European Union: 6 Months To Go To Implement The EU Antitrust Damages Directive

Last Updated: 21 June 2016
Article by Lavoielegal  

In a move to facilitate private damages claims resulting from anti-competitive infringements, the European Commission adopted in 2014 a directive on EU antitrust damages actions (the Directive).  Member States of the European Union have until 27 December 2016 to implement the Directive into their legal systems.

Private antitrust claims are governed by the national laws of Member States and introduced by claimants before national courts. What the Directive does is to provide a minimum set of harmonised rules in Member States to enable consumers to have an effective right to compensation for antitrust infringements throughout the European Union.

State of implementation

No Member State has yet fully implemented the Directive into its national laws.  Depending on the private enforcement regime in place in each Member State, implementation of the Directive will impose a varying degree of changes to a Member State's rules.  Some Member States already provide a judicial framework which is conducive to seeking redress from infringers for antitrust harm.  Other Member States, with very limited rules to allow or facilitate such claims, will be required to make more profound changes to their legislation. 

For the moment and based on public information received by the European Commission and available on its website, only Latvia has adopted legislation which partially implements the Directive.  Finland has also proposed legislation to its national parliament for adoption.  Other Member States are currently reported to be undergoing public consultations or to have prepared a first draft of the legislation (Spain).  Over a dozen Member States have not yet publicly reported progress. 

An important feature of the Directive is that it provides for a minimum set of rules to be adopted at national level to ease the process for claimants in seeking redress for antitrust infringements.  Member States are however free to adopt more stringent rules if they wish.  The Directive therefore provides Member States with a margin of discretion both in the interpretation of the minimum rules to be implemented and as regards any additional rules to be adopted over and above the framework of the Directive.  As a result, the implementation process requires Member States to review their current private enforcement regime for antitrust claims, assess what is needed to bring it in line with the minimum prescribed rules of the Directive and decide also whether to make the national rules even more favourable to claimants.  For those Member States without a tradition of private enforcement, the Directive will impose a major overhaul of national rules.  Even for some Member States with a tested private enforcement regime, implementation of the Directive will give rise to some significant challenges.  In Germany for example, the more extensive disclosure obligations imposed under the Directive will require an adaptation to (and possibly a re-think of) Germany's disclosure regime which, like many other European continental civil law jurisdictions, have strict rules for granting access to claimants to documentary evidence than common law jurisdictions such as the UK.

For many Member States, autumn is therefore likely to be hectic as working groups and legislative drafters scramble to finalise draft legislation to comply with the minimum requirements of the Directive.

Some practical consequences as of January 2017

Individuals and businesses having suffered harm as a result of an antitrust infringement under EU rules or EU national rules, will be able to seek redress before national courts of the European Union and have a minimum set of rules apply to them regardless of the Member State where the claim is introduced.  The key set of minimum rules is as follows:

Disclosure of evidence

As explained above, the Directive requires Member States to provide for a minimum level of disclosure of evidence.  This means that national courts must be able to order defendants or a third party to disclose relevant evidence under their control in response to a reasoned justification from a claimant (and vice-versa).  Qualifications and exceptions to this general rule have been introduced to protect from disclosure certain categories of documents.   In general, a balancing test has been put in place whereby national courts must consider whether the requested disclosure is proportionate, taking into account the legitimate interests of all parties concerned, including third parties.

Over and above this balancing test, the Directive also provides for certain documents to benefit from absolute protection from disclosure (so-called black list).  These are 'leniency statements' and 'settlement submissions'.  The absolute protection afforded to these documents is critical to preserving the effectiveness of public enforcement in relation to cartels.  Indeed, leniency applications are key to a competition authority's ability to crack down on cartels.  Likewise, the possibility for cartel participants to settle a case can be mutually beneficial to a competition authority and the parties.  It is therefore important for leniency applicants and parties to settlement discussions to receive protection from disclosure of sensitive documents in order not to undermine the benefit of these tools for the public enforcement of cartels.  Much discussion is currently focused on the interpretation of these two categories of documents and how these will be interpreted either in national legislation or by national courts.  For example, 'leniency statements' are expected to cover corporate statements made by a leniency applicant but do they extend to the annexes submitted in support of the corporate statement? What about references to leniency statements or settlement submissions made in other documents subject to disclosure?  Will the risk of disclosure have a chilling effect on decisions to apply for leniency given that the amounts at stake in follow-on claims may be far more substantial than the infringement fines.  Some Member States may choose in its implementing legislation to be more specific regarding what is meant by 'leniency statements' and 'settlement submissions' whilst other Member States may leave it to national courts to interpret.  Either way, there is a risk of different interpretations being adopted across Member States which could take years to resolve, eventually through appeals and preliminary references to the Court of Justice.

The Directive also sets out a grey-list of documents which can be disclosed once a competition authority has closed its proceedings.  As a result, it is expected that evidence in the file of the European Commission (or a national competition authority) will become more easily accessible as of January 2017.  

