issues to be discussed in relation to this type of litigation is the principle of liability, which exists in the given legal system, and its presumed impact on private enforcement. This problem has been debated in the course of the implementation works on the Damages Directive into the Polish legal system. A discussion on the principle of liability has taken place at least twice in this context. First, the issue was considered by the Civil Law Codification Commission and expressed in its Assumptions behind the Draft Act on complaints for damages caused by the breach of competition law. Subsequently, the principle of liability was assessed again at the reconciliation conference held at the Ministry of Justice. This is but a part of a broader discussion about the relationship between the rule of liability existing in national laws being applied to private enforc...
In the vast majority of European countries, private antitrust enforcement falls under general rules of civil law. One of the issues to be discussed in relation to this type of litigation is the principle of liability, which exists in the given legal system, and its presumed impact on private enforcement. This problem has been debated in the course of the implementation works on the Damages Directive into the Polish legal system. A discussion on the principle of liability has taken place at least twice in this context. First, the issue was considered by the Civil Law Codification Commission and expressed in its Assumptions behind the Draft Act on complaints for damages caused by the breach of competition law. Subsequently, the principle of liability was assessed again at the reconciliation conference held at the Ministry of Justice. This is but a part of a broader discussion about the relationship between the rule of liability existing in national laws being applied to private enforcement cases and EU law as well as limitations arising from the latter. After outlining this interplay, the paper will briefly introduce solutions adopted with respect to the principle of liability in the context of private enforcement in selected European countries. The selection is not random, despite the fact that a limited number of countries has been analysed – eight including Poland. These include the most advanced EU Member States when it comes to private antitrust enforcement (such as the UK, Germany or the Netherlands), along with less developed examples (such as Italy or France), and even underdeveloped countries when it comes to the number and popularity of private antitrust litigations (such as Lithuania and Poland). This sort of analysis paints a relatively comprehensive picture of the adopted solutions in relation to the principles of liability governing private enforcement cases in Europe. The same is true for the issue of the burden of proof and presumptions/binding power in civil proceedings of decisions issued by competition authorities. Furthermore, what seemed to be crucial for the drafters of the Damages Directive, this sort of analysis makes it possible to formulate certain conclusions with respect to the relationship between the effectiveness of private enforcement in a given State and the adopted principle of liability. The final conclusions understandably focus on the Polish example, that is, the implementation of the Damages Directive into the Polish legal system.
2017
The study reviews the provisions of the Directive by, first, presenting its general rule – joint and several liability – and then its two exceptions, pointing out that albeit they contain similar solutions, these have different reasons in the case of leniency applicants obtained immunity from fines and small and medium-sized enterprises. The study examines whether the 11 CEE Member States prescribe joint and several liability, in principle, to cases where multiple persons cause harm jointly by an infringement of competition law. The study also analyses the position of an immunity recipient in national laws. During the examination, the study separates the position of the immunity recipient and the injured parties, as well as the position of the immunity recipient and other co-infringers, as is the case in the Directive. The study summarizes also national experiences with the implementation of the Damages Directive. It is a fact that the norms of the Directive have been implemented, and there is no deviation to jeopardize either the enforcement of claims for damages or the integrity of the internal market. Nevertheless, having established two separate exceptions, it would have been duly justified for the Commission to explain them in detail, considering their rules differ from each other. Noticeably, some CEE countries considered the difference unjustified and uniformly provided an opportunity for the co-infringer who compensated the harm of an injured party to submit a reimbursement claim against the immunity recipient and SMEs. Other CEE countries considered that they did not have the authority to do so. It would be worth reviewing the implementation of the exceptions to joint and several liabilities after a year, in conjunction with the issue of alternative dispute resolution. The study makes a proposal for an amendment of the Directive. Doctrinal views related to the SMEs exemption from joint and several liability draw attention to the fact that it is unfortunate if solutions designed in a relatively late stage of the legislative procedure do, in fact, later become a part of that directive. It would seem practical, for example, to declare that this exception shall be applied also to micro enterprises in relation to the compensation of harms caused by infringements of competition law. The Damages Directive requires, however, the implementation of this exception only with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises.
