Supported by
the Luxembourg National Research Fund
Project O19/13946847
‘As regards, first of all, evidence relating to leniency statements and settlement submissions (‘evidence on the blacklist’), Art 6(6) of Directive 2014/104 provides that Member States are to ensure that national courts cannot at any time order a party or a third party to disclose that evidence. Next, as regards information that was prepared by a natural or legal person specifically for administrative proceedings initiated by a competition authority, information that that latter authority has drawn up and sent to the parties in the course of those proceedings, and settlement submissions that have been withdrawn, Art 6(5) of Directive 2014/104 provides that national courts may order the disclosure of those categories of evidence (‘evidence on the grey list’) only after a competition authority, by adopting a decision or otherwise, has closed its proceedings. Lastly, in accordance with Art 6(9) of Directive 2014/104, the disclosure of evidence in the file of a competition authority that does not fall into any of the categories referred to previously (‘the evidence on the white list’) may be ordered in actions for damages at any time, without prejudice to that Art.’ [710]
AB |
Appeal Board |
ABA |
American Bar Association |
AC |
Appeal Case (UK) |
ACCC |
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission |
Aff’d |
decision affirmed by higher court |
AG |
Aktiengesellschaft (stock corporation/public limited company) |
A-G |
Attorney General (UK) |
AGCM |
Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Italian Competition Authority) |
ALR |
Australian Law Reports |
Art |
Art |
AT |
Antitrust Case |
BB |
Betriebs-Berater (German Journal) |
BGB |
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code) |
BGH |
Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice) |
BT-Drs |
Bundestags-Drucksache (German Bundestag Printed Document) |
BVerfG |
Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court) |
C- |
Case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) |
CA |
Court of Appeal (UK) |
CADE |
Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Brazilian Competition Authority) |
CAT |
Competition Appeal Tribunal of the United Kingdom |
CB |
Compliance-Berater (German Journal) |
CCED Tenn |
Circuit Court Eastern District of Tennessee (US) |
CCI |
Competition Commission of India |
Civ |
Civil case |
CJEU |
The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ & GC) |
CLJ |
Cambridge Law Journal |
CPC |
Código de Processo Civil (Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure) |
Co |
Company |
Comp LR |
Competition Law Reports (India) |
Corp |
Corporation |
DAF COMP WD |
Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Policy Working Document (OECD) |
DCC |
Dutch Civil Code |
DDC |
District Court for the District of Columbia (US) |
ECLI |
European Case Law Identifier |
ECLIC |
EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges (International Scientific Conference) |
ECJ |
European Court of Justice |
ECR |
European Court Reports (EU) |
edn |
edition |
ed |
editor/edited by |
eds |
editors |
EGLR |
Estate Gazette Law Reports (UK) |
eg |
exempli gratia (for example) |
ERA Forum |
Forum der Europäischen Rechtsakademie Trier (German Legal Journal) |
EU |
European Union |
EuG |
Europäisches Gericht (General Court of the European Union) |
EuGH |
Europäischer Gerichtshof (European Court of Justice) |
et al |
et alia (and others) |
et seq |
et sequentia (and the following) |
EWCA Civ |
England and Wales Court of Appeal Civil Division |
EWHC Ch |
England and Wales High Court Chancery Division |
F- |
Case of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union |
FCA |
Federal Court of Australia |
FCAFC |
Federal Court of Australia Full Court |
ff |
and the following |
F Supp |
Federal Supplement (US case law reporter) |
FTC |
Federal Trade Commission of the US |
F 3d |
Federal Reporter Third Series (US) |
GAHap |
Civil Case in District Court of South Korea (가합) |
GC |
General Court (of the European Union) |
Gesellschaft mbH/GmbH |
Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (company with limited liability) |
Geo LJ |
Georgetown Law Journal (US) |
GRUR-RR |
Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht – Rechtsprechungs-Report (German Journal on rulings related to intellectual property law and commercial law) |
GVRZ |
Zeitschrift für das gesamte Verfahrensrecht (German Journal for Procedural Law) |
GWB |
Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (German Cartel Act) |
ICC |
International Chamber of Commerce |
Inc |
Incorporated |
ie |
id est (that is) |
in liq |
in liquidation |
IP |
Information Press Release |
JECLAP |
Journal of European Competition Law & Practice (UK) |
JFTC |
Japan Fair Trade Commission |
JSC |
Jacqueline Scott Corley the United States Magistrate Judge |
KartG |
Kartellgesetz (Competition Act of Austria) |
KG |
Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court of Berlin) |
KZR |
Kartell-Zivilsache Revision (Cartel Civil Appeal case before BGH) |
LG |
Landgericht (Regional Court of Germany) |
ltd |
private limited company |
Lgs D |
Decreto Legislativo (Legislative Decree) |
LQR |
Law Quarterly Review (UK legal journal) |
MOD |
Ministry of Defence (UK) |
MRFTA |
Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of South Korea |
n |
footnote (internal, ie, within the same chapter) |
ND Cal |
Northern District California |
NJW |
Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (German Journal) |
No/ n° |
number/numbers |
NZKart |
Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht (German Journal for Competition Law) |
NZM |
Neue Zeitschrift für Miet- und Wohnungseigentumsrecht (German Journal for Tenancy and Residential Property Law) |
OECD |
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development |
OJ |
Official Journal of the EU |
OLR |
Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) |
P |
pourvoi (appeal) |
p |
page |
para |
paragraph/paragraphs |
per se |
by itself/in itself |
prima facie |
at first sight |
Ref |
reference |
RG |
Répertoire Général (General Register) |
RG |
Reichsgericht (supreme criminal and civil court of Germany from 1879 to 1945) |
Rn |
Randnummer (marginal number) |
RSCAS |
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (EUI) |
Rz |
Randziffer (paragraph number) |
S |
Seite (page) |
SCC |
Supreme Court of Canada |
S Ct |
Supreme Court (of the United States) |
SCJ |
Supreme Court Judgments (of the Supreme Court of Canada) |
SCR |
Supreme Court Reports of Canada |
Sec |
section |
SGCAB |
Singapore Court of Appeal |
SGHC |
Singapore High Court |
SI |
Statutory Instrument |
Slg |
Sammlung (official report series of the court’s judgment) |
SWD |
Staff Working Document of the European Commission |
T- |
Case of the General Court of the European Union |
TFEU |
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
UK |
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
UKSC |
UK Supreme Court |
ULJ Dublin |
University Law Journal Dublin Trinity College |
US/USA |
United States of America |
USC |
United States Supreme Court |
USC |
United States Code |
UWG |
Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (German Unfair Competition Act) |
v |
versus (against) |
VersR |
Zeitschrift für Versicherungsrecht, Haftungs- und Schadensrecht (German Journal) |
VO |
EU Verordnung (EU Regulation) |
Vol |
Volume |
WL |
Westlaw legal research database |
WRP |
Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis (German Journal) |
WuW |
Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb (German Journal) |
ZHR |
Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht Journal (German Journal) |
ZPO |
Zivilprozessordnung (German Code of Civil Procedure) |
ZWeR |
Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht (German Journal) |
*th Cir |
US Court of Appeals for the *th Circuit |
Council Regulation on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Arts 81 and 82 of the Treaty, 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 (EU).
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, 2014/104 of 26 November 2014 (EU Damages Directive).
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, 2004/48 of 29 April 2004 (EU).
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, 2019/1 of 11 December 2018 (EU).
Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (General Civil Code) 1811 (Austria).
An Act to encourage the development and promulgation of voluntary consensus standards by providing relief under the antitrust laws to standards development organizations with respect to conduct engaged in for the purpose of developing voluntary consensus standards, and for other purposes 2004 [Public Law 108–237] (US).
Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act 2004 [Public Law 108-237] (US).
Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Permanent Extension Act 2020 [Public Law 116-257] (US).
Bundesgesetz betreffend die Ergänzung des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches Fünfter Teil: Obligationenrecht (Federal Act on the Amendment of the Swiss Civil Code Part Five: The Code of Obligations) 1911 (Switzerland).
Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Unfair Competition Act) 1984 (Austria).
Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Unfair Competition Act) 1986 (Switzerland).
Bundesgesetz gegen Kartelle und andere Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Cartel Act) 2005 (Austria).
Bundesgesetz über Kartelle und andere Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Cartel Act) 1995 (Switzerland).
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code) 1896 (Germany).
Cartwright Act of 1907 (California, US).
Civil Code of the Republic of Korea 1958 (South Korea).
Civil Discovery Act 1986 (California, US).
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (UK).
Civil Wrongs Law 1933 (Cyprus).
Civilprocesa likums (Civil Procedure Law) 1998 (Latvia).
Clayton Antitrust Act 1914 (US).
Code Civil / Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil Code) 1804 (Belgium).
Code de Commerce (Commercial Code) 1807 (France).
Code de droit économique / Wetboek van economisch recht (Code of Economic Law) 2013 (Belgium).
Code de procédure civile (New Code of Civil Procedure) 2007 (France).
Code of Civil Procedure 1872 (California, US).
Codice di Procedura Civile (Civil Procedure Code) 28 October 1940 (Italy).
Código Civil (Civil Code) Decree-Law No 47344/66 of 25 November 1966 (Portugal).
Código Civil Brasileiro (Brazilian Civil Code) Law No 10,406 of 10 January 2002 (Brazil).
Código Civil y Comercial de la República Argentina (Civil and Commercial Code of the Argentine Republic) Law No 26994 of 1 October 2014 (Argentina).
Código de Processo Civil (Code for Civil Procedure) 2015 (Brazil).
Código de Processo Civil (Code for Civil Procedure) Law No 41 of 26 June 2013 (Portugal).
Competition Act 1985 (Canada).
Competition Act 1998 (UK).
Competition and Consumer Act 2020 (Australia).
Competition Tribunal Act 1985 (Canada).
Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Political Constitution of the United Mexican States) 1917 (Mexico).
Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2019 (Public Law 116–257) (US).
Decreto Legislativo 2017, n 3 (Legislative Decree No 3/2017) (Italy).
Direito a indemnização por infração ao direito da concorrência, transpõe a Diretiva 2014/104/UE, do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 26 de novembro de 2014 (Law on compensation for infringement of competition law, transposing Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014) 2018 (Portugal).
European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 (UK).
évi LVII. törvény a tisztességtelen piaci magatartás és a versenykorlátozás tilalmáról (Act No LVII the Prohibition of Unfair Market Practices and Restriction of Competition) 1996 (Hungary).
Evidence Act 1995 (Australia).
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Australia).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1937 (US).
Federal Rules of Evidence 1975 (US).
Gerechterlijk Wetboek / Code Judiciaire (Code of Judicial Organization and Procedure) 1967 (Belgium).
Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Unfair Competition Act) 2004 (Germany).
Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Cartel Act) 1998 (Germany).
Gesetz über die Gerichts- und Behördenorganisation im Zivil- und Strafprozess (Law on the Organisation of Courts and Authorities in Civil and Criminal Procedure) 2020 (Zurich, Switzerland).
Konkurences likums (Competition Law) 2004 (Latvia).
Konkurencijos įstatymas (Law on Competition) 23 March 1999 (Lithuania).
Legge 9 luglio 2015, n 114 (Law of 9 July 2015 No 114) (Italy).
LEI Nº 14.470, DE 16 DE NOVEMBRO DE 2022 altera a Lei nº 12.529, de 30 de novembro de 2011 - Lei de Defesa da Concorrência, para prever novas disposições aplicáveis à repressão de infrações à ordem econômica (Law No 14,470, of November 16, 2022 amending Law No 12,529, of November 30, 2011 - Competition Defense Law, to establish new provisions applicable to the repression of economic order violations) (Brazil).
Ley 1/2000, de 7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law 1/2000, of January 7, on Civil Procedure) (Spain).
Ley N° 15/2007, de 3 de julio de 2007, de Defensa de la Competencia (Law No 15/2007 of 3 July 2007 on the Protection of Competition) (Spain).
Ley N° 20.169 que regula la Competencia Desleal (Law No 20.169 on Unfair Competition) 2007 (Chile).
Ley N° 27442, de 9 de mayo de 2018 de Defensa de la Competencia (Law No 27.442 of May 9, 2018 on Protection of Competition (Argentina).
Loi du 5 décembre 2016 relative à certaines règles régissant les actions en dommages et intérêts pour les violations du droit de la concurrence et modifiant la loi modifiée du 23 octobre 2011 relative à la concurrence (Law of 5 December 2016 on certain rules governing actions for damages for infringements of competition law and amending the amended Law of 23 October 2011 on competition) 2016 (Luxembourg).
Lov om mekling og rettergang i sivile tvister – tvisteloven (Act relating to mediation and procedure in civil disputes - The Dispute Act) 2008 (Norway).
Neuntes Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Ninth Act Amending the Act Against Restraints of Competition) 2017 [18/10207] (Germany).
Nieuwe Burgerlijk Wetboek (New Civil Code) 1992 (Netherlands).
Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile (New Code of Civil Procedure) 2001 (Luxembourg).
Obligacijski zakonik (Obligations Code) 2001 (Slovenia).
Ordonnance n° 2017-303 du 9 mars 2017 relative aux actions en dommages et intérêts du fait des pratiques anticoncurrentielles (Order No 2017-303 of 9 March 2017, regarding actions for damages resulting from anti-competitive practices) 2017 (France).
RDONANȚĂ DE URGENȚĂ nr 170 din 14 octombrie 2020 (Emergency Ordinance No 170 of 14 October 2020) 2020 (Romania).
RESOLUÇÃO No 21, DE 11 DE SETEMBRO DE 2018 (Resolution No 21, of September 11 2018) 2018 (Brazil).
Sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun (Act on the Protection of Competition) Law No 4054 of 1994 (Türkiye).
Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (Civil Procedure Act) 2008 (Switzerland)
SI No 43 of 2017 European Union (Actions for Damages for Infringements of Competition Law) 2017 (Ireland).
Unfair Competition Act No 256 of 1996 (Colombia).
United States Code Title 15 (US).
United States Code Title 18 (US).
United States Code Title 28 (US).
Unternehmensgesetzbuch (Commercial Code) 1897 (Austria).
Ustawa z dnia 21 kwietnia 2017 r o roszczeniach o naprawienie szkody wyrządzonej przez naruszenie prawa konkurencji (Act of April 21, 2017, on claims for compensation for damage caused by infringements of competition law) (Poland).
Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Civil procedure Code) 1838 (Netherlands).
Zakon o preprečevanju omejevanja konkurence (Prevention of the Restriction of Competition Act) 2022 (Slovenia).
Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure) 1950 (Germany).
Κώδικας Πολιτικής Δικονομίας (Code of Civil Procedure) 1968 (Greece).
חוק ההגבלים עסקיים (Restrictive Trade Practices Law / Economic Competition Law) No 5748 of 1988 (Israel).
독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 (Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act) 1980 (South Korea).
민법/民法 (Civil Code) Law No 471 of 1958 (South Korea).
민사소송법 (Civil Procedure Act) Act No 547 of 4 April 1960 (South Korea).
反垄断法 (Anti-Monopoly Law) Order No 68 of 30 August 2007 (People’s Republic of China).
民事訴訟法 (Code of Civil Procedure Act) No 109 of 26 June 1996 (Japan).
民事訴訟法 (Code of Civil Procedure) 1929 (Taiwan).
民法 (Civil Code) Act No 89 of 27 April 1896 (Japan).
独占禁止法 (Antimonopoly Act) Act No 54 of 14 April 1947 (Japan).
競爭條例 / 竞争条例 (Competition Ordinance) 2012 (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China).
A and Others v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA, Case C-25/21 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 April 2023 [ECLI:EU:C:2023:298].
AB Volvo and DAF Trucks NV v RM, Case C-267/20 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 [ECLI:EU:C:2022:494].
AC-Treuhand AG v European Commission, Case C-194/14 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 [ECLI:EU:C:2015:717].
AD v PACCAR Inc and Others, Case C-163/21 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2022 [ECLI:EU:C:2022:863].
AGC Glass Europe and Others v European Commission, Case C-517/15 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 [ECLI:EU:C:2017:598].
Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV, Case 66/86 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 11 April 1989 [ECLI:EU:C:1989:140].
Akzo Nobel NV and Others v Commission of the European Communities, Case C-97/08 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 [ECLI:EU:C:2009:536].
Alfredo Grifoni v European Atomic Energy Community, Case C-308/87 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 1990 [ECLI:EU:C:1990:134].
Alstom Grid SAS v European Commission, Case T-521/09 (CJEU), Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2014 [ECLI:EU:T:2014:1000].
Béguelin Import Co. v SAGL Import Export, Case C-22-71 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 25 November 1971 [ECLI:EU:C:1971:113].
Centrafarm BV and Adriaan de Peijper v Sterling Drug Inc., Case C-15-74 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 31 October 1974 [ECLI:EU:C:1974:114].
Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Española de Petróleos SA, Case C-217/05 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 [ECLI:EU:C:2006:784].
Corinne Bodson v SA Pompes funèbres des régions libérées, Case 30/87 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 1988 [ECLI:EU:C:1988:225].
Cornelis van Roessel and others v De coöperatieve vereniging Zuivelcoöperatie Campina Melkunie VA, Case C-40/94 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 12 December 1995 [ECLI:EU:C:1995:433].
Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Others, Case C-453/99 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 20 September 2001 [ECLI:EU:C:2001:465].
DHL Express (Italy) Srl and DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del mercato, Case C-428/14 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 [ECLI:EU:C:2016:27].
Dijkstra and Others v Friesland (Frico Domo) Coöperatie and Others, Case C-319/93 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 12 December 1995 [ECLI:EU:C:1995:433].
Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV, Case C-126/97 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 1 June 1999 [ECLI:EU:C:1999:269].
Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v Commission of the European Communities, Case 6-72 (CJEU), Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 1975 [ECLI:EU:C:1975:50].
Europese Gemeenschap v Otis NV and Others, Case C-199/11 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 [ECLI:EU:C:2012:684].
Evonik Degussa GmbH v European Commission, Case C-162/15 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 [ECLI:EU:C:2017:205].
Gasorba SL and Others v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA, Case C-547/16 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2017 [ECLI:EU:C:2017:891].
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v Commission of the European Communities, Case 48-69 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 14 July 1972 [ECLI:EU:C:1972:70].
Ireks-Arkady GmbH v Council and Commission of the European Communities, Case 238/78 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 4 October 1979 [ECLI:EU:C:1979:226].
J. M. Mulder and others and Otto Heinemann v Council of the European Communities and Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 19 May 1992 [ECLI:EU:C:1992:217].
Kapniki Michaïlidis AE v Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA), Case C-441/98 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 September 2000 [ECLI:EU:C:2000:479].
Kingdom of the Netherlands and Gerard van der Wal v Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases C-174/98 P and C-189/98 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 11 January 2000 [ECLI:EU:C:2000:1].
Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH, Case C-41/90 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 April 1991 [ECLI:EU:C:1991:161].
Kone AG and Others v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG, Case C-557/12 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 [ECLI:EU:C:2014:1317].
Lady & Kid A/S and Others v Skatteministeriet, Case C-398/09 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 [ECLI:EU:C:2011:540].
M Helen Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority, Case C-271/91 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 2 August 1993 [ECLI:EU:C:1993:335].
Mariana Irimie v Administraţia Finanţelor Publice Sibiu and Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu, Case C-565/11 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 [ECLI:EU:C:2013:250].
Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd, Case C-344/98 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2000 [ECLI:EU:C:2000:689].
Otis Gesellschaft mbH and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others, Case C-435/18 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 [ECLI:EU:C:2019:1069].
Pesticide Action Network Europe and Others v État belge, Case C-162/21 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2023 [ECLI:EU:C:2023:30].
RegioJet a.s., Case C-57/21 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 January 2023 [ECLI:EU:C:2023:6].
Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, Case C-33/76 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1976 [ECLI:EU:C:1976:188].
SA Brasserie de Haecht v Wilkin-Janssen, Case 48-72 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 6 February 1973 [ECLI:EU:C:1973:11, de Haecht II].
Stergios Delimitis v Henninger Bräu AG, Case C-234/89 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 28 February 1991 [ECLI:EU:C:1991:91].
Sumal, SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, SL, Case C-882/19 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 [ECLI:EU:C:2021:800].
The Goldman Sachs Group Inc v European Commission, Case C-595/18 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2021 [ECLI:EU:C:2021:73].
Tráficos Manuel Ferrer, Case C-312/21 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2023 [ECLI:EU:C:2023:99].
Tréfileurope Sales SARL v Commission of the European Communities, Case T-141/89 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 [ECLI:EU:T:1995:62].
Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy and Others, Case C-724/17 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2019 [ECLI:EU:C:2019:204].
Viho Europe BV v Commission of the European Communities, Case C-73/95 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 [ECLI:EU:C:1996:405].
Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA, Case C-295/04 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 [ECLI:EU:C:2006:461].
Willem de Bie and others v De Coöperatieve Zuivelcoöperatie Campina Melkunie BA, Case C-224/94 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 12 December 1995 [ECLI:EU:C:1995:433].
2Travel Group Plc (In Liquidation) v Cardiff City Transport Services Ltd, Case 1178/5/7/11 (CAT, UK), Judgment of 2012 [2012] CAT 19.
A-G v Blake (House of Lords, UK), Judgment 27 July 2000 [AC 268, 285].
ACCC v Pacific National (FCA, Australia), Judgment of 2018 [2018] FCA 1221.
Albion Water Limited v Dŵr Cymru Cyfyngedig, Case 1166/5/7/10 (CAT, UK), Judgment 28 March 2013, [2013] CAT 6.
American Cyanamid v Ethicon (House of Lords, UK), Judgment of 1975 [AC 396].
American Needle, Inc v National Football League, No 08–661 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 24 May 2010 [560 US 183 (2010)].
AMG Capital Management, LLC v Federal Trade Commission, No 19-508 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 22 April 2021 [141 S Ct 1341, 1344].
Amoco Production Co v Village of Gambell, No 85-1239 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 24 March 1987 [480 US 531, 542].
Arizona v Shamrock Foods (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment of April 3 1984 [480 US 531 (1987)].
