1. Introduction At the beginning of 2021, the sports leaders of some of the most influential clubs in Europe, led by the presidents of Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, Florentino Pérez and Joan Laporta, announced the European Super League project. This international competition threatened to rival the well-known UEFA Champions League and disrupt the rigid […]
Minimum Damages under EU Law in Antitrust Damages Actions? Conclusions from the Recent Case Law of the German Supreme Court
The estimated damage cannot be less than 5% of the purchase price paid for reasons of effectiveness under EU law.” This was recently stated by the German Federal Court of Justice about claims for damages due to the Dieselgate scandal. However, the Court’s reasoning in favour of this legal lower limit for damages might equally, if not even more so, be applied to cartel damages claims – an analysis.
Decoding Transaction Data in Private Competition Law Damage Litigations: Efficient data management in legal proceedings
In private damage litigations, the effective management of transaction data stands as a pivotal element in building compelling cases. Transaction data plays a central role in the substantiation of a claim, establishing causation, quantifying damages, and pre-emptively addressing defence strategies.
The intricacies of transaction data management present unique challenges, from handling extensive paper-based evidence to ensuring data relevance, integrity, and compliance with data protection regulations. This article explores the complexities of transaction data management within competition law litigations, offering insight into best practices and the evolving landscape of data management technologies.
Effective enforcement of cartel damage claims through the assignment model: The preliminary ruling procedure before the CJEU in Case C-253/23 (ASG) – A Comment
Following a request for a preliminary ruling from Germany, the CJEU has to assess the availability of the ‘assignment model’ to cartel victims. Private enforcement of competition law in the EU is essentially driven by actions bundling claims for damages assigned by a multitude of victims to a specialised company for joint assessment and enforcement. The question is whether limitations to the assignment model under national law can survive an assessment under EU law.
Tribunal Supremo on trucks cartel, judicial estimation after Tráficos Manuel Ferrer: Judges can estimate without prior disclosure, judicial estimate of 5% overcharge confirmed
In a bundle of 15 cassation judgments, the Tribunal Supremo, the highest civil court in Spain, rules on important questions concerning the ability of the judge to estimate the damage, the need for prior inter partes disclosure, proportionality, and standards for economic expert opinions. The Tribunal does so against the background of the European trucks cartel, the same case that prompted the preliminary ruling in Tráficos Manuel Ferrer. The Tribunal largely upholds the findings of the appellate courts and strengthens the ability of judges to estimate damage. The court also rules, among other questions, on the accrual of interest and limitation.
Private Enforcement of the EU Digital Markets Act: The way ahead after going live
As of 2 May 2023, the DMA provisions started to be applied as an innovative ex-ante regulation targeting ‘gatekeepers’ in the digital market. Provided that private enforcement plays a central role in the effective application of the DMA, this article provides significant insights in this regard. In the absence of a harmonization act like the EU Antitrust Damages Directive, key principles rooted in EU law and CJEU case law, together with rules progressively proposed under national law for the protection of individual rights of platform users, represent the current state of DMA private enforcement, paving the way for the future.
Challenges in Quantifying Private Antitrust Damages: Addressing Data Availability and Reliability
This article explores the complexities surrounding the quantification of damages and the issue of data asymmetry in private antitrust damage actions in Europe. It delves into the challenges claimants face in quantifying the actual harm caused by anticompetitive behaviour. The article also discusses the role of disclosure rules in promoting fair access to evidence and proposes potential solutions to mitigate the information disparity between claimants and defendants.
Tráficos Manuel Ferrer – a warning to claimants and defendants alike
Shortly after the publication of the Tráficos Manuel Ferrer judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in response to a request for a preliminary ruling (16 February 2023), the judge from the Valencia court who had referred the questions to the CJEU delivered his judgment in the same case (10 March 2023). This blog post analyses the key points of the Valencia court judgment concerning economic expert reports.
Connor and Lande data: median recovery rates suggest that cartel effects can be five times higher than cartel fines
Many cartels remain undetected by competition authorities. Even if detected, the estimated negative effects of price-fixing cartels on prices can be five times larger than the fines imposed by the authorities. That is, the level of fines is suboptimal. The analysis is based on the dataset of Connor and Lande. It partially contradicts the results of a recent study that suggests effective recovery of cartel injuries when cartels are discovered.
German Federal Court of Justice confirms factual assumption of harm in case of anticompetitive information exchanges and clarifies scope of liability in multi-product cartels
On 5 January 2023, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) published an important judgment in relation to follow-on damage actions relating to the so-called German drugstore products cartel (Case KZR 42/20). In its ruling, Germany’s highest civil court also confirmed a factual presumption of harm in the case of anticompetitive information exchanges. This is an important clarification as the BGH had thus far only acknowledged such factual presumption in cases of price-fixing and market-sharing practices. In addition, the BGH clarified that cartel participants are jointly and severally liable for damages caused in relation to products they do not manufacture themselves if they were aware that the anticompetitive practices extended to the other products.