2017
The study reviews the provisions of the Directive by, first, presenting its general rule – joint and several liability – and then its two exceptions, pointing out that albeit they contain similar solutions, these have different reasons in the case of leniency applicants obtained immunity from fines and small and medium-sized enterprises. The study examines whether the 11 CEE Member States prescribe joint and several liability, in principle, to cases where multiple persons cause harm jointly by an infringement of competition law. The study also analyses the position of an immunity recipient in national laws. During the examination, the study separates the position of the immunity recipient and the injured parties, as well as the position of the immunity recipient and other co-infringers, as is the case in the Directive. The study summarizes also national experiences with the implementation of the Damages Directive. It is a fact that the norms of the Directive have been implemented, a...
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 2020
The purpose of the Polish Act on Claims for Damages for Remedying the Damage Caused by Infringements of Competition Law, based on and implementing EU law – the Damages Directive, was to enable undertakings to effectively use private enforcement of their damages claims from competition law offenders. Infringement of competition law is classified as a tort according to the said Act on Claims. Therefore, the Act on Claims refers to tort liability rules. The conditions of classic tort liability in domestic law do not have exactly the same dogmatic meaning and scope as the conditions of public or private liability for the infringements of domestic and EU competition law. In practice, their application by national courts may rise many questions regarding conformity between domestic and EU law. This paper aims to analyse one of the key conditions of tort liability, that is, the fault of both the undertaking – the offenders, as well as the fault of their governing bodies and officers. If on...
Effect of National Decisions on Actions for Competition Damages in the CEE Countries
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
One of the main objectives of the so-called Damages Directive (2014/104/EU) was to make antitrust enforcement more effective. Although in most EU countries private antitrust enforcement has been possible subject to general rules of civil law; the number of private antitrust litigations has remained relatively low. It is presumed that the complementary roles of public and private enforcement, as well as the synergy between them, will take effect if formal decisions taken during public enforcement will have binding effect with regard to follow-on private litigations. According to the Damages Directive, final national decisions on competition infringements shall have binding effect in follow-on litigations. What is to be understood under ‘binding effect’, and the potential effects thereof, has been subject to a lively debate among academics and practitioners. It has been questioned if decisions of an executive body can bind the judiciary, and if so, to what extent. What is the evidenti...
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012
YEARBOOK of ANTITRUST and REGULATORY STUDIES www.yars.wz.uw.edu.pl Centre for Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management www.cars.wz.uw.edu.pl Peer-reviewed scientific periodical, focusing on legal and economic issues of antitrust and regulation. Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Poland License. YEARBOOK OF ANTITRUST AND REGULATORY STUDIES 56 ANNA PISZCZ 'non-admission of evidence' principle. These two legal acts are assessed in order to establish whether their introduction is likely to help facilitate private antitrust enforcement in Poland and to consider to what an extent are these developments responding to the challenges outlined by the European Commission. Résumé Le 2 avril 2008 la Commission européenne a publié le Livre blanc sur les actions en dommages et intérêts pour infraction aux règles communautaires sur les ententes et les abus de position dominante. Le contenu du Livre blanc est dès lors en cours de préparation pour être converti en législation de l'UE sur l'application des règles de la concurrence par des particuliers. Cet article présente le dévelopement de l'application des règles de la concurrence par des particuliers en Pologne après le 2 avril 2008. Il commence par un aperçu des actions de l'UE dans ce domaine qui agit comme une introduction à l'analyse plus détaillée de la jurisprudence récente et les évolutions législatives en Pologne. Cette dernière partie du document porte, en particulier, sur la Loi de 2009 sur la poursuite des revendications dans les procédures collectives et la Loi 2011 modifiant le Code de procédure civile et certaines autres lois qui abolisent tous les éléments spécifiques de la procédure commerciale, y compris le principe de «non-admission de la preuve». Ces deux actes juridiques sont évaluées afin de déterminer si leur mise en place pourrait faciliter l'application des règles de la concurrence par des particuliers en Pologne et d'examiner à quel point ces développements répondent aux défis formulés par la Commission européenne. Classifications and key words: private enforcement; bipolar system of enforcement; quantification of harm; follow-on actions; collective redress; non-admission of evidence; consultation document 1 For the purposes of this paper antitrust law is seen as area of public laws protecting competition, other than merger control and state aid regulation (an American-style convention). The European Commission has in the last years started using the term 'antitrust' alongside the traditional term 'competition law'-the two terms are used interchangeably in this paper; W.