Associated General Contractors of California, Inc v California State Council of Carpenters, No 81-334 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 22 February 1983 [459 US 519 (1983), 529, 540].
Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qanat Airwais Ltd (FCA, Australia), Judgment 28 September 2008 [251 ALR 166].
Bank of Cyprus UK Limited (Respondent) v Menelaou (Appellant) (Supreme Court, UK), Judgment 4 November 2015 [2015] UKSC 66, AC 176.
Banque Financière De La Cité v Parc (Battersea) Limited and Others (House of Lords, UK), Judgment 26 February 1998 [1 AC 221,227].
Benedetti v Sawiris (Supreme Court, UK), Judgment 17 July 2013 [2013] UKSC 50, AC 938, 10.
Bigelow v RKO Radio Pictures, Inc, No 444 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment of 25 February 1946 [327 US 251 (1946), 261-63].
Britned Development Ltd v ABB AB and ABB Ltd (England and Wales High Court (EWHC), UK), Judgment of 9 October 2018 [EWHC 2616 Ch].
Brunswick Corp. v Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc, No 75-904 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 25 January 1977 [429 US 477 (1977), 488].
Campos v Ticketmaster Corp, No 96-2883 (8th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment April 10 1998 [140 F3d 1166, 1171].
Cargill, Inc v Monfort of Colorado, Inc, No 85-473 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 9 December 1986 [479 US 104 (1986)].
Case Anwaltsbücherdienst (LG Köln, Germany), Judgment 26 May 1976 [WuW/E LG/AG 406, 408].
Case Rossignol (Oberlandesgericht (OLG, Higher Regional Court) München, Germany) Judgment 14 November 1974 [WuW/E OLG 1540].
Zeitschriften-Einkaufsgemeinschaft (LG Mannheim, Germany), Judgment 13 February 1976 [WuW/E LG/AG 399, 400].
Case Allkauf-Saba (OLG Karlsruhe, Germany), Judgment 12 March 1980 [WuW/E OLG 2217, 2222].
Case (Paris Court of Appeal, France), Judgment 22 October 2001 [Jurisdata n° 2001–157128].
Case 08700 002821/2014-09 (CADE, Brazil), Judgment 7 June 2017 [Administrative Process, Commissioner Paulo Burnier da Silveira].
Case 14PA02419 (Administrative Court of Appeal Paris, France), Judgment 13 June 2019.
Case 16/277 (Helsinki Court of Appeal, Finland), Judgment of 21 May 2018.
Case 16a O 1/20 (LG, Berlin), Judgment of 19 June 2023.
Case Driving Schools Cartel, Case 17 R 91/07 p (Regional Court Graz, Austria), Judgment 17 August 2007.
Case 185/2023 (Provincial Court Valencia, Spain), Judgment of 23 February 2023.
Berliner Transportbeton, Case 2 U 10/03 Kart (KG, Germany), Judgment 1 October 2009.
Case 2008Da6755 (Supreme Court, South Korea), Decision 28 October 2010.
Case 2017GAHap536468 (Seoul District Court, South Korea), Judgment of 2017.
Case 231/2023 (Provincial Court Madrid, Spain), Judgment 9 March 2023.
Case 278/2019 (Commercial Court of Oviedo, Spain), Judgment 19 May 2021.
Case 33 O 69/15 (Regional Court Cologne, Germany), Judgment 9 October 2020.
Case 905 (Reichsgericht (Supreme Court of the German empire from 1879 to 1945), Germany), Judgment of 1942.
Case 923/2023 (Supreme Court, Spain), Judgment 12 June 2023.
Case Feststellungsinteresse III, Case I ZR 277/00 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 15 May 2003 [NJW 2003, 3274|.
Case I-22 U 37/15 (OLG Düsseldorf, Germany), Judgment 23 October 2015.
Case II-10217 (Paris Court of Appeal, France), Judgment 13 January 1998 [JCP G 1998].
Case III ZR 201/80 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 27 May 1982 [NJW 1982, 2874].
Case III ZR 233/8 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 5 May 1986 [BGHZ 98, 32 (40), NJW 1986, 3077].
Case KRB 10/17 (BGH, Germany), Order 9 October 2018 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2018:091018BKRB10.17.0], [BeckRS 2018, 36788].
Case KZR 59/16 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 17 October 2017 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:171017UKZR59.16.0], [Unzulässige Vereinbarung eines Mindestverkaufspreises - Vitalkost-Aktion, GRUR-RR 2018].
Case KZR 16/04 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 8 May 2007.
Kabelkanalanlagen I, Case KZR 2/15 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 24 January 2017 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:240117UKZR2.15.0].
Case KZR 20/21 (BGH, Germany), Judgment of 4 April 2023 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:040423UKZR20.21.0].
KZR 24/17 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 28 January 2020 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2020:280120UKZR24.17.0].
Lottoblock II, Case KZR 25/14 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 12 June 2016 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:120716UKZR25.14.0].
Case KZR 4/19 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 23 September 2020 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2020:230920UKZR4.19.0].
Case KZR 42/08 (BGH, Germany), Order 7 April 2009 [WRP 2009, 745].
Case KZR 5/01 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 16 April 2002 [WuW/E DE-R 909, Wettbewerbsverbot in Realteilungsvertrag].
Grauzementkartell II, Case KZR 56/16 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 12 June 2018 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2018:120618UKZR56.16.0].
Case KZR 75/10 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 28 June 2011.
Case KZR 8/18 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 19 May 2020 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2020:190520UKZR8.18.0].
Case L 11/53753 (Helsinki District Court, Finland), Judgment of 31 August 2017.
Case RG DR 1942, 905 (Reichsgericht (Supreme Court of the German empire from 1879 to 1945), Germany), Judgment of 1942.
Case RNL2017-403031 (District Court Gelderland, Netherlands), Judgment 29 March 2017 [ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1724].
Case VI ZR 37/11 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 8 May 2012, NJW 2012, 2267.
Case VIII ZR 304/00 (Germany, BGH), Judgment of 9 January 2002 [NJW 2002, 1651].
Cheminova A/S v Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV et al, Case SH2015.U-0004-07 (Maritime and Commercial Court, Denmark), Judgment 15 January 2015.
Ciardi v F Hoffmann-La Roche (State Supreme Judicial Court Massachusetts, US), Judgment 8 February 2003 [436 Mass 53, SJC-08495].
City of Atlanta v Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works, No 94 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 3 December 1906 [101 F 900, 901, CEED Tenn 1900 aff’d, 203 US 390 (1906)].
Copperweld v Independence Tube, No 82-1260 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 19 June 1984 [467 US 752 (1984)].
County of San Mateo v CSL Ltd, No 10-CV-05686-JSC (District Court Northern District of California, US), Judgment 20 August 2014 [2014 WL 4100602].
Dahabshiil Transfer Services Ltd v Barclays Bank plc (EWHC, UK), Judgment of 2013 [3379 Ch].
Delhi Jal Board v Grasim Industries Ltd & Ors, Ref Case No 03 and 04 of 2013 (CCI, India), Judgment 5 October 2017.
Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) & others, Case HC05C00468, HC05C00467 (EWHC, UK), Judgment 19 October [2007] EWHC 2394 (Ch), Lewison J.
DKT c Eco-Emballages et Valorplast, Case 2012000109 (Tribunal de commerce de Paris, France), Judgment 30 March 2015.
eBay Inc v MercExchange LLC, No 05-130 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 29 March 2006 [547 US 388 (2006), 391].
Enfield LBC v Outdoor Plus Ltd (EWCA, UK), Judgment of 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 608.
Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd v Automobili Lamborghini SPA, Appeal No 1/2013 (Competition Appellate Tribunal, India), Judgment 28 February 2014.
Fondiara SAI SPA v Nigdello, No 2305 4 (Supreme Court, Italy), Judgment 2 February 2007.
FTC v Mylan Laboratories, Inc (District Court of Columbia, US), Judgment 7 July 1999 [62 F Supp 2d 25, 36-27].
FTC v Perrigo Co and Alpharma Inc (District Court of Columbia, US), Judgment 12 August 2004 [Civ No 1:04CV1397 RMC].
Hanover Shoe, Inc v United Shoe Machinery Corp, No 335 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 17 June 1968 [392 US 481 (1968)].
Hawaii v Standard Oil Co of California, No 70-49 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 1 March 1972 [405 US 251 (1972), 262].
Illinois Brick Co v Illinois, No 76-404 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 9 June 1977 [431 US 720 (1977)].
In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Product (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment 4 May 1982 [691 F.2d 1335 (9th Cir. 1982), 1341].
In re Plywood Antitrust Litig (Court of Appeals, US), Judgment 4 November 1981 [655 F2d 627, 635, 5th Cir 1981].
Infineon Technologies AG v Option Consommateurs, Case 34617 (Supreme Court, Canada), Judgment 31 October 2013 [2013 SCC 59].
Insulate SB, Inc v Advanced Finishing Systems, No 14–2561,14–2561 (8th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment 13 August 2015 [797 F3d 538, 542].
J Truett Payne C v Chrysler Motors Corp, No 79-1944 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 18 May 1981 [451 US 557 (1981)].
Japan v Kosumo Sekiyu KK et al (Tokyo District Court, Japan), Judgment 27 June 2011 [Heisei 17 No 26475, 2129 HANREI JIHŌ 46].
Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed Pty Ltd. v Amcor Limited (Federal Court (FCA), Australia), Judgment 15 June 2011, [2011] FCA 671.
JCB Sales et a v SA Central Parts (Appeal Court Paris, France), Judgment of 26 June 2013.
Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 (Commercial Court Valencia, Spain), Judgment of 10 March 2023 [24/2023].
Lowick Rose LLP (in liq) (Appellant) v Swynson Limited and another (Respondents) (Supreme Court, UK), Judgment 11 April 2017 [2017] UKSC 32, AC 313.
Manuchar Steel Hong Kong Limited v Star Pacific Line Pte Ltd, No 927 of 2023 (High Court (SGHC), Singapore), Judgment 23 September 2014 [2014] SGHC 181.
Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (EWCA, UK), Judgment of 2011 [Civ 270].
Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc, No 83-1569 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 2 July 1985 [473 US 614 (1985), 635].
MOD v Ashman (EGLR, UK), Judgment of 1993 [2 EGLR 102, CA].
MOD v Thompson (EGLR, UK), Judgment of 1993 [2 EGLR 107, CA].
National Insurance Companies Ltd & Ors v Competition Commission of India (CCI, India), Judgment of 2017 [Comp LR 1].
Nestlé España et al v Ebro Puleva, SA, Case 651/2013 (Supreme Court, Spain), Judgment 7 November 2013 [STS 5819/2013].
Numéricable et a v France Telecom, Case 2009073089 (Commercial Court Paris, France), Judgment 30 March 2011.
Paper Systems v Nippon Paper Industries Co, No 01-2925 (7th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment 6 February 2002 [281 F 3d 629, 631].
Peter v Beblow, Case 22258 (Supreme Court, Canada), Judgment 25 March 1993 [1993 1 SCR 980, 1012].
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd (FCAFC, Australia), Judgment of 2017 [193].
Pioneer Corp v Godfrey, Case 37809, 37810 (Supreme Court, Canada), Judgment 20 September 2019 [2019 SCC 42].
Preventx Limited v Royal Mail Group Limited, Case CP-2020-000011 (EWHC, UK), Judgment 20 August 2020 [2020] EWHC 2276 (Ch).
Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corp, Case 34282 (Supreme Court, Canada), Judgment 31 October 2013 [2013 SCC 57].
Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd (EWHC, UK), Judgment of 2010 [2453 Ch, 27].
Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union (England and Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA), UK), Judgment of 2009 [Civ 387].
Rookes v Barnard (House of Lords, UK), Judgment of 1964 [UKHL 1, AC 1129].
Royal Mail Group Limited v DAF Trucks Limited and Others, Case 1284/5/7/18 (T) and 1290-1295/5/7/18 (T) (CAT, UK), Judgment 11 December 2018 [2018] CAT 19.
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v MasterCard Inc, Case 1241/5/7/15 (T) (Competition Appeal Tribunal, UK), Judgment 14 July 2016, [2016] CAT 11.
Shamsher Kataria v Honda siel & Ors, No 03/2011 (Competition Commission of India (CCI), India), Judgment 25 October 2014.
SNC Doux Aliments Bretagne at al v Societe Ajinomoto Eurolysin, Case 10/18285 (Appeal Court Paris, France), Judgment 27 February 2014.
Sociedade Central de Cervejas v Carmo Augusto Nascimento (Lisbon Judicial Tribunal, Portugal), Judgment 14 March 2005 [No 8942/03].
Sociedade Central de Cervejas v Factorfina (Lisbon Judicial Tribunal, Portugal), Judgment 2 November 2005 [No 67/02].
Sun Rype Products Ltd v Archer Daniels Midland Co, Case 34283 (Supreme Court, Canada), Judgment 31 October 2013 [2013 SCC 58].
Sunkist Growers, Inc v Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co, No 241 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 28 May 1962 [370 US 19 (1962)].
Supreme Auto Transport, LLC v Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc (7th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment of 2008 [902 F 3d 735].
Teleunit SPA v Vodafone Omnitel NV (First Instance Court Milan, Italy), Judgment 10 October 2013 [75623/2008].
The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellants) v The Investment Trust Companies (in liq) (Respondents) (Supreme Court, UK), Judgment 11 April 2017 [2017] UKSC 29, AC 275.
Tian Junwei v Carrefour Shuangjing Store and Abbott (High People’s Court Beijing, China), Judgment 22 August 2016 [Jing Min Zhong No 214].
Price Fixing in Bus Services from Singapore to Malaysia and Southern Thailand: Transtar Travel Pte Ltd and Regent Star Travel Pte Ltd (Court of Appeal (SGCAB), Singapore), Decision of 2011 [Express Bus Operators Appeal No 3].
United States v Citizens & Southern National Bank, No 73-1933 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 17 June 1975 [422 US 86 (1975)].
United States v Yellow Cab Co, No 1035 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 23 June 1947 [332 US 218 (1947)].
Walsh v Shanahan (EWCA, UK), Judgment of 201§ [2013] EWCA Civ 411 57.
Weinberger v Romero-Barcelo, No 80-1990 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment of 27 April 1982 [456 US 305 (1982), 311–313].
WH Newson Holdings Ltd v IMI Plc (EWCA, UK), Judgment of 2016 [Civ 773].
Wolseley UK Limited and Others v Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and others (CAT, UK), Judgment of 2019 [CAT 12].
Zenith Radio Corp v Hazeltine Research, Inc, No 49 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 19 May 1969 [395 US 100 (1969), 130–131].
American Bar Association, Proving Antitrust Damages: Legal and Economic Issues (2nd edn, UNKNO 2010).
Areeda P E and Hovenkamp H, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application (3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2007).
Ashton D, Competition Damages Actions in the EU (2nd edn, Edward Elgar Publishing 2018).
Bauermeister T, Gesamtschuld und Regress in der Schadensersatzrichtlinie (Mohr Siebeck 2021).
Becker B C, Kartellschadensersatz trotz Zusagenentscheidung? (1st edn, Nomos 2018).
Biondi A, Muscolo G and Nazzini R (eds), After the Damages Directive: Policy and Practice in the EU Member States and the United Kingdom (Wolters Kluwer Law International 2022).
Bishop S and Walker M, The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts, Applications and Measurement (Sweet & Maxwell 2010).
Brandt V, Das englische Disclosure-Verfahren (Mohr Siebeck 2015).
Braun D, Das Konzept Der Gesamtschuldnerischen Verantwortlichkeit von Konzerngesellschaften Im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht (Nomos 2018).
Brealey M and George K, Competition Litigation: UK Practice and Procedure (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2019).
Davis P and Garcés E, Quantitative Techniques for Competition and Antitrust Analysis (1st edn, Princeton University Press 2009).
Dohrn D, Die Bindungswirkung kartellrechtlicher Entscheidungen der Kommission sowie deutscher und mitgliedstaatlicher Kartellbehörden und Gerichte im deutschen Zivilprozess (1st edn, Carl Heymanns Verlag 2019).
Eichhoff E, Über die Compensatio lucri cum damno (Verlag Baedeker 1898).
Foer A A and Stutz R M (eds), Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the United States: A Handbook (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2012).
Franck J, Marktordnung durch Haftung - Legitimation, Reichweite und Steuerung der Haftung auf Schadensersatz zur Durchsetzung marktordnenden Rechts (Jus Privatum 2016).
Gugerbauer N, Kartellgesetz und Wettbewerbsgesetz (3rd edn, Verlag Österreich 2017).
Hess B, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht (2nd edn, Walter de Gruyter 2021).
Hornkohl L, Geschäftsgeheimnisschutz im Kartellschadensersatzprozess (Mohr Siebeck 2021).
Inderst R and Stefan S, Schadensersatz Bei Kartellverstößen: Juristische Und Ökonomische Grundlagen Und Methoden (2nd edn, Handelsblatt Fachmedien 2018).
Kahle C, Die Leistungskondiktion als Alternative zum Kartellschadensersatzanspruch: Zur Anfechtbarkeit und Rückabwicklung von Kartellfolgeverträgen (1st edn, Nomos 2013).
Kirst P, The Impact of the Damages Directive on the Enforcement of EU Competition Law: A Law and Economics Analysis (Edward Elgar 2021).
Komninos A and others, Quantifying antitrust damages: Towards non‐binding guidance for courts (Publications Office of the European Union 2009).
Komninos A, EC Private Antitrust Enforcement - Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law by National Courts (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2008).
Marquis M (ed), European Competition Law Annual 2011: Integrating public and private enforcement, implications for courts and agencies (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2014).
Mclnnes M, The Canadian Law of Unjust Enrichment and Restitution (2nd edn, LexisNexis Canada 2022).
Monopolkommission, Hauptgutachten Wettbewerb 2022 XXIV Hauptgutachten der Monopolkommission gemäß § 44 Abs 1 Satz 1 GWB (1st edn, Nomos 2022).
Parcu P L, Monti G and Botta M (eds), Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: The Impact of the Damages Directive (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2018).
Pauer N I, The Single Economic Entity Doctrine and Corporate Group Responsibility in European Antitrust Law (Kluwer Law International 2014).
Rodger B, Ferro M S and Marcos F (eds), The EU Antitrust Damages Directive: Transposition in the Member States (Oxford University Press 2019).
Sadrak K, Joint and Several Liability in EU Competition Law (Cambridge University Press 2022).
Saitzek S, Verpflichtungszusagen im europäischen Kartellrecht - Nach Artikel 9 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2003 des Rates vom 16. Dezember 2002 zur Durchführung der Artikel 81 und 82 des EG-Vertrages (Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Dr Kovač 2008).
Tyhurst J S, Canadian Competition Law and Policy (1st edn, Irwin Law 2021).
Von der Groeben H, Schwarze J and Hatje A, Europäisches Unionsrecht (7th edn, Nomos 2015).
Von Kalinowski J O and others, Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation (2nd edn, Matthew Bender & Company July 2002).
Whish R and Bailey D, Competition Law (10th edn, Oxford University Press 2021).
Williams R, Unjust Enrichment and Public Law – A Comparative Study of England, France and the EU (1st edn, Bloomsbury Publishing 2010).
Andersson H, ‘The Quest for Evidence - Still an Uphill Battle for Cartel Victims?’ in M Strand, V Bastidas Venegas and M C Iacovides (eds), EU Competition Litigation: Transposition and First Experiences of the New Regime (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2019).
Andersson T, ‘The Binding Effects of Decisions and Judgments under EU Competition Law’ in M Strand, V Bastidas Venegas and M C Iacovides (eds), EU Competition Litigation: Transposition and First Experiences of the New Regime (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2019).
Bechtold R, ‘Kartell ist nicht gleich Kartell – Zur Indizwirkung von Bußgeld entscheidungen für den Schaden der Marktgegenseite und zur Bindungswirkung für den Schadensrichter’ in J Kokott, P Pohlmann and R Polley (eds) Europäisches, deutsches und internationales Kartellrecht: Festschrift für Dirk Schroeder (Otto Schmidt 2018).
Becker R, ‘Art 15 Verordnung (EG) Nr 1/2003 Artikel 15 Zusammenarbeit mit Gerichten der Mitgliedstaaten’ in H Schröter, R Klotz and B Von Wendland (ed), Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht (3rd edn, Nomos 2023).
Becker R, ‘Kartellrechtliche Schadenersatzklagen à l´américaine’ in W Möschel and F Bien (eds), Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung durch private Schadenersatzklagen? (Nomos 2010) 37.
Bernatt M and Gac M, ‘Poland’ in B Rodger, M S Ferro and F Marcos (eds), The EU Antitrust Damages Directive: Transposition in the Member States (Oxford University Press 2018).
Bodnár P M, ‘Hungary’ in A Piszcz (ed), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press 2017).
Brealey M and George K, ‘Chapter 16: Damages’ in M Brealey and K George (eds), Competition Litigation: UK Practice and Procedure (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2019).
Bridges T and Henderson W, ‘Australia’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
Brook O and Rodger B, ‘Comparative report: National judicial review of competition law enforcement in the EU and the UK’ in O Brook and others (eds), Judicial Review of Competition Law Enforcement in the EU Member States and the UK (Empirical Mapping, Kluwer 2024).
Bruckner W J and Salzwedel M R, ‘Plaintiffs’ remedies’ in A A Foer and R M Stutz (eds) Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the United States: A Handbook (Elgar 2012).
Campbell S and Feunteun T, ‘Designing a Balanced System: Damages, Deterrence, Leniency and Litigants’ Rights - A Claimant’s Perspective’ in P Lowe, Integrating Public and Private Enforcement, Implications for Courts and Agencies (Hart Publishing 2014).
Chul P and others, ‘USA’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
Connor M J and Lande R H, ’The Prevalence and Injuriousness of Cartels Worldwide’ in P Whelan (ed), Elgar Research Handbook on Cartels (UK, Edward Elgar Publishing 2023).