Minimum limitation period of at least five years

Claimants will benefit throughout the European Union of a delay of at least five years to introduce a competition claim.  Points of interpretation have arisen however regarding the calculation of the limitation period.  This may result in different national rules implementing this rule.  In particular, the Directive provides that the limitation period is suspended during an investigation by the European Commission or a national competition authority until one year after the infringement decision becomes final.  A decision is final when it can no longer be appealed.  However this raises the question whether an appeal on any ground (e.g. calculation of the fine) but not on the finding of an infringement should trigger the suspension. Also, should appeals by all parties to the infringement decision have run out before a decision is considered final as regards each infringer?  National implementing rules might offer differing interpretations thereby creating a non-level playing field within the European Union.  For defendants, the suspension of the limitation period until appeals have run out means that follow-on claims can be introduced several years down the line after an infringement decision has been adopted.  As a result, defendants will need to take measures not only to assess and identify where antitrust infringements might give rise to follow-on claims, but also calculate for each relevant Member State the duration of their potential exposure to claims, eventually provision for such potential claims and take measures to prepare and retain relevant evidence for potential future court proceedings.  

Joint and several liability

The Directive will require Member States to adopt the principle of joint and several liability of parties to an antitrust infringement.  However, the Directive also sets out two exceptions to the principle of joint and several liability:

(i) for small and medium-sized enterprise under certain conditions; and

(ii) for immunity recipients.  Joint and several liability will only apply to immunity recipients for harm caused to the applicant's own direct and indirect purchasers and with respect to other injured parties, only where full compensation cannot be obtained from the other infringers.  As regards contribution claims, the immunity recipient will only be liable for the amount of harm it caused to its own direct or indirect purchasers.  These measures provide some protection to immunity recipients given their critical role in the public enforcement of cartels and the fact that they are often the primary target for follow-on claims (as the infringement decision becomes final for the immunity recipients earlier on due to the likely absence of an appeal).

The Directive does not touch on the apportionment of liability as between infringers and leaves it to national laws to determine rules in this respect.  

Although the European Commission has committed under the Directive to provide guidance on the calculation of the overcharge, differences in approach as between Member States will inevitably arise.  

Evidence of harm and of antitrust infringement

The Directive introduces a rebuttable presumption that cartels cause harm.  This provision will have the effect of shifting the burden of proof to defendants, thereby facilitating the task of claimants.  The Directive also sets out that antitrust infringement decisions by a national competition authority or a review court provide irrefutable evidence for the national court in that same jurisdiction that the infringement has occurred.  As regards a decision taken in another Member State, it may be presented before a national court as prima facie evidence of the antitrust infringement.  It will be interesting to see whether national courts will place antitrust infringements decisions from other EU national competition authorities on a similar footing to decisions of their own competition authority for purposes of showing that the infringement has occurred.  In principle, one would expect the decision of another EU national competition authority to give rise to a strong presumption that the infringement has occurred, particularly where the decision is based on similar antitrust rules.  Nevertheless, a national court may accept to reverse a presumption that an infringement has occurred where the infringement decision of another EU competition authority is not in line with the decisional practice of the local competition authority.

Quantification of damages and passing-on defence

The Directive establishes the principle that anyone having suffered harm resulting from an antitrust infringement can claim compensation, whether that person is a direct or indirect purchaser.  However, the defendant can invoke as a defence that no compensation is due where the overcharge resulting from the infringement was passed on to parties at the next level of the supply chain.  The Directive also introduces a presumption, in the case of indirect purchaser claims, that passing-on did occur where evidence is provided that the defendant committed an antitrust infringement, the infringement resulted in an overcharge for the direct purchaser of the defendant and the indirect purchaser purchased the goods that were the object of the infringement (or derived from them). 

The recognition of the passing-on defence in the Directive is a welcome addition for defendants.  Nevertheless, defendants will need to exercise prudence when invoking the defence in order not to prejudice their position with respect to indirect purchasers in relation to whom limitation periods have not yet run out.  

The calculation of the overcharge is also likely to raise significant challenges.  Some Member States are expected to address this issue in implementing legislation by defining a fixed amount of overcharge which the cartel harm is presumed to give rise to.  This will reduce the burden of proof for claimants but equally place the burden on defendants to rebut the presumption.  For example Latvia is expected to set the amount of the overcharge to 10% in its legislation.   Hungary has a similar provision which is already contained in its existing legislation.  It will be interesting to see which other Member States opt for this route in their implementing legislation. 

Conclusion

The implementation of the Directive at the end of this year will have important long-term consequences.  At the outset, claimants will be provided with a more favourable framework in all Member States to obtain compensation for harm resulting from antitrust infringements.  As a result, a more level playing field is expected to be created, although disparities will continue to exist and some scope for forum shopping is expected to remain.   This is essentially due to the fact that the Directive prescribes only minimum rules of harmonization.  In some cases, the Directive also leaves it to Member States to adopt national rules without setting out minimum requirements, for example on the method for calculating damages (subject to abiding by general principles of effectiveness and equivalence).  As national/European case-law develops following implementation of the Directive, differences in interpretation and application of national laws implementing the Directive are also likely to arise.  It will take time before conflicting interpretations are resolved through appeals and preliminary references to the Court of Justice. 

Conversely, the Directive is also expected to lead to a potential reduction in leniency applications.  Whilst care has been taken in the Directive to maintain a balance between introducing more efficient private enforcement without affecting the efficiency of public enforcement through competition authorities, there is speculation already that less immunity applications are being made of late in the European Union given the more favourable climate being created for follow-on claims.  If confirmed and the trend continues, this is likely to impact on the ability of competition authorities to clamp down on cartels and accordingly, lead to fewer cartel decisions.  Likewise, settlement practices could be affected by the forthcoming implementation of the Directive.  Whilst 'settlement submissions' are protected from disclosure, settling parties could nevertheless find themselves primary targets for follow-on claims, particularly in hybrid cases where cartel proceedings against non-settling parties remain ongoing.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.