Del Pino M and Del Rio S, ‘Argentina’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
Dreher A, ‘Die Anfechtung und Abwicklung kartellbefangener Verträge nach §§ 123, 812 ff. BGB – Bereicherungsrecht als Alternative zum kartellrechtlichen Schadenersatz’ in Studienvereinigung Kartellrecht (ed) Kartellrecht in Theorie und Praxis: Festschrift für Cornelis Canenbley zum 70. Geburtstag (CH Beck 2012).
Emmerich V, ‘AEUV Art 101 Abs 1 Verbot wettbewerbsbeschränkender Vereinbarungen und Verhaltensweisen’ in U Immenga and R Mestmäcker (eds), Wettbewerbsrecht Band 1 EU (5th edn, CH Beck 2012).
Epstein E, Matzkevich M and Rosenblum Brand I, ‘Israel’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
Franck J‚ ‘GWB § 33 Beseitigungs- und Unterlassungsanspruch‘ in U Immenga and E Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht (6th edn, CH Beck 2020).
Hjärtström M and Nowag J, ‘EU Competences and the Damages Directive: The Continuum Between Minimum and Full Harmonisation’ in M Strand, V Bastidas Venegas and M C Iacovides (eds), EU Competition Litigation: Transposition and First Experiences of the New Regime (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2019).
Howard A, ‘The Damages Directive in the United Kingdon’ in A Biondo and G Muscolo and R Nazzini (eds), After the Damages Directive: Policy and Practice in the EU Member States and the United Kingdom (Kluwer Law International 2022).
Jin Y and others, ‘China’ in International Chamber of Commerce (ed), Compendium of Antitrust Damages Actions (1st edn, ICC 2021).
Kwon K H, Lee J W and Kim J, ‘South Korea’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
lacovides M, ‘The Presumption and Quantification of Harm in the Directive and the Practical Guide’ in M Bergström, M Iacovides and M Strand (eds), Harmonizing EU Competition Litigation: The Damages Directive and Beyond (Hart Publishing, 2016).
Lam C and Xu C, ‘Hong Kong’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
Maier-Rigaud F P, Milde C and Bönisch P, ‘Quantification of Damage on Both Sides of the Atlantic: What’s the Difference?’ in J A Keyte (ed), International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Competition Law (Juris Publishing 2015).
Nagy C I, ‘What Role for Private Enforcement in EU Competition Law? A Religion in Quest of a Founder’ in T Tóth (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Competition Law Sanctions (Cambridge University Press 2022).
Niels G and Noble R, ‘Quantifying Antitrust Damages - Economics and the Law’ in K Hüschelrath and H Schweitzer (eds), Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Europe (Springer 2014).
Nteka L and Komninos A, ‘The Damages Directive in Greece’ in A Biondi, G Muscolo and R Nazzini (eds), After the Damages Directive (Wolters Kluwer 2022).
Ollerdißen H, ‘Feststellungsklagen’ in G Wiedemann, Handbuch des Kartellrechts | § 61 Zivilprozessualer Rechtsschutz in Kartellsachen (ohne Kartellschadensersatz-prozesse) (4th edn, CH Beck 2020).
Pastore R F, Da Motta L G and Ignácio R R, ‘Responsabilização Solidária de Cartelistas Em Ações Indenizatórias: Reflexões, Limites e Desafios - Análise Crítica Dos Julgados No Poder Judiciário Envolvendo Matéria Concorrencial’ in B de Luca Drago and B Lanna Peixoto (eds), A Livre Concorrência e os Tribunais Brasileiros (Editora Singular 2018).
Peyer S, ‘The Antitrust Damages Directive - Much Ado about Nothing?’ in M Marquis and R Cisotta (eds), Litigation and Arbitration in EU Competition Law (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2015)
Piszcz A and Wolski D ‘Poland’ in A Piszcz (ed), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European countries (University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press 2017).
Ritter K L and Wirtz M M, ‘VO 1/2003 Art 13 Aussetzung und Einstellung des Verfahrens’ in U Immenga and E Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht (6th edn, CH Beck 2020).
Rüffler F and Steinwender R A, ‚Allgemeines Wettbewerbsrecht’ in M Holoubek and M Potacs (eds), Öffentliches Wirtschaftsrecht (4th edn, Verlag Österreich 2019).
Schmidt K, ‘§ 90 GWB’ in U Immenga and E Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht (1st edn, C.H. Beck 1981).
Sebok A J, ‘Punitive Damages in the United States’ in H Koziol and V Wilcox (eds), Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives (Springer 2009).
Serrano F and Traber J F, ‘Colombia’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
Soyez V, ‘The Damages Directive in Germany’ in A Biondi, G Muscolo and R Nazzini (eds), After the Damages Directive (Wolters Kluwer 2022).
Strand M, ‘Beyond the Competition Damages Directive: What Room for Competition Law Restitution?’ in M Bergström, M Iacovides and M Strand (eds), Harmonising EU Competition Litigation: The New Directive and Beyond (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2016).
Stripeikiene J, ‘Klevo Lapas v. ORLEN Lietuva’ in G Monti and P L Parcu (eds), European Networking and Training for National Competition Enforcers (ENTraNCE 2012). Selected Case Notes (RSCAS (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies) 2014/68).
Tavassi M, ‘The Damages Directive in Italy’ in A Biondi, G Muscolo and R Nazzini (eds), After the Damages Directive (Wolters Kluwer 2022).
Thyri P ‘§§ 26 KartgG’ in A Egger and N Harsdorf-Borsch (eds), Kartellrecht Kommentar (1st edn, Linde Vetlag 2022).
Vaillancourt D and Binetti M, ‘Canada’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
Vogrinec E and Vogrinec D, ‘The Damages Directive in Slovenia’ in A Biondi, G Muscolo and R Nazzini (eds), After the Damages Directive (Wolters Kluwer 2022).
Von Hinten-Reed N and Wandschneider F, ‘Ökonomischer Nachweis der Wirkung des Kartells und der Höhe des Schadens’ in F Stancke, G Weidenbach and R Lahme (eds), Kartellrechtliche Schadensersatzklagen (2nd edn, Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft Mediengruppe 2017).
Westermann K, ‘§ 11 Zivilrechtliche Nichtigkeit kartellrechtswidriger Verträge und einseitiger Rechtsgeschäfte, bereicherungsrechtliche Rückabwicklung kartellrechtswidriger Verträge’ in A Fuchs and A Weitbrecht (eds) Handbuch Private Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung (CH Beck 2019).
Wilcox V, ‘Punitive Damages in England’ in H Koziol and V Wilcox (eds), Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives (Springer 2009).
Yanagisawa K, ‘Japan’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
Al-Ameen A, ‘Restitutionary Remedies in Competition Law: Bull in a China Shop?’ (2009) 32(3) World Competition 327.
Andreangeli A, ‘The Changing Structure of Competition Enforcement in the UK: The Competition Appeal Tribunal between Present Challenges and an Uncertain Future’ (2015) 3 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 1.
Angland J, ‘Joint and Several Liability, Contribution, and Claim Reduction’ (2008) 3 Issues of Competition Law and Policy 2369.
Bach A and Wolf C, ‘Neue Instrumente im Kartellschadensersatzrecht – Zu den Regeln über Offenlegung, Verjährung und Bindungswirkung’ (2017) 6 NZKart 285.
Bacharis G, ‘Is “More” Better? Broadening the Right to Sue in Competition Damages Claims in Both Sides of the Atlantic’ (2022) 13 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 217.
Baker D I, ‘Revisiting History - What Have We Learned About Private Antitrust Enforcement That We Would Recommend to Others?’ (2004) 16 Loyola Consumer Law Review 382.
Banfi C A, ‘Defining the Competition Torts as Intentional Wrongs’ (2011) 70(1) The Cambridge Law Journal 83.
Becker B C, ‘Faktische Bindungswirkung kartellbehördlicher Zusagenentscheidungen zu Gunsten von follow-on-Schadensersatzklägern – Das Urteil des Tribunal de commerce de Paris im Fall DKT v Eco-Emballages als Türöffner für private Schadensersatzklagen?’ (2016) 2 NZKart 58.
Bien F, ‘Erleichterungen Des Privaten Rechtsschutzes Im Kartellrecht Durch Die 8. GWB-Novelle’ (2013) ZWeR 448.
Bodnár P M and Szuchy R, ‘Joint and Several Liability of Competition Law Infringers in the Legislation of Central and Eastern European Member States’ (2017) 10 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 85.
Botta M, ‘The Principle of Passing on in EU Competition Law in the Aftermath of the Damages Directive’ (2017) 25(5) European Review of Private Law 881.
Boyer M and Kotchoni R, ‘How Much Do Cartel Overcharge?’ (2015) 47 Review of Industrial Organization 119.
Brömmelmeyer C, ‘Die Ermittlung Des Kartellschadens Nach Der Richtlinie 2014/104/EU’ (2016) 1 NZKart 2.
Bueren E, Hüschelrath K and Veith T, ‘Time is Money – How Much Money is Time? Interest and Inflation in Competition Law Actions for Damages’ (2014) 14-008 ZEW Centre for European Economic Research 1.
Calisti D and Haasbeek L and Kubik F, ‘The Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions: Towards a strongercompetition culture in Europe, founded on the combined power of public and private enforcement of the EU competition rules’ (2014) 12 NZKart 466.
Cengiz F, ‘Antitrust Damages Actions: Lessons From American Indirect Purchasers Litigation’ (2010) 59 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 39.
Chapman Y, ‘Pretrial Discovery in Antitrust Cases’ (1978) 8(3) Memphis State University Law Review 615.
Coffee Jr J C, ‘Rescuing the Private Attorney General: Why the Model of the Lawyer as Bounty Hunter Is Not Working’ (1983) 42 Maryland Law Review 215.
Connor J M, ‘“Our Customers Are Our Enemies”: The Lysine Cartel of 1992-1995’ (2001) 18 Review of Industrial Organizations 5.
Connor M J and Lande R H, ‘Not Treble Damages: Cartel Recoveries Are Mostly Less Than Single Damages’ (2015) 100 Iowa Law Review.
Cullen B, ‘Otis: Effet Utile and the Endless Expansion of Art 101 TFEU’ (2019) 10 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 618.
De Bronett G, ‘Plädoyer für eine Reform der Aufgabenverteilung zwischen der Kommission und dem Gerichtshof der EU bei der Anwendung der Art 101 und 102 AEUV in Einzelfällen’ (2012) ZWeR 157.
De La Mare T, ‘Private Actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal: The Consumer Rights Act Giveth and the 2015 Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules Taketh Away’ (2015) 14 Competition Law Journal 219.
De Sousa P C, ‘EU and National Approaches to Passing On and Causation in Competition Damages Cases’ (2018) Common Market Law Review 1.
Deuflhard F, Heller P C and Winkler A, ‘Industrieökonomische Simulationsmodelle zur Schadensquantifizierung bei Kartellverstößen’ (2021) 3 NZKart 147.
Di Gio A, ‘Contract and Restitution Law and the Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law’ (2009) 32(2) World Competition 199.
Dreher M, ‘Die Anfechtung und Abwicklung kartellbefangener Verträge nach §§ 123, 812 ff’ (2023) Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz 1.
Durand B and Williams I, ‘The Importance of Accounting for Passing-on When Calculating Damages That Result from Infringements of Competition Law’ (2017) 79 ERA Forum 81.
Edelman J and O Odudu, ‘Compensatory Damages for Breach of Art 101’ (2002) 27 European Law Review 327.
Edelman M, ‘Why the “Single Entity” Defense can never apply to NFL Clubs: A Primer on Property-Rights Theory in Professional Sports’ (2008) 18 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 891.
Fischer E and Zickgraf P, ‘Zur Reichweite der wirtschaftlichen Einheit im Kartellrecht’ (2022) 186 ZHR 125.
Fleischer H and Danninger N, ‘Die Kammer Für Handelssachen: Entwicklungslinien Und Zukunftsperspektiven’ (2017) 38 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 205.
Franck J, ‘Umbrella Pricing and Cartel Damages under EU Competition Law’ (2015) 11 European Competition Journal 135.
Freund B, ‘Compensation for Remote Economic Losses Caused by Infringements of Art 101 TFEU - Otis and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others (C-435/18)’ (2020) 69 GRUR International 496.
Fuller A J, ‘Let the State Decide: The Efficient Antitrust Enforcer and the Avoidance of Anticompetitive Remedies’ (2017) 10(2) The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law 203.
George D, ‘Reforms to Private Actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal - Taking Stock One Year On’ (2016) 15 Competition Law Journal 225.
Grow N, ‘A Proper Analysis of the National Football League Under Section One of the Sherman Act’ (2008) 9 Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law 1.
Hartlieb J, ‘“Drum prüfe, wer sich ewig bindet“ - Bindungswirkung und Durchsetzung von Verpflichtungsbeschlüssen der Kommission’ (2017) 9 NZKart 458.
Hellmann H and Steinbrück B, ‘Discovery Light – Informations- und Beweismittelbeschaffung im Rahmen von Kartellschadensersatzklagen’ (2017) 4 NZKart 164.
Hempel R, ‘Private Follow-on-Klagen im Kartellrecht’ (2005) WuW 137.
Herlitz G N, ‘The Meaning of the Term “Prima Facie”’ (1994) 55(2) Louisiana Law Review 391.
Hirsbrunner S and Rhomberg L, ‘Verpflichtungszusagen im EG- Kartellrechtsverfahren – Erste praktische Erfahrungen mit der Neuregelung der Kartellverfahrensverordnung 1/2003’ (2005) Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht 61.
Hittinger C W and Bona J M, ‘The Diminishing Role of the Private Attorney General in Antitrust and Securities Class Action Cases Aided by the Supreme Court’ (2009) 4 Journal of Business & Technology Law 167.
Hornkohl L, ‘Die internationalzivilprozessualen Folgen der unionskartellrechtlichen Konzernhaftung’ (2023) 3 IPRax 254.
Hornkohl L, ‘Leave It to the Experts: A Comparative Analysis of Competition Expert Lay Judges in Private Enforcement of Competition Law’ (2022) 15(25) Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 7.
Hornkohl L, ‘The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations in EU Law’ (2022) 1 MPILux Research Paper Series.
Hornkohl L, ‘The Presumption of Harm in EU Private Enforcement of Competition Law - Effectiveness vs Overcompensation, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series’ (2021) 5 EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges 29.
Hornkohl L, ‘The Protection of Confidential Information and Disclosure in EU Private Enforcement of Competition Law’ (2023) Global Competition Litigation Review 46.
Hornkohl L, ‘Überwindung von ungewissen Sachverhalten – Ist die Zeit reif für eine allgemeine Offenlegung von Beweismitteln im deutschen Zivilprozess?’ (2021) 2 ZHR.
Hornkohl L, ‘Überwindung von ungewissen Sachverhalten – Ist die Zeit reif für eine allgemeine Offenlegung von Beweismitteln im deutschen Zivilprozess?’ (2012) GVRZ 17.
Hossenfelder S and Lutz M, ‘Die neue Durchführungsverordnung zu den Artikeln 81 und 82 EG-Vertrag’ (2003) WuW 118.
Hovenkamp H J, ‘A Primer on Antitrust Damages’ (2010) University of Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper 1.
Howard A, ‘Too Little, Too Late?: The European Commission’s Legislative Proposals on Anti-Trust Damages Actions’ (2013) 4 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 455.
Hüschelrath K. and Müller K and Veith T, ‘Concrete Shoes for Competition: The Effect of the German Cement cartel on market price’ (2014) 9(1) Journal of Competition Law and Economics 97.
Inderst R and Jakubovic Z, ‘Nachwirkungen von Kartellen’ (2013) 63(1) WuW 5.
Inderst R and Schwalbe U, ‘Das kontrafaktische Szenario bei der Berechnung von Kartellschäden’ (2012) 2 WuW 122.
Inderst R and Stefan S, ‘Pass-on bei entgeltlicher Nutzungsüberlassung auf nachgelagerten Märkten’ (2018) 4 NZKart 158.
Jakobzse M, ‘Kicking “Single-Entity” to the Sidelines: Reevaluating the Competitive Reality of Major League Soccer after American Needle and the 2010 Collective Bargaining Agreement’ (2010) 31 Northern Illinois University Law Review 131.
Janssen H ‘Schadensersatz wegen Verletzung des Kartellrechts – Auswirkungen der neuen EU-Richtlinie’ (2015) CB 35. https://www.luther-lawfirm.com/uploads/tx_fwluther/cb-2015-1-2_Janssen.pdf accessed 24 June 2023.
Jeffrey R S, ‘Beyond the Hype: The Legal and Practical Consequences of American Needle’ (2010) 11 Florida Coastal Law Review 667.
Jones A, ‘Recovery of benefits conferred under contractual obligations prohibited by Arts 85 or 86 of the Treaty of Rome’ (1992) 112 LQR 606.
Jungermann S, ‘Weltweit erste Auslieferung an die USA wegen Kartellverstoss - aus Deutschland’ (2014) 6 WuW 2014 563.
Kauper T E and Synder E A, ‘An Inquiry into the Efficiency of Private Antitrust Enforcement: Follow-on and independently initiated cases compared’ (1986) 74 Geo. L.J. 1163.
Kersting C, ‘Abschöpfung von Gewinnen nach dem Referentenentwurf zur 11. GWB-Novelle’ (20022) 12 NZKart 659.
Kersting C, ‘Bindungswirkung des kartellbehördlichen Verfahrens für einen Schadensersatzprozess – Lottoblock II’ (2016) 10 LMK.
Kersting C, ‘Kartellschadensersatzrecht nach der 9. GWB-Novelle’ (2017) Zeitschrift für Versicherungsrecht, Haftungs- und Schadensrecht 581.
Kersting C, ‘Privilegierung von Kronzeugen de lege ferenda’ (2021) GRUR 250.
Keßler J, ‘Die europäische Richtlinie über Schadensersatz im Wettbewerbsrecht – Cui bono?’ (2015) 3 VuR 83.
Kirst P, ‘The Temporal Scope of the Damages Directive: A Comparative Analysis of the Applicability of the New Rules on Competition Infringements in Europe’ (2019) 16 European Competition Journal 97.
Koenig C, ‘Making Contribution Work: The Liability of Privileged and Non-Privileged Injurers in EU Competition Law’ (2018) 14 European Competition Journal 110.
Komninos A and others, ‘Quantifying antitrust damages’ (2009) Oxera Study 97.
Kreße B, ‘Der Zugang Kartellgeschädigter zu Verfahrensdokumenten der Europäischen Kommission als Wettbewerbsbehörde’ (2016) WRP 567.
Kreße B, ‘Die Verpflichtungszusage als Instrument der europäischen Wettbewerbsaufsicht‘ (2014) WRP 1261.
Kruse J, ‘Kartellrecht in Zahlen: Eine quantitative Auswertung der kartellgerichtlichen Entscheidungspraxis’ (2023) 3 NZKart 121.
Laina F and Laurinen E, ‘The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure: Current Status and Challenges’ (2013) JECLAP 302.
Laitenberger U and Smuda F, ‘Estimating Consumer Damages in Cartel Cases’ (2015) 11(4) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 955.
Landes W M, ‘Optimal Sanctions for Antitrust Violations’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 652.
Lepièce A and Vandenneucker M, ‘Arrêt « Otis » : L’action En Réparation Pour Toute Personne Ayant Subi Un Préjudice Indirect à La Suite d’un Cartel’ (2020) Journal de droit européen 167.
Leubsdorf J, ‘The Surprising History of the Preponderance Standard of Civil Proof’ (2016) 67 Florida Law Review 1569.
Maier-Rigaud F P, ‘Towards A European Directive On Damages Actions’ (2014) 10 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 341.
Makatsch T and Mir A S, ‘Die neue EU-Richtlinie zu Kartellschadensersatzklagen – Angst vor der eigenen “Courage”?’ (2015) EuZW 7.
Makatsch T und Bäuerle T, ‘Kronzeugenschutz und Kartellschadensersatz: Stimmt die Balance noch?’ (2022) WuW 529.
Malinauskaite J and Cauffman C, ‘The Transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in the Small Member States of the EU-A Comparative Perspective’ (2018) 9(8) JECLAP 496.
McCann M, ‘The NBA and the Single Entity Defense: A Better Case?’ (2010) 1 Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law 39.
McElroy T B, ‘Federal Pre-Trial Procedure in an Antitrust Suit’ (1977) 31 South Western Law Journal 649.
McKeown J, ‘Antitrust Developments in Professional Sports: To the Single Entity and Beyond’ (2009) 19 Marquette Sports Law Review 363.
Monti G (ed), ‘EU law and interest on damages for infringements of competition law - A comparative report’ (2016) 11 EUI Working Papers LAW 1.
Morrison P R, ‘Shutting Down the Offense: Why the Supreme Court Should Designate the NFL a Single Entity for Antitrust Purposes’ (2009) 3 Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship and the Law 97.
Mulheron R, ‘Restitution Relief in Competition Law Class Actions: An Evolving Landscape’ (2018) 26 Restitution Law Review 1.
Nagy C I, ‘Schadensersatzklagen im Falle kartellrechtlicher Rechtsverletzungen in Ungarn’ (2010) 59(9) WuW 902.
Odudu O and Virgo G, ‘Remedies for Breach of Statutory Duty’ (2009) 68(1) The Cambridge Law Journal 32.
Okeoghene O and Bailey D, ‘The Single Economic Entity Doctrine in EU Competition Law’ (2014) 51 Common Market Law Review 1721.
Pilsbury S, ‘Is 10 per cent the answer?: The role of legal presumptions in private competition litigation’ (2008) 1(3) GCLR 124.
Piszcz A, ‘Piecemeal Harmonisation through the Damages Directive: Remarks on What Received Too Little Attention in Relation to Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law’ (2015) 12 Yearbok of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 79.
Pollock E, ‘Standing to Sue, Remoteness of Injury, and the Passing-On Doctrine’ (1966) 32 Antitrust Law Journal 5.
Rodger B, Ferro M S and Marcos F, ‘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’ (2019) 26 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 480 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3444376 accessed 27 June 2023.
Rosenboom N, Kocsis V and Mulder J, ‘Consumer Damages for Breach of Antitrust Rules: How to Reach Full Compensation for Consumers?’ (2017) 13(4) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 710.
Rotherham C, ‘Gain-Based Relief in Tort after AG v Blake’ (2010) 126 LQR 102.
Rubenstein W B, ‘On What a “Private Attorney General” Is - and Why It Matters’ (2004) 57 Vanderbilt Law Review 2129.
Rustada M L, ‘The Closing of Punitive Damages’ Iron Cage’ (2005) 38 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1297.
Ruster A and Von Massow S, ‘Disclosure in European Competition Litigation Through the Lens of US Discovery’ (2020) 43(3) World Competition 347.
Schmidt K, ‘Umdenken im Kartellverfahrensrecht! Gedanken zur Europäischen VO Nr 1/2003’ (2003) Betriebs-Berater 1237.
Schwalbe U, ‘Lucrum Cessans und Schäden durch Kartelle bei Zulieferern, Herstellern von Komplementärgütern sowie Weiteren Parteien’ (2017) 4 NZKart 157.
Schweitzer H, ‘Die neue Richtlinie für wettbewerbsrechtliche Schadensersatzklagen’ (2014) 9 NZKart 335.
Seegers M, ‘Interaction of the Rules on Joint and Several Liability and Settlements under the EU Directive on Damage Actions’ (2014) 3 GCLR 140.
Semeraro S, ‘Is the National Football League a “Single Entity” Incapable of Conspiring under the Sherman Act?: The Supreme Court will Decide’ (2009) 32(1) Thomas Jefferson Law Review 1.
Skara G, ‘The Transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Albania as an EU Candidate Country’ (2021)12 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 326.
Smith S, ‘The Indirect Purchaser Rule and Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law: A Reassessment’ (2021) 17(3) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 642 https://academic.oup.com/jcle/Art-abstract/17/3/642/6149298?redirectedFrom=fulltext accessed 28 June 2023.
Sosnitza O, ‘Die Leistungsverfügung im Kartellrecht - Anmerkungen zum Urteil des KG v. 26.6.2003’ (2004) WRP 62.
Stomper K, ‘Kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz bei mehrgliedrigen Absatzketten: Art 12-15 der Schadensersatz-Richtlinie und § 33c RefE-GWB’ (2016) WuW 410.
Stone J E and Wright J D, ‘Antitrust Formalism is Dead! Long Live Antitrust Formalism! Some implications of American Needle v NFL’ (2010) 10-40 Cato Supreme Court Review 374.
Strand M, ‘Indirect Purchasers, Passing-on and the New Directive on Competition Law Damages’ (2014) 10(2) European Competition Journal 361.
Ströber M, ‘Schadensersatzhaftung für Preisschirmeffekte bei Verstößen gegen deutsches oder europäisches Kartellrecht’ (2014) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 257.
Temple Lang J, ‘Commitment Decisions under Reg 1/2003 – Legal Aspects of a new kind of Competition Decision’ (2003) 8 European Competition Law Review 347.
Thomas S, ‘Konzernprivileg und Gemeinschaftsunternehmen - Die kartellrechtliche Beurteilung konzerninterner Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen mit Gemeinschafts-unternehmen’ (2005) 3 ZWeR 236.
Thomas S, ‘Schadensverteilung im Rahmen von Vertriebsketten bei Verstoß gegen europäisches und deutsches Kartellrecht’ (2016) ZHR 45.
Truli E, ‘Will Its Provisions Serve Its Goals? Directive 2014/104/EU on Certain Rules Governing Actions for Damages for Competition Law Infringements’ (2016) 7 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 299.
Turner J, ‘The UK Competition Act 1998 and Private Rights’ (1999) 20 Euro Comp L Rev 62.
Ullrich H, ‘Private Enforcement of the EU Rules on Competition - Nullity Neglected’ (2021) 52 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 606.
Van Cleynenbreugel P, ‘Single entity tests in U.S. antitrust and EU competition law’ (2011) KU Leuven - Faculty of Law 1 https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/201655/1/SSRN-id1889232.pdf accessed 27 June 2023.
Van der Veer J P and Lofaro A, ‘Estimating Pass-on’ (2010) 2 The CPI Antitrust Journal 4.
Vande Walle S, ‘Antitrust Damages Actions Styled as Unjust Enrichment Claims: A Comment on the Tokyo District Court’s Decision in the Jet Fuel Bid-Rigging Case’ (2011) e-Competitions Bulletin 1.
Vande Walle S, ‘Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in Japan: An Empirical Analysis’ (2011) 8(1) CompLRev 7.
Waelbroeck D, Slater D and Even-Shoshan G, ‘Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules’ (2004) Ashurst 1.
Weber F, ‘Entgangener Gewinn, Entgangene Klageanreize - Der Problematische Art 12 (3) Der Kartellschadensersatzrichtlinie’ (2018) 1 NZKart 13.
Weber F, ‘Tackling pass-on in cartel cases: a comparative analysis of the interplay between damages law and economic insights’ (2020) European Competition Journal 570.
Weber F, ‘The Volume Effect in Cartel Cases-a Special Challenge for Damage Quantification?’ (2021) 9 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 436.
Weitbrecht A, ‘Bindungswirkung nationaler Entscheidungen’ (2017) WuW 244.
Willems C, ‘Kein Durchgang durch die „Doppeltür“? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Abmilderung von Informationsasymmetrien im Kartellzivilrecht nach der RL 2014/104/EU zum Kartellschadensersatz’ (2015) WRP 819.
Williams I and others, ‘Study on the Passing on of Overcharges: final report’ (2016) Publications Office 31.
Williams R, ‘Case Comment: The Beer Tie Cases’ (2001) 23 Dublin ULJ 194.
Wils W PJ, ‘Private Enforcement of EU Antitrust Law and its Relationship with Public Enforcement: Past, Present and Future’ (2017) 40(1) World Competition: Law and Economics Review 15.
Wils W, ‘Should the EU Competition Damages Directive Be Revised to Grant Companies that Have Received Immunity from Fines under the Competition Authorities’ Leniency Programmes also Immunity from Damages?’ (2023) WuW 1.
Woeste K, B‘Bereicherungsrecht als Alternative zum Kartellschadensersatz: Passing-on defense im Bereicherungsausgleich?’ (2018) 4 ZWeR 392.
Wright K, ‘The Ambit of Judicial Competence after the EU Antitrust Damages Directive’ (2016) 43 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 15.
Wright K, ‘The European Commission’s Own “Preliminary Reference Procedure” in Competition Cases?’ (2010) 16(6) European Law Journal 736.
Wurmnest W and Gömann M, ‘Comparing Private Enforcement of EU Competition and Data Protection Law’ (2022) 13 Journal of European Tort Law 154.
Zapana V, ‘The Statement of Interest as a Tool in Federal Civil Rights Enforcement’ (2017) 52 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 227.
Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Art 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’ (Communication) COM (2013) C 167/19.
Commission, ‘Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules’ (Green Paper) COM (2005) 672 final.
Commission, ‘Guidelines for national courts on how to estimate the share of overcharge which was passed on to the indirect purchaser’ (Communication) COM (2019) C 267/07.
Commission, ‘Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Art 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003’ (Communication) COM (2006) C 210/02.
Commission, ‘IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Damages actions for breach of the EU antitrust rules Accompanying the proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union’ (Staff Working Document) COM (2013) SWD 203 final.
Commission, ‘Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases’ (Communication) COM (2006) C 298/11.
Commission, ‘Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of Arts 81 and 82 EC’ (Communication) COM (2008) C 167/1.
Commission, ‘Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of Arts 81 and 82 EC’ (Communication) COM (2004) C 101/04.
Commission, ‘Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Art 7 and Art 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases’ (Communication) COM (2008) C 167/01 (EU Settlement Notice).
Commission, ‘Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Art 7 and Art 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases’ (Communication) COM (2008) C 167/01.
Commission, ‘Practical guide on the quantification of harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Art 101 or 102 TFEU’ (Staff Working Document) COM (2013) SWD 205.
Commission, ‘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 European Union’ (Staff Working Document) COM (2020) SWD 338 final https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14083-2020-INIT/en/pdf accessed 26 June 2023.
Commission, ‘Staff working paper accompanying the White paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules’ (Staff Working Document) COM (2008) SEC 0404 final.
Commission, ‘Ten Years of Antitrust Enforcement under Regulation 1/2003 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Ten Years of Antitrust Enforcement under Regulation 1/2003: Achievements and Future Perspectives’ (Staff Working Document) COM (2014) SWD 0230 final.
Google Android (Case AT.40099) Commission Decision C(2018) 4761 final [2018] OJ C402/19.
Alstom v Commission, Case T‑164/12 (CJEU), Order of the President of the General Court of 29 November 2012 [ECLI:EU:T:2012:637].
Areva v Commission, Case T-173/12 (CJEU), Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of 6 July 2012 [ECLI:EU:T:2012:349].
‘presumptions’ in B A Garner, Black's Law Dictionary (12th edn, Thomas Reuters 2024).
Letter from Peter M Bozzo to Honourable Anita B Brody, regarding Fuentes v Jiffy Lube International, Inc, No 2:18-cv-05174-AB (12 June 2023) https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/1587126/dl?inline= accessed 27 June 2023.
Allsop J L B, ‘Expert Evidence Practice Note (GPN-EXPT)’ (25 October 2016) Federal Court of Australia https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-expt accessed 21 June 2023.
Antitrust Division US Department of Justice, ‘7-3 300 - Antitrust Division Leniency Policy and Procedures’ (2024) United States Department of Justice https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1490246/download accessed 19 June 2023.
Antitrust Division US Department of Justice, 'Statements of Interest’ United States Department of Justice https://www.justice.gov/atr/statements-interest accessed 19 June 2023.
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, ‘Immunity and cooperation policy for cartel conduct’ (2019) ACCC https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/1579_ACCC%20immunity%20%26%20cooperation%20policy%20for%20cartel%20conduct%20-%20October%202019_FA.pdf accessed 29 June 2023.
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, ‘Intervention in Private Proceedings’ ACCC https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20Intervention%20in%20Private%20Proceedings.pdf accessed 19 June 2023.
Breyer C, Cushwa P and Wroblewski J, ‘United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual’ (2021) United Sates Sentencing Commission https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2021/GLMFull.pdf accessed 19 June 2023.
De Jonge C, ‘The new rules in cartel damages claims and calculation of fines for infringement of competition law’ (5 November 2020) bpv https://www.bpv-grigorescu.com/the-new-rules-in-cartel-damages-claims-and-calculation-of-fines-for-infringement-of-competition-law/ accessed 27 June 2023.
European Commission, ‘Amicus curiae observations – Antitrust’ European Commission https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust-and-cartels/national-courts/amicus-curiae-observations_en accessed 19 June 2023.
European Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission fines styrene purchasers €157 million in cartel settlement’ European Commission, 29 November 2022 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7168 accessed 28 June 2023.
European Commission, ‘Requests for information or for an opinion - Art 15(1)’ European Commission https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/national-courts/requests-information-or-opinion_en accessed 19 June 2023.
Fiscalia Nacional Economica, ‘Internal Guidelines on Leniency in Cartel Cases’ Fiscalia Nacional Economica, March 2017 https://www.fne.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Guidelines_Leniency_Cartel_Cases.pdf accessed 28 June 2023.
ICC, ‘ICC Compendium of Antitrust Damages Actions’ (2021) ICC Mexico, 8 https://iccmex.mx/comision/posturas-herramientas/compendio-de-la-icc-sobre-acciones-de-danos-y-perjuicios-en-materia-de-defensa-de-la-competencia.pdf accessed 30 June 2023.
Japan Fair Trade Commission, ‘Guidelines to Reduction System for Cooperation in Investigation’ (2019) Japan Fair Trade Commission, https://www.jftc.go.jp/en/legislation_gls/201225002.pdf accessed 28 June 2023.
Japan Fair Trade Commission, ‘The JFTC Issued Cease and Desist Orders and Surcharge Payment Orders against the Former General Electricity Utilities, etc’ Japan Fair Trade Commission, 30 March 2023 https://www.jftc.go.jp/file/230330EN_PressRelease.pdf accessed 30 June 2023.
Marcos F, ‘Cutting the Baby in Half – The First Decision of the UK Competition Appeals Tribunal on Damages in the Trucks Cartel’ (31 March 2023) Kluwer Competition Law Blog https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2023/03/31/cutting-the-baby-in-half-the-first-decision-of-the-uk-competition-appeals-tribunal-on-damages-in-the-trucks-cartel/ accessed 26 June 2023.
Nogueira Dias Gand Peixoto Barbosa L, ‘New Regulation to Boost Antitrust Damages Actions in Brazil: Will it Work?’ Kluwer Competition Law Blog, 2 January 2023 https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2023/01/02/%20new-regulation-to-boost-antitrust-damages-actions-in-brazil-will-it-work/ accessed 26 June 2023.
OECD, ‘Roundtable on Quantifying Harm to Competition by National Courts and Competition Agencies - Note by the United States’ (11 February 2011) Federal Trade Commission, 11, 8 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-2010-present-other-international-competition-fora/1102roundtableharm.pdf accessed 28 June 2023.
UK Ministry of Justice, ‘Practice Direction 31C – Disclosure and Inspection in Relation to Competition Claims’ (2023) UK Ministry of Justice https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31/practice-direction-31c-disclosure-and-inspection-in-relation-to-competition-claims accessed 30 June 2023.
Xue J Y and Yu W, ‘The “Single Economic Entity Doctrine” in Chinese Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement’ Lexology https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4ae5a236-9b29-48f6-8ef1-1ab402af67ce accessed 26 June 2023.
Yunting Y, ‘Full Text of Judicial Interpretation on Anti-Monopoly Law of China Supreme Court’ Bridge IP Law Commentary, 9 May 2012 https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/full-text-judicial-interpretation-anti-monopoly-law-china-supreme-court/ accessed 22 June 2023.
北大法律英文网, ‘Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning the Jurisdiction of Intellectual Property Courts over Cases’ Law Info China http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=38600&lib=law&EncodingName=gb2312 accessed 20 June 2023.
AD v PACCAR Inc and Others, Case C-163/21 (CJEU), Judgment 10 November 2022 [ECLI:EU:C:2022:863], Opinion of AG Szpunar.
Commission v Italian Republic, Case C-129/00 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 9 December 2003 [ECLI:EU:C:2003:656], [2003] ECR I-14637, Opinion of AG Geelhoed.
Ireks-Arkady GmbH v Council and Commission of the European Communities, Case 238/78 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 4 October 1979 [ECLI:EU:C:1979:226], ECR 1979 -02955, Opinion of AG Capotorti.
J. M. Mulder and others and Otto Heinemann v Council of the European Communities and Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 19 May 1992 [ECLI:EU:C:1992:217], ECR I-03061, Opinion of AG Saggio.
Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others, Case C-435/18 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 [ECLI:EU:C:2019:1069], Opinion of AG Kokott.
Explanatory Note to the Estonian transposition law, Appendix 1, 10-12.
Lena Hornkohl
[1] For a comprehensive study focusing on Europe O Brook and B Rodger, ‘Comparative report: National judicial review of competition law enforcement in the EU and the UK’ in O Brook and others (ed), Judicial Review of Competition Law Enforcement in the EU Member States and the UK (Empirical Mapping, Kluwer 2024); However, there are also systems in which competition authorities play a subordinate role and cartel courts determine the public competition law penalties, for example in Austria, Sections 26 et seq Kartellgesetz (Austrian Competition Act) 2005 (Austria).
[2] D I Baker, ‘Revisiting History - What Have We Learned About Private Antitrust Enforcement That We Would Recommend to Others?’ (2004) 16 Loyola Consumer Law Review 382.
[3] W P J Wils, ‘Private Enforcement of EU Antitrust Law and its Relationship with Public Enforcement: Past, Present and Future’ (2017) 40(1) World Competition: Law and Economics Review 15.
[4] Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, Case C-33/76 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1976 [ECLI:EU:C:1976:188] para 5.
[5] B Hess, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht (2nd edn, Walter de Gruyter 2021) 813.
[6] For example, Section 50 חוק ההגבלים עסקיים (Restrictive Trade Practices Law / Economic Competition Law) No 5748 of 1988 (Israel) or Art 109 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 (Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act) 1980 (South Korea).
[7] Section 36 Competition Act 1985 (Canada), for an overview see J S Tyhurst, Canadian Competition Law and Policy (1st edn, Irwin Law 2021).
[8] Section 75 – 79 Competition Act 1985 (Canada).
[9] Ibid Section 103 1.
[10] Ibid Section 79.
[11] Art 50 反垄断法 (Anti-Monopoly Law) Order No 68 of 30 August 2007 (People’s Republic of China); Y Yunting, ‘Full Text of Judicial Interpretation on Anti-Monopoly Law of China Supreme Court’ Bridge IP Law Commentary, 9 May 2012 https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/full-text-judicial-interpretation-anti-monopoly-law-china-supreme-court/ accessed 22 June 2023; Y Jin and others, ‘China’ in International Chamber of Commerce (ed), Compendium of Antitrust Damages Actions (1st edn, ICC 2021) 164.
[12] Section 82 Competition and Consumer Act 2020 (Australia); T Bridges and W Henderson, ‘Australia’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
[13] Art 18 Unfair Competition Act No 256 of 1996 (Colombia).
[14] F Rüffler and R A Steinwender, ‘Allgemeines Wettbewerbsrecht‘ in M Holoubek and M Potacs (eds), Öffentliches Wirtschaftsrecht (4th edn, Verlag Österreich 2019) 651, 688; N Gugerbauer, Kartellgesetz und Wettbewerbsgesetz (3rd edn Verlag Österreich 2017) 527.
[15] Art 15 Council Regulation on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Art 81 and 82 of the Treaty, 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 (EU); Commission, ‘Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of Art 81 and 82 EC’ (Communication) COM (2004) C 101/04 54.
[16] Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, 2014/104 of 26 November 2014 (EU Damages Directive).
[17] On the Damages Directive, inter alia, F P Maier-Rigaud, ‘Towards A European Directive On Damages Actions’ (2014) 10 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 341; S Peyer, ‘The Antitrust Damages Directive - Much Ado about Nothing?’ in M Marquis and R Cisotta (eds), Litigation and Arbitration in EU Competition Law (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2015); A Piszcz, ‘Piecemeal Harmonisation through the Damages Directive: Remarks on What Received Too Little Attention in Relation to Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law’ (2015) 12 Yearbok of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 79; K Wright, ‘The Ambit of Judicial Competence after the EU Antitrust Damages Directive’ (2016) 43 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 15; E Truli, ‘Will Its Provisions Serve Its Goals? Directive 2014/104/EU on Certain Rules Governing Actions for Damages for Competition Law Infringements’ (2016) 7 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 299; P L Parcu, G Monti and M Botta (eds), Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law : The Impact of the Damages Directive (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2018); P Kirst, The Impact of the Damages Directive on the Enforcement of EU Competition Law: A Law and Economics Analysis (Edward Elgar 2021).
[18] P Kirst, ‘The Temporal Scope of the Damages Directive: A Comparative Analysis of the Applicability of the New Rules on Competition Infringements in Europe’ (2019) 16 European Competition Journal 97; According to Art 22 Damages Directive, substantive provisions do not apply retroactively but Member States could make procedural provisions applicable ‘to actions for damages of which a national court was seized prior to 26 December 2014’.
[19] AB Volvo and DAF Trucks NV v RM, Case C-267/20 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 [ECLI:EU:C:2022:494]; Pesticide Action Network Europe and Others v État belge, Case C-162/21 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2023 [ECLI:EU:C:2023:30]; RegioJet a.s., Case C-57/21 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 January 2023 [ECLI:EU:C:2023:6]; Tráficos Manuel Ferrer, Case C-312/21 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2023 [ECLI:EU:C:2023:99]; A and Others v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA, Case C-25/21 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 April 2023 [ECLI:EU:C:2023:298].
[20] On the transposition of the EU Damages Directive in the Member States B Rodger, M S Ferro and F Marcos (eds), The EU Antitrust Damages Directive: Transposition in the Member States (Oxford University Press 2019); A Biondi, G Muscolo and R Nazzini (eds), After the Damages Directive: Policy and Practice in the EU Member States and the United Kingdom (Wolters Kluwer Law International 2022).
[21] G Skara, ‘The Transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Albania as an EU Candidate Country’ (2021) 12 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 326.
[22] Section 2 and 3 European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 (UK).
[23] Schedule 8A Competition Act 1998 (UK).
[24] Art 109 et seq 競爭條例 / 竞争条例 (Competition Ordinance) 2012 (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China).
[25] Art 62 Ley N° 27,442, de 9 de mayo de 2018 de Defensa de la Competencia (Law No 27,442 of May 9, 2018 on Protection of Competition (Argentina)); Art 1716 Código Civil y Comercial de la República Argentina (Civil and Commercial Code of the Argentine Republic) Law No 26.994 of 1 October 2014 (Argentina).
[26] Section 50 Competition Act Israel (n 6)
[27] Art 709 民法 (Civil Code) Act No 89 of 27 April 1896 (Japan); Art 25 独占禁止法 (Antimonopoly Act) Act No 54 of 14 April 1947 (Japan).
[28] Art 109 Competition Act South Korea (n 6); Art 750 민법/民法 (Civil Code) Law No 471 of 1958 (South Korea).
[29] Art 56 Sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun (Act on the Protection of Competition) Law No 4054 of 1994 (Turkey).
[30] F Bien, ‘Erleichterungen Des Privaten Rechtsschutzes Im Kartellrecht Durch Die 8. GWB-Novelle’ (2013) Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht (ZWeR) 448.
[31] Art 47 LEI Nº 14,470, DE 16 DE NOVEMBRO DE 2022 altera a Lei nº 12,529, de 30 de novembro de 2011 - Lei de Defesa da Concorrência, para prever novas disposições aplicáveis à repressão de infrações à ordem econômica (Law No 14,470, of November 16, 2022 amending Law No 12,529, of November 30, 2011 - Competition Defense Law, to establish new provisions applicable to the repression of economic order violations) (Brazil).
[32] Art 53, 186 Código de Processo Civil (Code for Civil Procedure) 2015 (Brazil); Art 927 Código Civil Brasileiro (Brazilian Civil Code) Law No 10,406 of 10 January 2002 (Brazil).
[33] For Israel, E Epstein, M Matzkevich and I Rosenblum Brand, ‘Israel’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
[34] Sections 4 and 16 Clayton Antitrust Act 1914 (US) codified as Sections 15 et seq, Section 26 Title 15 United States Code.
[35] P Chul and others, ‘USA’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
[36] A A Foer and R M Stutz (eds), Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the United States: A Handbook (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2012).
[37] Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Others, Case C-453/99 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 20 September 2001 [ECLI:EU:C:2001:465].
[38] For Poland, Art 11 Ustawa z dnia 21 kwietnia 2017 r o roszczeniach o naprawienie szkody wyrządzonej przez naruszenie prawa konkurencji (Act of April 21, 2017, on claims for compensation for damage caused by infringements of competition law) (Poland).
[39] Section 15 Title 15 United States Code.
[40] Section 86(1) Competition Act Australia (n 12)
[41] Art 62 Argentinian Competition Act (n 25); Art 1716 Argentinian Civil and Commercial Code (n 25).
[42] Art 53 V Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (n 32).
[43] Section 5 Turkish Competition Act (n 29); hereto F Toksoy and others, ‘Turkey’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
[44] Art 11 Polish Private Enforcement Act (n 38).
[45] Section 87 Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Unfair Competition Act) 2004 (Germany).
[46] Ibid Section 89.
[47] Art 51(2) Konkurencijos įstatymas (Law on Competition) 23 March 1999 (Lithuania).
[48] For Australia, Bridges and Henderson (n 12).
[49] Art 30 Ley N° 20 169 que regula la Competencia Desleal (Law No 20 169 on Unfair Competition) 2007 (Chile).
[50] Art 94 Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Political Constitution of the United Mexican States) 1917 (Mexico).
[51] L Nteka and A Komninos, ‘The Damages Directive in Greece’ in A Biondi, G Muscolo and R Nazzini, After the Damages Directive (Wolters Kluwer 2022) 225, 253.
[52] Decreto Legislativo 2017, n 3 (Legislative Decree No 3/2017) (Italy); Art 2 Legge 9 luglio 2015, n 114 (Law of 9 July 2015 No 114) (Italy).
[53] Section 103.1 et seq Competition Act Canada (n 7).
[54] Section 36(4) No 4 Competition Act Austria (n 1).
[55] Section 119 Hong Kong Competition Ordinance (n 24).
[56] C Lam and C Xu, ‘Hong Kong’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
[57] A Andreangeli, ‘The Changing Structure of Competition Enforcement in the UK: The Competition Appeal Tribunal between Present Challenges and an Uncertain Future’ (2015) 3 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 1; T De La Mare, ‘Private Actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal: The Consumer Rights Act Giveth and the 2015 Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules Taketh Away’ (2015) 14 Competition Law Journal 219; D George, ‘Reforms to Private Actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal - Taking Stock One Year On’ (2016) 15 Competition Law Journal 225.
[58] Section 47B UK Competition Act (n 23).
[59] Ibid Section 47A and Schedule 8A.
[60] Art 3 Chinese Antitrust Judicial Interpretations (n 11).
[61] 北大法律英文网, ‘Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning the Jurisdiction of Intellectual Property Courts over Cases’ (Law Info China) http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=38600&lib=law&EncodingName=gb2312 accessed 20 June 2023.
[62] Art L721-3 Code de Commerce (Commercial Code) 1807 (France).
[63] Ibid Art L420-7, R-420-3, Annex 4-2.
[64] Generally on CAT, A Andreangeli, ‘The Changing Structure of Competition Enforcement in the UK: The Competition Appeal Tribunal between Present Challenges and an Uncertain Future’ (2015) 3 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 1; D George, ‘Reforms to Private Actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal - Taking Stock One Year On’ (2016) 15 Competition Law Journal 225; T De La Mare, ‘Private Actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal: The Consumer Rights Act Giveth and the 2015 Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules Taketh Away’ (2015) 14 Competition Law Journal 219
[65] Section 39(2) Gesetz über die Gerichts- und Behördenorganisation im Zivil- und Strafprozess (Law on the Organisation of Courts and Authorities in Civil and Criminal Procedure) 2020 (Zurich, Switzerland).
[66] H Fleischer and N Danninger, ‘Die Kammer Für Handelssachen: Entwicklungslinien Und Zukunftsperspektiven‘ (2017) 38 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 205, 208.
[67] Section 3(2)(b) Competition Tribunal Act 1985 (Canada).
[68] Ibid Section 3(3).
[69] On CAT, Andreangeli (n 64).; George (n 64); De La Mare (n 64).
[70] Section 66 of the Austrian Competition Act (n 1).
[71] Rüffler (n 14) 651, 686–688.
[72] On expert lay judges in private enforcement of competition law L Hornkohl, ‘Leave It to the Experts: A Comparative Analysis of Competition Expert Lay Judges in Private Enforcement of Competition Law’ (2022) 15 (25) Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 7.
[73] See below at 6.3.
[74] H Ullrich, ‘Private Enforcement of the EU Rules on Competition – Nullity Neglected’ (2021) 52 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 606.
[75] On third party intervention M Brealey and G Kyla, Competition Litigation: UK Practice and Procedure (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2019) 3.01 et seq.
[76] Courage Ltd v Bernar (n 37).
[77] Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA, Case C-295/04 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 [ECLI:EU:C:2006:461].
[78] For example, Art 12(1), 14 EU Damages Directive (n 16); in detail, Commission, ‘Guidelines for national courts on how to estimate the share of overcharge which was passed on to the indirect purchaser’ (Communication) COM (2019) C 267/07; in general under EU law, Ireks-Arkady GmbH v Council and Commission of the European Communities, Case 238/78 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 4 October 1979 [ECLI:EU:C:1979:226] para 14; Kapniki Michaïlidis AE v Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA), Case C-441/98 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 September 2000 [ECLI:EU:C:2000:479] para 33 et seq; Lady & Kid A/S and Others v Skatteministeriet, Case C-398/09 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 [ECLI:EU:C:2011:540]; Commission v Italian Republic, Case C-129/00 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 9 December 2003 [ECLI:EU:C:2003:656], [2003] ECR I-14637, Opinion of AG Geelhoed, para 78.
[79] Hereto Courage Ltd v Bernard (n 38).
[80] M Botta, ‘The Principle of Passing on in EU Competition Law in the Aftermath of the Damages Directive’ (2017) 25(5) European Review of Private Law 881; M Strand, ‘Indirect Purchasers, Passing-on and the New Directive on Competition Law Damages’ (2014) 10(2) European Competition Journal 1744.
[81] Art 12(1), 14 EU Damages Directive (n 16).
[82] M Ströber, ‘Schadensersatzhaftung für Preisschirmeffekte bei Verstößen gegen deutsches oder europäisches Kartellrecht’ (2014) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 257; J Franck, ‘Umbrella Pricing and Cartel Damages under EU Competition Law’ (2015) 11 European Competition Journal 135.
[83] Kone AG and Others v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG, Case C-557/12 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 [ECLI:EU:C:2014:1317].
[84] Otis Gesellschaft mbH and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others, Case C-435/18 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 [ECLI:EU:C:2019:1069].
[85] B Cullen, ‘Otis: Effet Utile and the Endless Expansion of Art 101 TFEU’ (2019) 10 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 618; A Lepièce and M Vandenneucker, ‘Arrêt « Otis » : L’action En Réparation Pour Toute Personne Ayant Subi Un Préjudice Indirect à La Suite d’un Cartel’ (2020) Journal de droit européen 167; B Freund, ‘Compensation for Remote Economic Losses Caused by Infringements of Art 101 TFEU – Otis and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others (C-435/18)’ (2020) 69 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) International 496.
[86] Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others, Case C-435/18 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 [ECLI:EU:C:2019:1069], Opinion of AG Kokott, para 47 et seq.
[87] For example, Art 1 Italian Legislative Decree No 3/2017 (n 52) or Art XVII 72 Code de droit économique / Wetboek van economisch recht (Code of Economic Law) 2013 (Belgium).
[88] M Del Pino and S Del Rio, ‘Argentina’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
[89] Tian Junwei v Carrefour Shuangjing Store and Abbott (High People’s Court Beijing, China), Judgment 22 August 2016 [Jing Min Zhong No 214].
[90] K Yanagisawa, ‘Japan’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
[91] Epstein, Matzkevich and Rosenblum Brand (n 27).
[92] K H Kwon, J W Lee and J Kim, ‘South Korea’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
[93] Section 9 Schedule 8A UK Competition Act 1998 (n 23); Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v MasterCard Inc, Case 1241/5/7/15 (T) (Competition Appeal Tribunal, UK), Judgment 14 July 2016, [2016] CAT 11.
[94] Section 110 Hong Kong Competition Ordinance (n 24).
[95] On the remoteness doctrine in general Associated General Contractors of California, Inc v California State Council of Carpenters, No 81-334 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 22 February 1983 [459 US 519 (1983), 529, 540].
[96] Illinois Brick Co v Illinois, No 76-404 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 9 June 1977 [431 US 720 (1977)].
[97] On the contrast and convergences to the EU concept of standing G Bacharis, ‘Is “More” Better? Broadening the Right to Sue in Competition Damages Claims in Both Sides of the Atlantic’ (2022) 13 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 217; S Smith, ‘The Indirect Purchaser Rule and Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law: A Reassessment’ (2021) 17(3) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 642 https://academic.oup.com/jcle/Art-abstract/17/3/642/6149298?redirectedFrom=fulltext ac-cessed 28 June 2023.
[98] Hanover Shoe, Inc v United Shoe Machinery Corp, No 335 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 17 June 1968 [392 US 481 (1968)].
[99] See below at 6.1.7.2.
[100] F Cengiz, ‘Antitrust Damages Actions: Lessons From American Indirect Purchasers Litigation’ (2010) 59 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 39.
[101] Illinois Brick Co v Illinois (n 96).
[102] On early critical discussion E Pollock, ‘Standing to Sue, Remoteness of Injury, and the Passing-On Doctrine’ (1966) 32 Antitrust Law Journal 5.
[103] Insulate SB, Inc v Advanced Finishing Systems, No 14–2561,14–2561 (8th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment 13 August 2015 [797 F3d 538, 542]; Paper Systems v Nippon Paper Industries Co, No 01-2925 (7th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment 6 February 2002 [281 F 3d 629, 631]; Campos v Ticketmaster Corp, No 96-2883 (8th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment April 10 1998 [140 F3d 1166, 1171]; Arizona v Shamrock Foods (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment April 3 1984 [729 F3d 1208].
[104] For example, Supreme Auto Transport, LLC v Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc (7th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment of 2008 [902 F 3d 735] dealing inter alia with the Cartwright Act of 1907 (California, US) or Ciardi v F Hoffmann-La Roche (State Supreme Judicial Court Massachusetts, US), Judgment 8 February 2003 [436 Mass 53, SJC-08495].
[105] A J Fuller, ‘Let the State Decide: The Efficient Antitrust Enforcer and the Avoidance of Anticompetitive Remedies’ (2017) 10(2) The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law 203; In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Product (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, US), Judgment 4 May 1982 [691 F.2d 1335 (9th Cir. 1982), 1341].
[106] County of San Mateo v CSL Ltd, No 10-CV-05686-JSC (District Court Northern District of California, US), Judgment 20 August 2014 [2014 WL 4100602].
[107] F Serrano and J F Traber, ‘Colombia’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
[108] Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corp, Case 34282 (Supreme Court, Canada), Judgment 31 October 2013 [2013 SCC 57]; Sun Rype Products Ltd v Archer Daniels Midland Co, Case 34283 (Supreme Court, Canada), Judgment 31 October 2013 [2013 SCC 58]; Infineon Technologies AG v Option Consommateurs, Case 34617 (Supreme Court, Canada), Judgment 31 October 2013 [2013 SCC 59].
[109] Pioneer Corp v Godfrey, Case 37809, 37810 (Supreme Court, Canada), Judgment 20 September 2019 [2019 SCC 42] para 76–78.
[110] See above at 2.
[111] D Vaillancourt and M Binetti, ‘Canada’ in I K Gotts and K S Schwartz (eds), The Private Enforcement Review (15th edn, The Law Reviews 2022).
[112] See below at 5.1.3.1.
[113] AC-Treuhand AG v European Commission, Case C-194/14 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 [ECLI:EU:C:2015:717].
[114] O Okeoghene and D Bailey, ‘The Single Economic Entity Doctrine in EU Competition Law’ (2014) 51 Common Market Law Review 1721; D Braun, Das Konzept Der Gesamtschuldnerischen Verantwortlichkeit von Konzerngesellschaften Im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht (Nomos 2018); N I Pauer, The Single Economic Entity Doctrine and Corporate Group Responsibility in European Antitrust Law (Kluwer Law International 2014).
[115] L Hornkohl, ‘The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations in EU Law’ (2022) 1 MPILux Research Paper Series.
[116] Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v Commission of the European Communities, Case 48-69 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 14 July 1972 [ECLI:EU:C:1972:70] para 64; Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v Commission of the European Communities, Case 6-72 (CJEU), Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 1975 [ECLI:EU:C:1975:50] para 15.
[117] Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH, Case C-41/90 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 April 1991 [ECLI:EU:C:1991:161].
[118] Okeoghene and Bailey (n 114).
[119] B Rodger, M S Ferro and F Marcos, ‘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’ (2019) 26 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 480, 482 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3444376 accessed 27 June 2023.
[120] E Fischer and P Zickgraf, ‘Zur Reichweite der wirtschaftlichen Einheit im Kartellrecht’ (2022) 186 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht (ZHR) 125, 130.
[121] Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v Commission of the European Communities (n 116).
[122] Akzo Nobel NV and Others v Commission of the European Communities, Case C-97/08 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 [ECLI:EU:C:2009:536].
[123] The Goldman Sachs Group Inc v European Commission, Case C-595/18 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2021 [ECLI:EU:C:2021:73].
[124] Sumal, SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, SL, Case C-882/19 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 [ECLI:EU:C:2021:800] para 51.
[125] Ibid.
[126] L Hornkohl, ‘Die internationalzivilprozessualen Folgen der unionskartellrechtlichen Konzernhaftung’ (2023) IPRax 254.
[127] Ibid 263.
[128] Hornkohl (n 115).
[129] Price Fixing in Bus Services from Singapore to Malaysia and Southern Thailand: Transtar Travel Pte Ltd and Regent Star Travel Pte Ltd (Court of Appeal (SGCAB), Singapore), Decision of 2011 [Express Bus Operators Appeal No 3] para 67; Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Española de Petróleos SA, Case C-217/05 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 [ECLI:EU:C:2006:784] para 40.
[130] Manuchar Steel Hong Kong Limited v Star Pacific Line Pte Ltd, No 927 of 2023 (High Court (SGHC), Singapore), Judgment 23 September 2014 [2014] SGHC 181.
[131] Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd v Automobili Lamborghini SPA, Appeal No 1/2013 (Competition Appellate Tribunal, India), Judgment 28 February 2014; Shamsher Kataria v Honda siel & Ors, No 03/2011 (Competition Commission of India (CCI), India), Judgment 25 October 2014; National Insurance Companies Ltd & Ors v Competition Commission of India (CCI, India), Judgment of 2017 [Comp LR 1]; Delhi Jal Board v Grasim Industries Ltd & Ors, Ref Case No 03 and 04 of 2013 (CCI, India), Judgment 5 October 2017.
[132] J Y Xue and W Yu, ‘The “Single Economic Entity Doctrine” in Chinese Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement’ Lexology https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4ae5a236-9b29-48f6-8ef1-1ab402af67ce accessed 26 June 2023.
[133] But, as described above, the EU competition Law also knows intra group exemption see Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV, Case 66/86 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 11 April 1989 [ECLI:EU:C:1989:140] 803 para 3 5; Centrafarm BV and Adriaan de Peijper v Sterling Drug Inc., Case C-15-74 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 31 October 1974 [ECLI:EU:C:1974:114] 1147 para 4 1; Viho Europe BV v Commission of the European Communities, Case C-73/95 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 [ECLI:EU:C:1996:405] II-17 para 47 ff and I-5457 ZIP 1997 87 para 13 ff; Corinne Bodson v SA Pompes funèbres des régions libérées, Case 30/87 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 1988 [ECLI:EU:C:1988:225] 2479 para 19 ff; Tréfileurope Sales SARL v Commission of the European Communities, Case T-141/89 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 [ECLI:EU:T:1995:62] II-791 para 129; Béguelin Import Co v SAGL Import Export, Case 22-71 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 25 November 1971 [ECLI:EU:C:1971:113]; S Thomas, ‘Konzernprivileg und Gemeinschaftsunternehmen - Die kartellrechtliche Beurteilung konzerninterner Wettbewerbsbe-schränkungen mit Gemeinschaftsunternehmen’ (2005) 3 ZWeR 236.
[134] United States v Yellow Cab Co, No 1035 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 23 June 1947 [332 US 218 (1947)].
[135] P Van Cleynenbreugel, ‘Single entity tests in U.S. antitrust and EU competition law’ (2011) KU Leuven - Faculty of Law 1 https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/201655/1/SSRN-id1889232.pdf accessed 27 June 2023.
[136] Ibid.
[137] United States v Yellow Cab Co (Supreme Court, US) Judgment 23 June 1947 [332 US 218].
[138] Sunkist Growers, Inc v Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co, No 241 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 28 May 1962 [370 US 19 (1962)]; United States v Citizens & Southern National Bank, No 73-1933 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 17 June 1975 [422 US 86 (1975)].
[139] Van Cleynenbreugel (n 135).
[140] Copperweld v Independence Tube, No 82-1260 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 19 June 1984 [467 US 752 (1984)].
[141] American Needle, Inc v National Football League, No 08–661 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 24 May 2010 [560 US 183 (2010)].
[142] Van Cleynenbreugel (n 135).
[143] M Edelman, ‘Why the “Single Entity” Defense can never apply to NFL Clubs: A Primer on Property-Rights Theory in Professional Sports’ (2008) 18(4) Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 891; N Grow, ‘A Proper Analysis of the National Football League Under Section One of the Sherman Act’ (2009) 9 Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law 281; J McKeown, ‘Antitrust Developments in Professional Sports: To the Single Entity and Beyond’ (2009) 19 Marquette Sports Law Review 363; P R Morrison, ‘Shutting Down the Offense: Why the Supreme Court Should Designate the NFL a Single Entity for Antitrust Purposes’ (2009) 3 Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship and the Law 97; S Semeraro, ‘Is the National Football League a “Single Entity” Incapable of Conspiring under the Sherman Act?: The Supreme Court will Decide’ (2009) 32(1) Thomas Jefferson Law Review 1; R S Jeffrey, ‘Beyond the Hype: The Legal and Practical Consequences of American Needle’ (2010) 11 Florida Coastal Law Review 667; M McCann, ‘The NBA and the Single Entity Defense: A Better Case?’ (2010) 1 Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law 39; M Jakobzse, ‘Kicking “Single-Entity” to the Sidelines: Reevaluating the Competitive Reality of Major League Soccer after American Needle and the 2010 Collective Bargaining Agreement’ (2010) 31 Northern Illinois University Law Review 131.
[144] J E Stone and J D Wright, ‘Antitrust Formalism is Dead! Long Live Antitrust Formalism! Some implications of American Needle v NFL’ (2010) 10-40 Cato Supreme Court Review 394.
[145] Ibid 2215.
[146] See below at 6.
[147] J Kruse, ‘Kartellrecht in Zahlen: Eine quantitative Auswertung der kartellgerichtlichen Entscheidungspraxis 2022’ (2023) 3 Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht (NZKart) 121, 138, 140.
[148] Art 26(1) Antimonopoly Act Japan (n 27).
[149] S Vande Walle, ‘Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in Japan: An Empirical Analysis’ (2011) 8(1) CompLRev 7, 22.
[150] See below at 6.
[151] R Hempel, ‘Private Follow-on-Klagen im Kartellrecht’ (2005) 2 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb (WuW) 137, 139; T E Kauper and E A Synder, ‘An Inquiry into the Efficiency of Private Antitrust Enforcement: Follow-on and independently initiated cases compared’ (1986) 74 Georgetown Law Journal (Geo LJ) 1163ff.
[152] See below at 6.1.2.
[153] See below at 7.4.
[154] See below at 7.
[155] H Andersson, ‘The Quest for Evidence - Still an Uphill Battle for Cartel Victims?’ in M Strand, V Bastidas Venegas and M C Iacovides (eds), EU Competition Litigation: Transposition and First Experiences of the New Regime (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2019).
[156] The decision in the Google Android case, for example, took over a year from 18 July 2018 to 20 September 2019 to be published, see Google Android (Case AT 40099) Commission Decision C(2018) 4761 final [2018] OJ C402/19.
[157] Andersson (n 155) 133, 146.
[158] Evonik Degussa GmbH v European Commission, Case C-162/15 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 [ECLI:EU:C:2017:205].
[159] For example, European Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission fines styrene purchasers €157 million in cartel settlement’ European Commission, 29 November 2022 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7168 accessed 28 June 2023.
[160] Section 61(3) German Competition Act (n 45).
[161] Ibid Section 53(5).
[162] Ibid Section 53(4).
[163] Art 65 Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of South Korea (MRFTA) South Korea (n 6).
[164] For example, Japan Fair Trade Commission, ‘The JFTC Issued Cease and Desist Orders and Surcharge Payment Orders against the Former General Electricity Utilities, etc’ Japan Fair Trade Commission, 30 March 2023 https://www.jftc.go.jp/file/230330EN_PressRelease.pdf accessed 30 June 2023.
[165] Hereto T Andersson, ‘The Binding Effects of Decisions and Judgments under EU Competition Law’ in M Strand, V Bastidas Venegas and M C Iacovides (eds), EU Competition Litigation: Transposition and First Experiences of the New Regime (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2019).
[166] A and Others v Repsol (n 19) para 61.
[167] Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd, Case C-344/98 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2000 [ECLI:EU:C:2000:689] para 52.
[168] D Ashton, Competition Damages Actions in the EU (2nd edn, Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 138; Andersson (n 165) 97, 104.
[169] Europese Gemeenschap v Otis NV and Others, Case C-199/11 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 [ECLI:EU:C:2012:684] para 51 et seq, 65.
[170] D Dohrn, Die Bindungswirkung kartellrechtlicher Entscheidungen der Kommission sowie deutscher und mitgliedstaatlicher Kartellbehörden und Gerichte im deutschen Zivilprozess (1st edn, Carl Heymanns Verlag 2019) 56.
[171] Wright (n 17) 22.
[172] Andersson (n 165) 97, 103.
[173] Similar in a case predating the Damages Directive (n 16) A and Others v Repsol (n 19) para 63.
[174] Tavassi M, ‘The Damages Directive in Italy’ in A Biondi and G Muscolo and R Nazzini, After the Damages Directive (Wolters Kluwer 2022) 297, 309.
[175] Rodger, Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 495 – 596.
[176] Commission, ‘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 European Union’ (Staff Working Document) COM (2020) SWD 338 final https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14083-2020-INIT/en/pdf accessed 26 June 2023, 7.
[177] Rodger and Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 495.
[178] Section 33b German Competition Act (n 45); A Weitbrecht, ‘Bindungswirkung nationaler Entscheidungen’ (2017) WuW 244.
[179] Neuntes Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Ninth Act Amending the Act Against Restraints of Competition) 2017 [18/10207] (Germany) 56; A Bach and C Wolf, ‘Neue Instrumente im Kartellschadensersatzrecht – Zu den Regeln über Offenlegung, Verjährung und Bindungswirkung’ (2017) 6 NZKart 285, 294.
[180] Art 51(4) Law on Competition Lithuania (n 47).
[181] Art 7(2) Legislative Decree 2017 No 3 Italy (n 52).
[182] Rodger and Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 495.
[183] Art XVII 82 Section 2 Code of Economic Law Belgium (n 87).
[184] Art 250 Civilprocesa likums (Civil Procedure Law) 1998 (Latvia).
[185] Art 7 Direito a indemnização por infração ao direito da concorrência, transpõe a Diretiva 2014/104/UE, do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 26 de novembro de 2014 (Law on compensation for infringement of competition law, transposing Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014) 2018 (Portugal).
[186] Art 75(2) Ley N° 15/2007, de 3 de julio de 2007, de Defensa de la Competencia (Law No 15/2007 of 3 July 2007 on the Protection of Competition) (Spain).
[187] Ordonnance n° 2017-303 du 9 mars 2017 relative aux actions en dommages et intérêts du fait des pratiques anticoncurrentielles (Order No 2017-303 of 9 March 2017, regarding actions for damages resulting from anti-competitive practices) 2017 (France); Art L 481–2 Commercial Code France (n 62).
[188] Art 6(2) Loi du 5 décembre 2016 relative à certaines règles régissant les actions en dommages et intérêts pour les violations du droit de la concurrence et modifiant la loi modifiée du 23 octobre 2011 relative à la concurrence. (Law of 5 December 2016 on certain rules governing actions for damages for infringements of competition law and amending the amended Law of 23 October 2011 on competition) 2016 (Luxembourg).
[189] J Malinauskaite and C Cauffman, ‘The Transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in the Small Member States of the EU—A Comparative Perspective’ (2018) 9(8) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice (JECLAP) 496, 505.
[190] J Franck‚ ‘GWB § 33 Beseitigungs- und Unterlassungsanspruch’ in U Immenga and E Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht (6th edn, CH Beck 2020) para 2.
[191] 15 USC (n 39) Section 16.
[192] G N Herlitz, ‘The Meaning of the Term “Prima Facie”‘ (1994) 55(2) Louisiana Law Review 391.
[193] Section 83 Competition and Consumer Act Australia (n 12).
[194] Art 47A Brazilian Competition Act (n 31).
[195] G Nogueira Dias and L Peixoto Barbosa, ‘New Regulation to Boost Antitrust Damages Actions in Brazil: Will it Work?’ Kluwer Competition Law Blog, 2 January 2023 https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2023/01/02/%20new-regulation-to-boost-antitrust-damages-actions-in-brazil-will-it-work/ accessed 26 June 2023.
[196] Commission, ‘Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases’ (Communication) COM (2006) C 298/11 para 8 et seq.
[197] Art 17 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, 2019/1 of 11 December 2018 (EU).
[198] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, ‘Immunity and cooperation policy for cartel conduct’ (2019) ACCC https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/1579_ACCC%20immunity%20%26%20cooperation%20policy%20for%20cartel%20conduct%20-%20October%202019_FA.pdf accessed 29 June 2023.
[199] Art 86 et seq Brazil Competition Act (n 31).
[200] Art 7-4(5) AMA Japan (n 27); Japan Fair Trade Commission, ‘Guidelines to Reduction System for Cooperation in Investigation’ (2019) Japan Fair Trade Commission, https://www.jftc.go.jp/en/legislation_gls/201225002.pdf accessed 28 June 2023.
[201] Fiscalia Nacional Economica, ‘Internal Guidelines on Leniency in Cartel Cases’ Fiscalia Nacional Economica, March 2017 https://www.fne.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Guidelines_Leniency_Cartel_Cases.pdf accessed 28 June 2023.
[202] Art 44 MRFTA South Korea (n 6).
[203] Antitrust Division US Department of Justice, ‘7-3 300 - Antitrust Division Leniency Policy and Procedures’ (2024) United States Department of Justice.
[204] For example, DHL Express (Italy) Srl and DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del mercato, Case C-428/14 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 [ECLI:EU:C:2016:27] para 54.
[205] Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2006/C 298/11), para (23) et seq.
[206] Art 18 Directive 2019/1 (n 197).
[207] Dohrn (n 170) 56.
[208] See below at 7.4.
[209] Evonik Degussa GmbH v European Commission (n 158) para 69, 87, 96 et seq; AGC Glass Europe and Others v European Commission, Case C-517/15 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 [ECLI:EU:C:2017:598] para 79 et seq.
[210] W Wils, ‘Should the EU Competition Damages Directive Be Revised to Grant Companies that Have Received Immunity from Fines under the Competition Authorities’ Leniency Programmes also Immunity from Damages?’ (2023) WuW 1.
[211] Recital 38 Damages Directive (n 16).
[212] Monopolkommission, Hauptgutachten Wettbewerb 2022 XXIV Hauptgutachten der Monopolkommission gemäß § 44 Abs 1 Satz 1 GWB (1st edn, Nomos 2022) 172, 173.
[213] T Makatsch and T Bäuerle, ‘Kronzeugenschutz und Kartellschadensersatz: Stimmt die Balance noch?’ (2022) WuW 529; C Kersting, ‘Privilegierung von Kronzeugen de lege ferenda’ (2021) GRUR 250.
[214] Options 29 and 30 of the Commission, ‘Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules’ (Green Paper) COM (2005) 672 final.
[215] M Seegers, ‘Interaction of the Rules on Joint and Several Liability and Settlements under the EU Directive on Damage Actions’ (2014) 3 Global Competition Litigation Review (GCLR) 140.
[216] D Ashton, Competition Damages Actions in the EU (2nd edn, Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 225.
[217] An Act to encourage the development and promulgation of voluntary consensus standards by providing relief under the antitrust laws to standards development organizations with respect to conduct engaged in for the purpose of developing voluntary consensus standards, and for other purposes 2004 [Public Law 108–237] (US) Section213(a)-(b); Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Permanent Extension Act 2020 [PUBLIC LAW 116–257] (US).
[218] Art 47 Section 2, Section 3 Brazilian Competition Act (n 31).
[219] Commission, ‘Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Art 7 and Art 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases’ (Communication) COM (2008) C 167/01 (EU Settlement Notice); F Laina and E Laurinen, ‘The EU Cartel Settlement Procedure: Current Status and Challenges’ (2013) 4(4) JECLAP 302.
[220] Settlement Notice (n 219) para 20.
[221] Ibid para 32.
[222] See below at 7.4.
[223] Dohrn (n 170) 56.
[224] Art 47 Section 1 Brazilian Competition Act (n 31) https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2022/lei/l14470.htm accessed 28 June 2023.
[225] J Temple Lang, ‘Commitment Decisions under Reg 1/2003 – Legal Aspects of a new kind of Competition Decision’ (2003) 8 European Competition Law Review 347, 350; S Saitzek, Verpflichtungszusagen im europäischen Kartellrecht - Nach Artikel 9 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2003 des Rates vom 16. Dezember 2002 zur Durchführung der Artikel 81 und 82 des EG-Vertrages (Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Dr Kovač 2008) 239; B Kreße, ‘Die Verpflichtungszusage als Instrument der europäischen Wettbewerbsaufsicht‘ (2014) Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis (WRP) 1261, 1265; S Hossenfelder and M Lutz, ‘Die neue Durchführungsverordnung zu den Artikeln 81 und 82 EG-Vertrag’ (2003) WuW 118, 123; K Schmidt, ‘Umdenken im Kartellverfahrensrecht! Gedanken zur Europäischen VO Nr 1/2003’ (2003) Betriebs-Berater 1237, 1242; S Hirsbrunner and L Rhomberg, ‘Verpflichtungszusagen im EG-Kartellrechtsverfahren – Erste praktische Erfahrungen mit der Neuregelung der Kartellverfahrensverordnung 1/2003’ (2005) Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht 61, 64; G De Bronett, ‘Plädoyer für eine Reform der Aufgabenverteilung zwischen der Kommission und dem Gerichtshof der EU bei der Anwendung der Art 101 und 102 AEUV in Einzelfällen’ (2012) ZWeR 157, 200; J Hartlieb, '"Drum prüfe, wer sich ewig bindet" - Bindungswirkung und Durchsetzung von Verpflichtungsbeschlüssen der Kommission’ (2017) 9 NZKart 458, 461.
[226] Dohrn (n 170) 60; B C Becker, ‘Faktische Bindungswirkung kartellbehördlicher Zusagenentscheidungen zu Gunsten von follow-on-Schadensersatzklägern – Das Urteil des Tribunal de commerce de Paris im Fall DKT v Eco-Emballages als Türöffner für private Schadensersatzklagen?’ (2016) 2 NZKart 58.
[227] Recital 13 Regulation 1/2003 (n 15).
[228] Ashton (n 216) 140.
[229] For example DKT c Eco-Emballages et Valorplast, Case 2012000109 (Tribunal de commerce de Paris, France), Judgment 30 March 2015; P M Bodnár, ‘Hungary’ in A Piszcz (ed), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries (University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press 2017) 130; B C Becker, Kartellschadensersatz trotz Zusagenentscheidung? (1st edn, Nomos 2018) 295 et seq.
[230] Gasorba SL and Others v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA, Case C-547/16 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2017 [ECLI:EU:C:2017:891] para 29.
[231] Hempel (n 151) 138 – 139.
[232] J O Von Kalinowski and others, Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation (2nd edn, Matthew Bender & Company July 2002) Section169 01 (2), 169-3 f.
[233] Art 79(1) Antimonopoly Act Japan (n 27).
[234] Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd (n 167) para 51.
[235] Ibid.
[236] Ibid para 57.
[237] Commission Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States (n 15) 54.
[238] Ibid para 12, 21.
[239] Ibid para 12.
[240] K L Ritter and M Wirtz, ‘VO 1/2003 Art 13 Aussetzung und Einstellung des Verfahrens’ in U Immenga and E Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht (6th edn, CH Beck 2020) Art 16 para 7.
[241] Art 313 (V) a) Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (n 32).
[242] Section 126 Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (Civil Procedure Act) 2008 (Switzerland).
[243] 15 US Code Section 16 (i).
[244] See below at 6.
[245] 15 USC (n 39) Section 16 (i).
[246] Art 46A Brazil Competition Act (n 31).
[247] See above at 5.1.2.
[248] Ritter and Wirtz (n 240) Art 15 para 2.
[249] Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States (n 15) para 27.
[250] Stergios Delimitis v Henninger Bräu AG, Case C-234/89 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 28 February 1991 [ECLI:EU:C:1991:91] 53; Joined cases: Dijkstra and Others v Friesland (Frico Domo) Coöperatie and Others, Case C-319/93 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 12 December 1995 [ECLI:EU:C:1995:433] 34 and Cornelis van Roessel and others v De coöperatieve vereniging Zuivelcoöperatie Campina Melkunie VA, Case C-40/94 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 12 December 1995 [ECLI:EU:C:1995:433] and Willem de Bie and others v De Coöperatieve Zuivelcoöperatie Campina Melkunie BA, Case C-224/94 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 12 December 1995 [ECLI:EU:C:1995:433].
[251] European Commission, ‘Requests for information or for an opinion - Art 15(1)’ European Commission https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/national-courts/requests-information-or-opinion_en accessed 19 June 2023.
[252] Ibid.
[253] European Commission Notice (n 15) para 28.
[254] On the binding nature of Commission decisions see above at 5.1.2.
[255] European Commission Notice (n 15) para 29.
[256] K Wright ‘The European Commission’s Own “Preliminary Reference Procedure” in Competition Cases?’ (2010) 16(6) European Law Journal 736.
[257] European Commission (n 251).
[258] European Commission Notice (n 15) para 21.
[259] See above at 5.1.2.
[260] Commission, ‘Ten Years of Antitrust Enforcement under Regulation 1/2003 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Ten Years of Antitrust Enforcement under Regulation 1/2003: Achievements and Future Perspectives’ (Staff Working Document) COM (2014) SWD 0230 final, para 245.
[261] European Commission Notice (n 15) para 23 – 25.
[262] Alstom v Commission, Case T‑164/12 (CJEU), Order of the President of the General Court of 29 November 2012 [ECLI:EU:T:2012:637]; Areva v Commission, Case T-173/12 (CJEU), Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of 6 July 2012 [ECLI:EU:T:2012:349]; European Commission Notice (n 15) para 26.
[263] See below at 7.4.
[264] Ashton (n 216) 276.
[265] Art L 462–3 Commercial Code France (n 62).
[266] Ibid; Case II-10217 (Paris Court of Appeal, France), Judgment 13 January 1998 [JCP G 1998]; Case (Paris Court of Appeal, France), Judgment 22 October 2001 [Jurisdata n° 2001–157128].
[267] Art L 462–3 (1) Commercial Code France (n 62).
[268] Section 90 (1) Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Cartel Act) 1998 (Germany).
[269] Ashton (n 216) 277.
[270] For example, Section 90(2) Cartel Act Germany (n 268).
[271] See below at 5.2.2.2.
[272] Art 15(1) Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Unfair Competition Act) 1986 (Switzerland).
[273] Art 79(2) Antimonopoly Act Japan (n 27).
[274] Ibid Art 84(1).
[275] Art 87CA Competition and Consumer Act Australia (n 12).
[276] Ibid Art 87CA(2).
[277] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, ‘Intervention in Private Proceedings’ ACCC https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20Intervention%20in%20Private%20Proceedings.pdf accessed 19 June 2023.
[278] Ibid.
[279] Art 118 of the Brazilian Antitrust Law (n 31); Art 138 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (n 32).
[280] United States Code Title 28 Section 517.
[281] Art 15 (3) Regulation 1/2003 (n 15).
[282] Ibid.
[283] European Commission Notice (n 15) para 35.
[284] European Commission, ‘Amicus curiae observations – Antitrust’ European Commission https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust-and-cartels/national-courts/amicus-curiae-observations_en accessed 19 June 2023.
[285] European Commission Notice (n 15) para 32.
[286] Section 90 (2), (3) Cartel Act Germany (n 268).
[287] Ibid.
[288] Art L 462–3 Commercial Code France (n 62).
[289] See hereto D Ashton, Competition Damages Actions in the EU (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 280.
[290] Art L 470–5 Commercial Code France (n 62).
[291] K Schmidt, ‘§ 90 GWB’ in U Immenga and E Mestmäcker, Wettbewerbsrecht (1st edn, CH Beck 1981) para 8; H Von der Groeben, J Schwarze and A Hatje, Europäisches Unionsrecht (7th edn, Nomos 2015); Art 15 Regulation 1/2003 (n 15) para 80 ff.
[292] Sociedade Central de Cervejas v Carmo Augusto Nascimento (Lisbon Judicial Tribunal, Portugal), Judgment 14 March 2005 [No 8942/03]; Sociedade Central de Cervejas v Factorfina (Lisbon Judicial Tribunal, Portugal), Judgment 2 November 2005 [No 67/02].
[293] Ritter and Wirtz (n 240) para 15; Kingdom of the Netherlands and Gerard van der Wal v Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases C-174/98 P and C-189/98 P (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 11 January 2000 [ECLI:EU:C:2000:1] para 25.
[294] Title 28 USC (n 280) Section 517.
[295] Antitrust Division US Department of Justice, 'Statements of Interest’ United States Department of Justice https://www.justice.gov/atr/statements-interest accessed 19 June 2023.
[296] Letter from Peter M Bozzo to Honourable Anita B Brody, regarding Fuentes v Jiffy Lube International, Inc, No 2:18-cv-05174-AB (12 June 2023) https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/1587126/dl?inline= accessed 27 June 2023.
[297] V Zapana, ‘The Statement of Interest as a Tool in Federal Civil Rights Enforcement’ (2017) 52 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 227, 230.
[298] Art 79(3) Antimonopoly Act Japan (n 27).
[299] Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Others (n 37) para 26.
[300] R Whish and D Bailey, Competition Law (10th edn, Oxford University Press 2021) 309.
[301] See above at 2.
[302] See above at 2.
[303] For example, Art 927 Brazilian Civil Code (n 32).
[304] Brunswick Corp. v Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc, No 75-904 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 25 January 1977 [429 US 477 (1977), 488]; Cargill, Inc v Monfort of Colorado, Inc, No 85-473 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 9 December 1986 [479 US 104 (1986)] 104, 110 n5.
[305] For example, Case KZR 24/17 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 28 January 2020 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2020:280120UKZR24.17.0] para 18, 19.
[306] For example, Art 927 Brazilian Civil Code (n 32)
[307] For example, Art 403 Brazilian Civil Code (n 32); Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v California State Council of Carpenters (n 95).
[308] K Sadrak, Joint and Several Liability in EU Competition Law (Cambridge University Press 2022); T Bauermeister, Gesamtschuld Und Regress in Der Schadensersatzrichtlinie (Mohr Siebeck 2021); P M Bodnár and R Szuchy, ‘Joint and Several Liability of Competition Law Infringers in the Legislation of Central and Eastern European Member States’ (2017) 10 Yearbok of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 85; C Koenig, ‘Making Contribution Work: The Liability of Privileged and Non-Privileged Injurers in EU Competition Law’ (2018) 14 European Competition Journal 110; R F Pastore, L G Da Motta and R R Ignácio, ‘Responsabilização Solidária de Cartelistas Em Ações Indenizatórias: Reflexões, Limites e Desafios - Análise Crítica Dos Julgados No Poder Judiciário Envolvendo Matéria Concorrencial’ in B de Luca Drago and B Lanna Peixoto (eds), A Livre Concorrência e os Tribunais Brasileiros (Editora Singular 2018); J Angland, ‘Joint and Several Liability, Contribution, and Claim Reduction’ (2008) 3 Issues of Competition Law and Policy 2369.
[309] Inter alia, Koenig (n 308) 111.
[310] Generally, ibid.
[311] For example on functions of EU and US competition law, C I Nagy, ‘What Role for Private Enforcement in EU Competition Law? A Religion in Quest of a Founder’ in T Tóth (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Competition Law Sanctions (Cambridge University Press 2022).
[312] Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Others (n 37) para 25; Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni ao (n 77) para 95.
[313] Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Others (n 37) para 27; Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni ao (n 77) para 91.
[314] Sumal, SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks Espana (n 124) para 37; Wils (n 3) 15.
[315] Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Others (n 37) para 27.
[316] See above at 1.
[317] Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Others (n 37) para 27; Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy and Others, Case C-724/17 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2019 [ECLI:EU:C:2019:204] para 44; Sumal, SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks Espana (n 124) para 35.
[318] Sumal, SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks Espana (n 124) para 36; Tráficos Manuel Ferrer (n 19).
[319] For example Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc, No 83-1569 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 2 July 1985 [473 US 614 (1985), 635]; Nagy (n 311) 219.
[320] Zenith Radio Corp v Hazeltine Research, Inc, No 49 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 19 May 1969 [395 US 100 (1969), 130–131]; Hawaii v Standard Oil Co of California, No 70-49 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 1 March 1972 [405 US 251 (1972), 262].
[321] J C Coffee Jr, ‘Rescuing the Private Attorney General: Why the Model of the Lawyer as Bounty Hunter Is Not Working’ (1983) 42 Maryland Law Review 215, 216; W B Rubenstein, ‘On What a “Private Attorney General” Is – and Why It Matters’ (2004) 57 Vanderbilt Law Review 2129, 2148 and 2142–2155; C W Hittinger and J M Bona, ‘The Diminishing Role of the Private Attorney General in Antitrust and Securities Class Action Cases Aided by the Supreme Court’ (2009) 4 Journal of Business & Technology Law 167.
[322] Baker (n 2); Wils (n 3) 15.
[323] For example, Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Art 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’ (Communication) COM (2013) C 167/19; Commission, ‘Practical guide on the quantification of harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Art 101 or 102 TFEU’ (Staff Working Document) COM (2013) SWD 205, para 1.
[324] For example, Art 3(2) EU Damages Directive (n 16); Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni ao (77) para 95.
[325] For example, European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 134; European Commission Communication (n 78) para 65.
[326] For example, European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 21, 126 et seq; Ireks-Arkady GmbH v Council and Commission of the European Communities, Case 238/78 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 4 October 1979 [ECLI:EU:C:1979:226], ECR 1979 -02955, Opinion of AG Capotorti, para 9; For the US, Hanover Shoe, Inc v United Shoe Machinery Corp (n 98); For an empirical meta study of cartel overcharges M Boyer and R Kotchoni, ‘How Much Do Cartel Overcharge?’ (2015) 47 Review of Industrial Organization 119, passim.
[327] For example, European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 21, 128, 136 et seq.
[328] City of Atlanta v Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works, No 94 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 3 December 1906 [101 F 900, 901, CEED Tenn 1900 aff’d, 203 US 390 (1906)]; Hanover Shoe, Inc v United Shoe Machinery Corp (n 98).
[329] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 21, 209.
[330] Ibid para 21, 210.
[331] Ibid para 21, 209.
[332] For example, Art 3(3) Damages Directive (n 16).
[333] For example, F P Maier-Rigaud, C Milde and P Bönisch, ‘Quantification of Damage on Both Sides of the Atlantic: What’s the Difference?’ in Keyte J A (ed), International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Competition Law (Juris Publishing 2015).
[334] Hereto, R Inderst and U Schwalbe, ‘Das Kontrafaktische Szenario Bei Der Berechnung von Kartellschäden’ (2012) 2 WuW 122, passim.
[335] For example, for the EU Art 3(2) EU Damages Directive (n 16) and European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 11 et seq; OECD, ‘Roundtable on Quantifying Harm to Competition by National Courts and Competition Agencies - Note by the United States’ (11 February 2011) Federal Trade Commission, 11, 8 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-2010-present-other-international-competition-fora/1102roundtableharm.pdf accessed 28 June 2023; For Australia, Section 82 Australian Competition and Consumer Act (n 12).
[336] Nagy (n 311) 223.
[337] A Howard, ‘Too Little, Too Late?: The European Commission’s Legislative Proposals on Anti-Trust Damages Actions’ (2013) 4 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 455, 459; J Truett Payne C v Chrysler Motors Corp, No 79-1944 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 18 May 1981 [451 US 557 (1981)] 566.
[338] For example, Albion Water Limited v Dŵr Cymru Cyfyngedig, Case 1166/5/7/10 (CAT, UK), Judgment 28 March 2013, [2013] CAT 6.
[339] Opinion of Advocate General Capotorti (n 326) para 9.
[340] European Commission Practical guide (n 323).
[341] Recital 15 EU Damages Directive (n 16).
[342] For example, M Brealey and K George, ‘Chapter 16: Damages’ in M Brealey and K George (eds), Competition Litigation: UK Practice and Procedure (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2019); R Inderst and S Thomas, Schadensersatz bei Kartellverstößen: Juristische und Ökonomische Grundlagen und Methoden (2nd edn, Handelsblatt Fachmedien 2018); C Brömmelmeyer, ‘Die Ermittlung des Kartellschadens nach der Richtlinie 2014/104/EU’ (2016) 1 NZKart 2; G Niels and R Noble, ‘Quantifying Antitrust Damages – Economics and the Law’ in K Hüschelrath and H Schweitzer (eds), Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Europe (Springer 2014) 127; S Bishop and M Walker, The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts, Applications and Measurement (Sweet & Maxwell 2010); P Davis and E Garcés, Quantitative Tecniques for Competition and Antitrust Analysis (1st edn, Princeton University Press 2009); P E Areeda and H Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application (3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2007) 394–395, 354–400.
[343] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 32 et seq; OECD (n 335) 11, 8.
[344] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 33, 38 et seq.
[345] Ibid para 38.
[346] OECD (n 335) 11, 8.
[347] R Inderst and Z Jakubovic, ‘Nachwirkungen von Kartellen’ (2013) 63(1) WuW 5.
[348] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 49 et seq; American Bar Association, Proving Antitrust Damages: Legal and Economic Issues (2nd edn, UNKNO 2010) 174-176.
[349] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 54 et seq.
[350] Ibid para 56 et seq; OECD (n 335) 11, 8.
[351] OECD (n 335) 11, 8; Areeda (n 342) 354–400.
[352] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 69 et seq.
[353] Ibid.
[354] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 96 et seq; F Deuflhard, P C Heller and A Winkler, ‘Industrieökonomische Simulationsmodelle Zur Schadensquantifiz’ (2021) 3 NZKart 147.
[355] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 106 et seq; J M Connor, ‘”Our Customers Are Our Enemies”: The Lysine Cartel of 1992-1995’ (2001) 18 Review of Industrial Organization 5.
[356] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 106 et seq.
[357] Art 3(2) EU Damages Directive (n 16); Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni ao (n 77) para 95; Opinion of Advocate General Capotorti (n 326) para 9.
[358] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 21, 130, 132.
[359] R Inderst and S Thomas, ‘Pass-on bei entgeltlicher Nutzungsüberlassung auf nachgelagerten Märkten’ (2018) 4 NZKart 158; B Durand and I Williams, ‘The Importance of Accounting for Passing-on When Calculating Damages That Result from Infringements of Competition Law’ (2017) 79 ERA Forum 86; F Weber, ‘The Volume Effect in Cartel Cases—a Special Challenge for Damage Quantification?’ (2021) 9 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 436.
[360] Weber (n 361) 436, 439; J P Van der Veer and A Lofaro, ‘Estimating Pass-on’ (2010) 2 The CPI Antitrust Journal 4; U Schwalbe, ‘Lucrum Cessans und Schäden durch Kartelle bei Zulieferern, Herstellern von Komplementärgütern sowie weiteren Parteien’ (2017) 4 NZKart 157.
[361] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 21, 128, 133. N Rosenboom, V Kocsis and J Mulder, ‘Consumer Damages for Breach of Antitrust Rules’ (2017) 13(4) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 710; U Laitenberger and F Smuda, ‘Estimating Consumer Damages in Cartel Cases’ (2015) 11(4) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 955.
[362] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 21, 128, 133; Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni ao (n 77) para 95.
[363] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 21, 128, 133.
[364] Ibid para 184.
[365] OECD (n 335) 11, 6.
[366] Opinion of Advocate General Capotorti (n 326) para 9.
[367] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 1.
[368] Ibid para 183.
[369] Inderst and Thomas (n 342) 456.
[370] F Weber, ‘Entgangener Gewinn, Entgangene Klageanreize – Der Problematische Art 12 (3) der Kartellschadensersatzrichtlinie’ (2018) 1 NZKart 13; Schwalbe (n 362).
[371] N von Hinten-Reed and F Wandschneider, ‘Ökonomischer Nachweis der Wirkungs des Kartells und der Höhe des Schadens’ in F Stancke, G Weidenbach and R Lahme (eds), Kartellrechtliche Schadensersatzklagen (2nd edn, Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft Mediengruppe 2017) 406.
[372] Weber (n 361) 436.
[373] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 175 et seq, 184 et seq.
[374] Ibid; H J Hovenkamp, ‘A Primer on Antitrust Damages’ (2010) University of Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper, 41–50, 52–56 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1685919 accessed 28 June 2023; OECD (n 335) 11, 9.
[375] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 206 et seq.
[376] Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni ao (n 77) para 95, 97; Ireks-Arkady GmbH v Council and Comission (n 326) para 20.
[377] Alfredo Grifoni v European Atomic Energy Community, Case C-308/87 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 1990 [ECLI:EU:C:1990:134] II para 40; J. M. Mulder and others and Otto Heinemann v Council of the European Communities and Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 19 May 1992 [ECLI:EU:C:1992:217] para 51.
[378] Mulder and Others v Council and Commission of the European Communities (n 377), ECR I-03061, Opinion of AG Saggio, para 105.
[379] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 20; M Helen Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority, Case C-271/91 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 2 August 1993 [ECLI:EU:C:1993:335] para 31.
[380] In detail, study by G Monti (ed), ‘EU law and interest on damages for infringements of competition law – A comparative report’ (2016) 11 EUI Working Paper LAW 1 https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/40464 accessed 27 June 2023.
[381] Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni ao (n 77) para 95, 97.
[382] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 20;
[383] For example, Mulder and others v Council and Commission (n 380) para 63; Mariana Irimie v Administraţia Finanţelor Publice Sibiu and Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu, Case C-565/11 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 [ECLI:EU:C:2013:250] para 26 et seq.
[384] E Bueren and K Hüschelrath and T Veith, ‘Time is Money – How Much Money is Time? Interest and Inflation in Competition Law Actions for Damages’ (2014) 14-008 ZEW Centre for European Economic Research 1.
[385] Monti (n 382) para 26.
[386] Ibid para 75.
[387] Rodger, Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 498.
[388] Section 33a(4) German Competition Act (n 45); Section 288 (1) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code) 1896 (Germany).
[389] Section 37d(2) Austrian Competition Act (n 1); 1333, 1000(1) Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (General Civil Code) 1811 (Austria).
[390] Section 37d(2) Austrian Competition Act (n 1); 1333, 1000(1) Austrian Civil Code (n 391); 456 Unternehmensgesetzbuch (Commercial Code) 1897 (Austria).
[391] J Honda and others, ‘Brazil’ in International Chamber of Commerce (ed), Compendium of Antitrust Damages Actions (1st edn, ICC 2021) 120.
[392] Honda and others (n 391) 122, 123.
[393] Ibid 123.
[394] Hereto, W Wurmnest and M Gömann, ‘Comparing Private Enforcement of EU Competition and Data Protection Law’ (2022) 13 Journal of European Tort Law 154, 172.
[395] European Commission Practical guide (n 323) para 133.
[396] Ibid.
[397] Ibid.
[398] For example, Art 5(8) Damages Directive (n 16); M Hjärtström and J Nowag, ‘EU Competences and the Damages Directive: The Continuum Between Minimum and Full Harmonisation’ in M Strand, V Bastidas Venegas and M C Iacovides (eds), EU Competition Litigation: Transposition and First Experiences of the New Regime (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2019) 8.
[399] Section 253 German Civil Code (n 390).
[400] Art 3(3) Damages Directive (n 16)
[401] Sumal, SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks Espana (n 124); AD v PACCAR Inc and Others, Case C-163/21 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2022 [ECLI:EU:C:2022:863] para 56; Tráficos Manuel Ferrer (n 19) para 42.
[402] For example, 2Travel Group Plc (In Liquidation) v Cardiff City Transport Services Ltd, Case 1178/5/7/11 (CAT, UK), Judgment of 2012 [2012] CAT 19, 19; Rookes v Barnard (House of Lords, UK), Judgment of 1964 [UKHL 1, AC 1129] 367; V Wilcox, ‘Punitive Damages in England’ in H Koziol and V Wilcox (eds), Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives (Springer 2009) 7 et seq.
[403] For Irish law, 4(3) and 4(4) SI No 43 of 2017 European Union (Actions for Damages for Infringements of Competition Law) 2017 (Ireland).
[404] J A Sebok, ‘Punitive Damages in the United States’ in H Koziol and V Wilcox (eds), Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives (Springer 2009) 155; M L Rustada, ‘The Closing of Punitive Damages’ Iron Cage’ (2005) 38 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1297.
[405] W J Bruckner and M R Salzwedel, ‘Plaintiffs’ remedies’ in A A Foer and R M Stutz (eds), Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the United States: A Handbook (Elgar 2012) 236.
[406] Nagy (n 311) 219.
[407] Zenith Radio Corp v Hazeltine Research, Inc (n 320) 130–131; Hawaii v Standard Oil Co of California (n 320) 262.
[408] M J Connor and R H Lande, ‘Not Treble Damages: Cartel Recoveries Are Mostly Less Than Single Damages’ (2015) 100 Iowa Law Review https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2548712 accessed 26 June 2023; M J Connor and R H Lande, ’The Prevalence and Injuriousness of Cartels Worldwide’ in P Whelan (ed), Elgar Research Handbook on Cartels (UK, Edward Elgar Publishing 2023).
[409] Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act 2004 [Public Law 108-237] (US) Section 213(a)-(b); Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Permanent Extension Act (n 218).
[410] Art 56 (3), 109(1) Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (n 6).
[411] Art 58 Turkish Competition Act (n 29).
[412] ICC, ‘ICC Compendium of Antitrust Damages Actions’ (2021) ICC Mexico, 8 https://iccmex.mx/comision/posturas-herramientas/compendio-de-la-icc-sobre-acciones-de-danos-y-perjuicios-en-materia-de-defensa-de-la-competencia.pdf accessed 30 June 2023.
[413] Art 47 Section 1 Brazilian Competition Act (n 31).
[414] Art 47 Section 2 Brazilian Competition Act (n 31).
[415] European Commission Practical guide (n 323).
[416] See, eg, Case KRB 10/17 (BGH, Germany), Order 9 October 2018 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2018:091018BKRB10.17.0], [BeckRS 2018, 36788] para 20.
[417] Art 44(4) and (5) Competition Law Lithuania (n 47).
[418] Case KRB 10/17 (n 416) para 20.
[419] For example, Berliner Transportbeton, Case 2 U 10/03 Kart (Kammergericht (KG, Higher Regional Court of Berlin), Germany), Judgment 1 October 2009; Fondiara SAI SPA v Nigdello, No 2305 4 (Supreme Court, Italy), Judgment 2 February 2007.
[420] For example, Driving Schools Cartel, Case 17 R 91/07 p (Regional Court Graz, Austria), Judgment 17 August 2007; SNC Doux Aliments Bretagne at al v Societe Ajinomoto Eurolysin, Case 10/18285 (Appeal Court Paris, France), Judgment 27 February 2014; Case RNL2017-403031 (District Court Gelderland, Netherlands), Judgment 29 March 2017 [ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1724].
[421] Case 278/2019 (Commercial Court of Oviedo, Spain), Judgment 19 May 2021; Case 16/277 (Helsinki Court of Appeal, Finland), Judgment 21 May 2018; Case L 11/53753 (Helsinki District Court, Finland), Judgment 31 August 2017; Case 14PA02419 (Administrative Court of Appeal Paris, France), Judgment 13 June 2019.
[422] Nestlé España et al v Ebro Puleva, SA, Case 651/2013 (Supreme Court, Spain), Judgment 7 November 2013 [STS 5819/2013].
[423] Cheminova A/S v Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV et al, Case SH2015.U-0004-07 (Maritime and Commercial Court, Denmark), Judgment 15 January 2015; Case 33 O 69/15 (Regional Court Cologne, Germany), Judgment of 9 October 2020.
[424] Britned Development Ltd v ABB AB and ABB Ltd (England and Wales High Court (EWHC), UK), Judgment of 9 October 2018 [EWHC 2616 Ch].
[425] For example, Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed Pty Ltd. v Amcor Limited (Federal Court (FCA), Australia), Judgment 15 June 2011, [2011] FCA 671.
[426] See above on follow-on actions at 5.1.
[427] A Komninos and others, Quantifying antitrust damages: Towards non‐binding guidance for courts (Publications Office of the European Union 2009) 97 – 99; R Bechtold, ‘Kartell ist nicht gleich Kartell – Zur Indizwirkung von Bußgeldentscheidungen für den Schaden der Marktgegenseite und zur Bindungswirkung für den Schadensrichter’ in J Kokott, P Pohlmann and R Polley (eds) Europäisches, deutsches und internationales Kartellrecht: Festschrift für Dirk Schroeder (Otto Schmidt 2018) 99, 104 ff; V Emmerich, ‘AEUV Art 101 Abs 1 Verbot wettbewerbsbeschränkender Vereinbarungen und Verhaltensweisen’ in U Immenga and R Mestmäcker (eds) Wettbewerbsrecht Band 1 EU (5th edn, CH Beck 2012); § 34 Cartel Act Germany (n 268) para 7.
[428] Commission, ‘Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Art 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003’ (Communication) COM (2006) C 210/02 para 5.
[429] Section81c subsection 2, 3 and Section81d subsection 1 no 1 Cartel Act Germany (n 268).
[430] E Vogrinec and D Vogrinec, ‘The Damages Directive in Slovenia’ in A Biondi, G Muscolo and R Nazzini, After the Damages Directive (Wolters Kluwer 2022) 499, 509.
[431] The harm caused by a competition law violation exceeds the gain or profit because, among other things, injury is inflicted upon consumers who are unable or for other reasons do not buy the product at the higher price, see C Breyer, P Cushwa and J Wroblewski, ‘United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual’ (2021) United Sates Sentencing Commission, Section2R1 1 Commentary para 3 https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2021/GLMFull.pdf accessed 19 June 2023.
[432] On the developments in Germany on Section 34 Cartel Act Germany (n 268), C Kersting, ‘Abschöpfung von Gewinnen nach dem Referentenentwurf zur 11. GWB-Novelle’ (2022) 12 NZKart 659.
[433] OECD (n 335) 1.
[434] United States Code Title 18 (US) Section 3571(d).
[435] United States Sentencing Commission (n 431) Section2 R1 1 Commentary para 3.
[436] On the connection between damage and fine also W M Landes, ‘Optimal Sanctions for Antitrust Violations’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 652.
[437] United States Sentencing Commission (n 431) Section2R1 1 Commentary para 3.
[438] Ibid Section2R1 1(d)(1).
[439] Ibid Section2R1 1 Commentary para 3.
[440] Ibid.
[441] See below at 7.4.
[442] Rodger, Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 49 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3444376 accessed 28 June 2023.
[443] Art XVII 77 Section 2 of the Code of Economic Law (Belgium) (n 87).
[444] Art 62k Zakon o preprečevanju omejevanja konkurence (Prevention of the Restriction of Competition Act) 2022 (Slovenia).
[445] Art 14, para 3 of Legislative Decree No 3 (Italy) (n 52).
[446] For instance, Case 08700 002821/2014-09 (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE, Brazilian Competition Authority), Brazil), Judgment 7 June 2017 [Administrative Process, Commissioner Paulo Burnier da Silveira].
[447] For example, Honda and others (n 391) 123.
[448] Art 84(1) Japanese Competition Act (n 27).
[449] See above at 5.2.2.2.
[450] Ritter and Wirtz (n 240) para 15; Kingdom of the Netherlands and Gerard van der Wal v Commission of the European Communities (n 293) para 25.
[451] L Hornkohl, ‘The Presumption of Harm in EU Private Enforcement of Competition Law - Effectiveness vs Overcompensation, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series’ (2021) 5 EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges 29; See below on burden of proof at 7.1.
[452] ‘presumptions’ in B A Garner, Black's Law Dictionary (12th edn, Thomas Reuters 2024); Art 344(1) Código Civil (Civil Code) Decree-Law No 47344/66 of 25 November 1966 (Portugal).
[453] Lottoblock II, Case KZR 25/14 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 12 June 2016 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:120716UKZR25.14.0] 436, 441; M lacovides, ‘The Presumption and Quantification of Harm in the Directive and the Practical Guide’ in M Bergström, M Iacovides and M Strand (eds), Harmonizing EU Competition Litigation: The Damages Directive and Beyond (Hart Publishing 2016) 300; C Kersting, ‘Bindungswirkung des kartellbehördlichen Verfahrens für einen Schadensersatzprozess – Lottoblock II’ (2016) 10 LMK .
[454] On the presumption of pass on, see below at 6.1.7.2.
[455] Art 7 Ustawa z dnia 21 kwietnia 2017 (Law of 21 April 2017) (Poland) (n 38).
[456] A Piszcz and D Wolski, ‘Poland’ in A Piszcz (ed) Implementation of the EU Damages Directive in Central and Eastern European countries (University of Warsaw Faculty of Management Press 2017); M Bernatt and M Gac, ‘Poland’ in B Rodger, M S Ferro and F Marcos (eds), The EU Antitrust Damages Directive: Transposition in the Member States (Oxford University Press 2018) 298;
[457]DKT v Eco-Emballages and Valorplast, Case 2012000109 (Commercial Court Paris, France), Judgment 30 March 2015; Numéricable et a v France Telecom, Case 2009073089 (Commercial Court Paris, France), Judgment 30 March 2011; JCB Sales et a v SA Central Parts (Appeal Court Paris, France), Judgment of 26 June 2013.
[458] Section33a(2) Cartel Act (Germany) (n 268).
[459] Art 88/G(6) évi LVII törvény a tisztességtelen piaci magatartás és a versenykorlátozás tilalmáról (Act No LVII the Prohibition of Unfair Market Practices and Restriction of Competition) 1996 (Hungary); C I Nagy, ‘Schadensersatzklagen im Falle kartellrechtlicher Rechtsverletzungen in Ungarn’ (2010) 59(9) WuW 902; R Noble and S Pilsbury, ‘Is 10 per cent the answer?: The role of legal presumptions in private competition litigation’ (2008) 1(3) GCLR 124.
[460] 21(3) Konkurences likums (Competition Law) 2004 (Latvia).
[461] Art 16(2) RDONANȚĂ DE URGENȚĂ nr 170 din 14 octombrie 2020 (Emergency Ordinance No 170 of 14 October 2020) 2020 (Romania); C de Jonge, ‘The new rules in cartel damages claims and calculation of fines for infringement of competition law’ (5 November 2020) bpv https://www.bpv-grigorescu.com/the-new-rules-in-cartel-damages-claims-and-calculation-of-fines-for-infringement-of-competition-law/ accessed 27 June 2023.
[462] S Campbell and T Feunteun, ‘Designing a Balanced System: Damages, Deterrence, Leniency and Litigants’ Rights - A Claimant’s Perspective’ in P Lowe, Integrating Public and Private Enforcement, Implications for Courts and Agencies (Hart Publishing 2014) 33; K Hüschelrath, K Müller and T Veith, ‘Concrete Shoes for Competition: The Effect of the German Cement cartel on market price’ (2014) 9(1) Journal of Competition Law and Economics 97, 122.
[463] United States Sentencing Commission (n 431) Section2R1 1 Commentary para 3.
[464] See also below at 7.2.
[465] Tráficos Manuel Ferrer (n 19).
[466] Ibid para 52.
[467] Ibid para 53.
[468] Ibid para 56, 57.
[469] On disclosure see below at 7.4.
[470] Rodger, Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 50.
[471] Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 (Commercial Court Valencia, Spain), Judgment of 10 March 2023 [24/2023]; Case 231/2023 (Provincial Court Madrid, Spain), Judgment 9 March 2023; Case 185/2023 (Provincial Court Valencia, Spain), Judgment 23 February 2023.
[472] Case 185/2023 (Provincial Court Valencia, Spain), Judgment 23 February 2023.
[473] Rodger, Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 50.
[474] Franck (n 190); Cartel Act Germany (n 268) Section 33a para 97.
[475] Case KZR 42/08 (BGH, Germany), Order 7 April 2009 [WRP 2009, 745].
[476] Berliner Transportbeton (n 419), WuW/E DE-R 2773, 2780 = Juris, para 72.
[477] Ibid, WuW/E DE-R 2773, 2777 = Juris, para 37; Case Lottoblock II (n 453).
[478] Case VI ZR 37/11 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 8 May 2012, NJW 2012, 2267, para 9.
[479] Case 16a O 1/20 (Landgericht (LG, Regional Court), Berlin), Judgment 19 June 2023.
[480] Royal Mail Group Limited v DAF Trucks Limited and Others, Case 1284/5/7/18 (T) and 1290-1295/5/7/18 (T) (CAT, UK), Judgment 11 December 2018 [2018] CAT 19, para 476.
[481] Ibid para 484.
[482] Art 248 民事訴訟法 (Code of Civil Procedure Act) No 109 of 26 June 1996 (Japan).
[483] Art 222(2) 民事訴訟法 (Code of Civil Procedure) 1929 (Taiwan).
[484] Art 202-2 민사소송법 (Civil Procedure Act) Act No 547 of 4 April 1960 (South Korea); Art 115 MRFTA South Korea (n 6).
[485] Art 42(2) Bundesgesetz betreffend die Ergänzung des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches Fünfter Teil: Obligationenrecht (Federal Act on the Amendment of the Swiss Civil Code Part Five: The Code of Obligations) 1911 (Switzerland).
[486] In re Plywood Antitrust Litig (Court of Appeals, US), Judgment 4 November 1981 [655 F2d 627, 635, 5th Cir 1981].
[487] Bigelow v RKO Radio Pictures, Inc, No 444 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment of 25 February 1946 [327 US 251 (1946), 261-63]; City of Atlanta v Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works (n 328).
[488] On indirect purchasers see above at 3.1.
[489] Strand (n 80) 361, 362.
[490] Generally, Botta (n 80) 881, 883.
[491] Strand (n 80) 361, 362.
[492] De Sousa P C, ‘EU and National Approaches to Passing On and Causation in Competition Damages Cases’ (2018) Common Market Law Review 1.
[493] Art 12((2) Damages Directive (n 16).
[494] Section37f(4) Competition Act Austria (n 1).
[495] See above at 3.1.
[496] See above at 6.1.2.1.
[497] For example, F Weber, ‘Tackling pass-on in cartel cases: a comparative analysis of the interplay between damages law and economic insights’ (2020) European Competition Journal 570; Komninos and others (n 427) 16 https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust-and-cartels_en accessed 27 June 2023.
[498] S Thomas, ‘Schadensverteilung im Rahmen von Vertriebsketten bei Verstoß gegen europäisches und deutsches Kartellrecht’ (2016) ZHR 45, 48.
[499] I Williams and others, ‘Study on the Passing on of Overcharges: final report’ (2016) Publications Office 30.
[500] Botta (n 80) 881, 890.
[501] Ibid.
[502] Williams and others (n 499).
[503] Case KZR 75/10 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 28 June 2011, para 47.
[504] Ibid para 69; Confirmed in Case KZR 8/18 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 19 May 2020 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2020:190520UKZR8.18.0] para 51; Case KZR 4/19 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 23 September 2020 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2020:230920UKZR4.19.0] para 38.
[505] Recital 41 Damages Directive (n 16).
[506] J Keßler, ‘Die europäische Richtlinie über Schadensersatz im Wettbewerbsrecht – Cui bono?’ (2015) 3 Verbraucher und Recht 83, 87.
[507] T Makatsch and A S Mir, ‘Die neue EU-Richtlinie zu Kartellschadensersatzklagen – Angst vor der eigenen “Courage”?’ (2015) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 7, 12.
[508] Communication from the Commission – Guidelines for national courts on how to estimate the share of overcharge which was passed on to the indirect purchaser (n 78).
[509] Section 21 of the Competition Law in Latvia (n 460).
[510] Art 47(1) the Law on Competition Lithuania (n 47).
[511] Rodger, Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 501; Ashton (n 216) 60.
[512] Case KZR 75/10 (n 503) para 57.
[513] V Soyez, ‘The Damages Directive in Germany’ in A Biondi, G Muscolo and R Nazzini (eds), After the Damages Directive (Wolters Kluwer 2022) 210.
[514] Part 2 Schedule 8A of the UK Competition Act (n 23).
[515] On the distribution chain see above at 3.1.
[516] E Eichhoff, Über die Compensatio lucri cum damno (Verlag Baedeker 1898) passim.
[517] Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Others (n 37) para 30; Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA (n 77) para 94.
[518] Thomas (n 498) 45, 64.
[519] Ashton (n 216) 49.
[520] Art 47 (2) Competition Law Lithuania (n 47).
[521] Tavassi (n 174) 297, 312.
[522] Art 131 Obligacijski zakonik (Obligations Code) 2001 (Slovenia); Art 62l Slovenian Prevention of the Restriction of Competition Act (n 444).
[523] Rodger, Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 501; Ashton (n 216) 60.
[524] KZR 75/10 (n 503) para 57.
[525] Ibid para 69.
[526] Weber (n 497).
[527] Thomas (n 498) 45, 68; H Schweitzer, ‘Die neue Richtlinie für wettbewerbsrechtliche Schadensersatzklagen’ (2014) 9 NZKart 335, 338.
[528] Found in the following jurisprudence Case KZR 8/18 (n 504) para 46; Case KZR 4/19 (n 504) para 36 ff.
[529] Thomas (n 498) 45, 49; C Kersting, ‘Kartellschadensersatzrecht nach der 9. GWB-Novelle’ (2017) Zeitschrift für Versicherungsrecht, Haftungs- und Schadensrecht 581, 586; K Stomper, ‘Kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz bei mehrgliedrigen Absatzketten: Art 12-15 der Schadensersatz-Richtlinie und § 33c RefE-GWB’ (2016) WuW 410, 411; on the calculation also Weber (n 497).
[530] Hanover Shoe v United Shoe Machinery Corp (n 98).
[531] Illinois Brick Co v Illinois (n 96).
[532] Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corp (n 108); Sun Rype Products Ltd v Archer Daniels Midland Co (n 108); Infineon Technologies AG v Option Consommateurs (n 108).
[533] Case 2017GAHap536468 (Seoul District Court, South Korea), Judgment of 2017.
[534] Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Pty Ltd v Qanat Airwais Ltd (FCA, Australia), Judgment 28 September 2008 [251 ALR 166].
[535] Art 47 Section 3 Brazil Competition Act (n 31).
[536] In some systems, injunctions are called interdict or cease-and-desist-orders.
[537] Section 80 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (n 12).
[538] Sections 26, 36(4) No 4 Competition Act Austria (n 1).
[539] Art VI 104, XVII 1 to XVII13 and XVII 27 Code of Economic Law Belgium (n 87)
[540] Art 47 of the Brazilian Antitrust Law (n 31) and Art 294 to 311 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (n 32).
[541] Section 33 Cartel Act Germany (n 268).
[542] Art 24 Antimonopoly Act Japan (n 27).
[543] Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act South Korea (n 6).
[544] Section 47A(3)(c) Competition Act 1998 UK (n 23).
[545] Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 USC Section 26) (n 34).
[546] Section 12 Bundesgesetz über Kartelle und andere Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Cartel Act) 1995 (Switzerland).
[547] J-U Franck, Marktordnung durch Haftung - Legitimation, Reichweite und Steuerung der Haftung auf Schadensersatz zur Durchsetzung marktordnenden Rechts (Mohr Siebeck 2016) 200-205.
[548] For example, albeit an interim injuction case, Dahabshiil Transfer Services Ltd v Barclays Bank plc (EWHC, UK), Judgment of 2013 [3379 Ch].
[549] For example, Kabelkanalanlagen I, Case KZR 2/15 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 24 January 2017 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:240117UKZR2.15.0] in NZKart 2017, 198 = Juris, para 50; 87 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Australia (n 12).
[550] For example, Teleunit SPA v Vodafone Omnitel NV (First Instance Court Milan, Italy), Judgment 10 October 2013 [75623/2008].
[551] Franck (n 190); Cartel Act Germany (n 268) Section 33 para 28; P Thyri ‘§§ 26 KartgG’ in A Egger and N Harsdorf-Borsch (eds), Kartellrecht Kommentar (1st edn, Linde Vetlag 2022) para 16.
[552] For example, Art 24 Antimonopoly Act Japan (n 27); Section 80 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (n 12).
[553] For example, Section 12 Cartel Act Switzerland (n 546).
[554] For example, Case KZR 59/16 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 17 October 2017 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:171017UKZR59.16.0], [Unzulässige Vereinbarung eines Mindestverkaufspreises - Vitalkost-Aktion, GRUR-RR 2018] 131.
[555] Art 24 Antimonopoly Act Japan (n 27).
[556] eBay Inc v MercExchange LLC, No 05-130 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 29 March 2006 [547 US 388 (2006), 391,]; Weinberger v Romero-Barcelo, No 80-1990 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment of 27 April 1982 [456 US 305 (1982), 311–313].
[557] Sections 28(1), 36(4) No 4 Competition Act Austria (n 1).
[558] Ibid.
[559] Thyri (n 551) para 18.
[560] Ibid.
[561] Art 18(2) Gerechterlijk Wetboek / Code Judiciaire (Code of Judicial Organization and Procedure) 1967 (Belgium).
[562] For example, Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union (England and Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA), UK), Judgment of 2009 [Civ 387]; Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (EWCA, UK), Judgment of 2011 [Civ 270].
[563] Wolseley UK Limited and Others v Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and others (CAT, UK), Judgment of 2019 [CAT 12] para 21; WH Newson Holdings Ltd v IMI Plc (EWCA, UK), Judgment of 2016 [Civ 773].
[564] Wolseley UK Limited and Others v Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and others (n 563).
[565] Schmidt (n 291); Cartel Act Germany (n 268) Section 87 para 18, 19; H Ollerdißen, ‘Feststellungsklagen’ in G Wiedemann, Handbuch des Kartellrechts | § 61 Zivilprozessualer Rechtsschutz in Kartellsachen (ohne Kartellschadensersatzprozesse) (4th edn, CH Beck 2020) § 61 para 7.
[566] Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure) 1950 (Germany).
[567] For an early example, Rossignol (Oberlandesgericht (OLG, Higher Regional Court) München, Germany) Judgment 14 November 1974 [WuW/E OLG 1540].
[568] For example, Grauzementkartell II, Case KZR 56/16 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 12 June 2018 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2018:120618UKZR56.16.0], [NZKart 2018, 315].
[569] Anwaltsbücherdienst (LG Köln, Germany), Judgment 26 May 1976 [WuW/E LG/AG 406, 408]; Allkauf-Saba (OLG Karlsruhe, Germany), Judgment 12 March 1980 [WuW/E OLG 2217, 2222]; Critically: Zeitschriften-Einkaufsgemeinschaft (LG Mannheim, Germany), Judgment 13 February 1976 [WuW/E LG/AG 399, 400]; Case I-22 U 37/15 (OLG Düsseldorf, Germany), Judgment 23 October 2015.
[570] Case Feststellungsinteresse III, Case I ZR 277/00 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 15 May 2003 [NJW 2003, 3274|.
[571] SA Brasserie de Haecht v Wilkin-Janssen, Case 48-72 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 6 February 1973 [ECLI:EU:C:1973:11, de Haecht II] Rep 1973, 77, 86 para 5 et seq; Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV, Case C-126/97 (CJEU), Judgment of the Court of 1 June 1999 [ECLI:EU:C:1999:269] Rep 1999 I 3079 at 3092 para 36 et seq.
[572] Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV (n 133) Rep 1989, 803, 851, para 45; In detail Hanns (n 74); A Di Gio, ‘Contract and Restitution Law and the Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law’ (2009) 32(2) World Competition 199.
[573] Art 1108 Code Civil / Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil Code) 1804 (Belgium); Case KZR 5/01 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 16 April 2002 [WuW/E DE-R 909, Wettbewerbsverbot in Realteilungsvertrag].
[574] Ollerdißen (n 565) para 5.
[575] Art 3:302 Nieuwe Burgerlijk Wetboek (New Civil Code) 1992 (Netherlands).
[576] In general Di Gio (n 572) 201.
[577] Section 87(2) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Australia).
[578] In detail, R Mulheron, ‘Restitution Relief in Competition Law Class Actions: An Evolving Landscape’ (2018) 26 Restitution Law Review 1, 2; A Al-Ameen, ‘Restitutionary Remedies in Competition Law: Bull in a China Shop?’ (2009) 32(3) World Competition 327, 328.
[579] Hornkohl (n 451) 219.
[580] A-G v Blake (House of Lords, UK), Judgment 27 July 2000 [AC 268, 285, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead]; Enfield LBC v Outdoor Plus Ltd (EWCA, UK), Judgment of 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 608 53; Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd (EWHC, UK), Judgment of 2010 [2453 Ch, 27]; MOD v Ashman (EGLR, UK), Judgment of 1993 [2 EGLR 102, CA]; MOD v Thompson (EGLR, UK), Judgment of 1993 [2 EGLR 107, CA]; Walsh v Shanahan (EWCA, UK), Judgment of 201§ [2013] EWCA Civ 411 57.
[581] On this critically C Rotherham, ‘Gain-Based Relief in Tort after AG v Blake’ (2010) 126 Law Quarterly Review (LQR) 102; Giving examples, Mulheron (n 578).
[582] Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) & others, Case HC05C00468, HC05C00467 (EWHC, UK), Judgment 19 October [2007] EWHC 2394 (Ch), Lewison J; Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) & others, Case A3/2008/0080 (EWCA, UK), Judgment 14 October 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 1086; in the case, the claimants have claimed restitutionary damages in the amount of the defendant’s wrongful net profits.
[583] FTC v Mylan Laboratories, Inc (District Court of Columbia, US), Judgment 7 July 1999 [62 F Supp 2d 25, 36-27]; FTC v Perrigo Co and Alpharma Inc (District Court of Columbia, US), Judgment 12 August 2004 [Civ No 1:04CV1397 RMC]; Al-Ameen (n 578) 327, 339 et seq.
[584] AMG Capital Management, LLC v Federal Trade Commission, No 19-508 (Supreme Court, US), Judgment 22 April 2021 [141 S Ct 1341, 1344].
[585] Ibid.
[586] Kersting (n 432).
[587] In general, M Mclnnes, The Canadian Law of Unjust Enrichment and Restitution (2nd edn, LexisNexis Canada 2022).
[588] Peter v Beblow, Case 22258 (Supreme Court, Canada), Judgment 25 March 1993 [1993 1 SCR 980, 1012].
[589] O Odudu and G Virgo, ‘Remedies for Breach of Statutory Duty‘ (2009) 68(1) The Cambridge Law Journal 32; C A Banfi, ‘Defining the Competition Torts as Intentional Wrongs’ (2011) 70(1) The Cambridge Law Journal 83, 109; Mulheron (n 578) 40.
[590] See Mulheron (n 578) 32, the conditions are: (i) a benefit must have been gained by the defendant; (ii) that benefit must have been obtained at claimants’ expense; (iii) there must exist an unjust factor, rendering it unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit; and (iv) there is no defence available to extinguish or reduce defendant’s liability to make restitution; Lowick Rose LLP (in liq) (Appellant) v Swynson Limited and another (Respondents) (Supreme Court, UK), Judgment 11 April 2017 [2017] UKSC 32, AC 313, 110; The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellants) v The Investment Trust Companies (in liq) (Respondents) (Supreme Court, UK), Judgment 11 April 2017 [2017] UKSC 29, AC 275, 24; Bank of Cyprus UK Limited (Respondent) v Menelaou (Appellant) (Supreme Court, UK), Judgment 4 November 2015 [2015] UKSC 66, AC 176, 18; Benedetti v Sawiris (Supreme Court, UK), Judgment 17 July 2013 [2013] UKSC 50, AC 938, 10; Banque Financière De La Cité v Parc (Battersea) Limited and Others (House of Lords, UK), Judgment 26 February 1998 [1 AC 221,227].
[591] The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellants) v The Investment Trust Companies (in liq) (Respondents) (n 590) 43; Banque Financière De La Cité v Parc (Battersea) Limited and Others (n 590) [1999, 1 AC 221, 237].
[592] Art 703 and 704 Civil Code Japan (n 27).
[593] Japan v Kosumo Sekiyu KK et al (Tokyo District Court, Japan), Judgment 27 June 2011 [Heisei 17 No 26475, 2129 HANREI JIHŌ 46].
[594] S Vande Walle, ‘Antitrust Damages Actions Styled as Unjust Enrichment Claims: A Comment on the Tokyo District Court’s Decision in the Jet Fuel Bid-Rigging Case’ (2011) e-Competitions Bulletin 1 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2216472 accessed 27 June 2023.
[595] Japan v Kosumo Sekiyu KK et al (n 593).
[596] Vande Walle (n 594).
[597] Hornkohl (n 451) 49.
[598] On the issue M Strand, ‘Beyond the Competition Damages Directive: What Room for Competition Law Restitution?’ in M Bergström, M Iacovides and M Strand (eds), Harmonising EU Competition Litigation: The New Directive and Beyond (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2016) 279, 280; Critically, R Williams, ‘Case Comment: The Beer Tie Cases’ (2001) 23 Dublin University Law Journal (ULJ) 194; R Williams, Unjust Enrichment and Public Law – A Comparative Study of England, France and the EU (1st edn, Bloomsbury Publishing 2010) 270 274; J Edelman and O Odudu, ‘Compensatory Damages for Breach of Art 101’ (2002) 27 Euro L Rev 327.
[599] See above at 6.1.1.
[600] See above at 6.1.1.
[601] Di Gio (n 572) 204; Strand (n 598) 279 et seq.
[602] Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Others (n 37) para 29; Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA (n 77); Kone AG and Others v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (n 83).
[603] A Komninos, EC Private Antitrust Enforcement - Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law by National Courts (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2008) 172 ff.
[604] Mulheron (n 578) 33.
[605] Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Others (n 37) para 26.
[606] A Jones, ‘Recovery of benefits conferred under contractual obligations prohibited by Art 85 or 86 of the Treaty of Rome’ (1992) 112 LQR 606, 626; J Turner, ‘The UK Competition Act 1998 and Private Rights’ (1999) 20 Euro Comp L Rev 62, 67.
[607] A Dreher, ‘Die Anfechtung und Abwicklung kartellbefangener Verträge nach §§ 123, 812 ff BGB – Bereicherungsrecht als Alternative zum kartellrechtlichen Schadenersatz’ in Studienvereinigung Kartellrecht (ed), Kartellrecht in Theorie und Praxis: Festschrift für Cornelis Canenbley zum 70. Geburtstag (CH Beck 2012); K Westermann, ‘§ 11 Zivilrechtliche Nichtigkeit kartellrechtswidriger Verträge und einseitiger Rechtsgeschäfte, bereicherungsrechtliche Rückabwicklung kartellrechtswidriger Verträge’ in A Fuchs and A Weitbrecht (eds), Handbuch Private Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung (München, CH Beck 2019); K Woeste, ‘Bereicherungsrecht als Alternative zum Kartellschadensersatz: Passing-on defense im Bereicherungsausgleich?’ (2018) 4 ZWeR 392; C Kahle, Die Leistungskondiktion als Alternative zum Kartellschadensersatzanspruch: Zur Anfechtbarkeit und Rückabwicklung von Kartellfolgeverträgen (1st edn, Nomos 2013).
[608] Art 6:203 Dutch Civil Code (n 575).
[609] For example, Preventx Limited v Royal Mail Group Limited, Case CP-2020-000011 (EWHC, UK), Judgment 20 August 2020 [2020] EWHC 2276 (Ch).
[610] Section 80(2) Australian Competition and Consumer Act (n 12).
[611] Section 48 Competition Act Austria (n 1).
[612] Art 47-A Brazil Competition Act (n 31).
[613] Art 834 et seq and 872 et seq Code de procédure civile (New Code of Civil Procedure) 2007 (France).
[614] Art 682 Κώδικας Πολιτικής Δικονομίας (Code of Civil Procedure) 1968 (Greece).
[615] Section 935 German Code of Civil Procedure (n 566); Section 33 German Competition Act (n 45).
[616] Chapters 32 – 34 Lov om mekling og rettergang i sivile tvister – tvisteloven (Act relating to mediation and procedure in civil disputes - The Dispute Act) 2008 (Norway).
[617] Art 108(1) MRFTA South Korea (n 6).
[618] Art 721 et seq Ley 1/2000, de 7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law 1/2000, of January 7, on Civil Procedure) (Spain).
[619] Art 261 et seq Swiss Civil Procedure Code (n 242).
[620] 15 USC (n 39) Section 26.
[621] Part 25 1 Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (UK); Section 47A 1998 UK Competition Act (n 23).
[622] For example, ACCC v Pacific National (FCA, Australia), Judgment of 2018 [2018] FCA 1221 para 5 – 15; American Cyanamid v Ethicon (House of Lords, UK), Judgment of 1975 [AC 396]; Section 48 Competition Act Austria (n 1); Section 34-2 Norwegian Disputes Act (n 616); 15 USC (n 39) Section 26; Art 728(2) Spanish Civil Procedure Rules (n 618).
[623] For example, Art 835(1) and 873(1) Code of Civil Procedure France (n 613); Art 682 Greek Code of Civil Procedure (n 614); Art 108(1) MRFTA South Korea (n 6); Section 34-1 Norwegian Disputes Act (n 616); Art 728(1) Spanish Civil Procedure Rules (n 618); 15 USC (n 39) Section 26; Art 261 Swiss Civil Procedure Code (n 242).
[624] ACCC v Pacific National (n 522) para 5 – 15; American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396; Art 261 Swiss Civil Procedure Code (n 242).
[625] Art 728(3) Spanish Civil Procedure Rules (n 618).
[626] Art 264(1) Swiss Civil Procedure Code (n 242).
[627] Section 939 German Code of Civil Procedure (n 566).
[628] Art 261(2) Swiss Civil Procedure Code (n 242).
[629] Section 945 German Code of Civil Procedure (n 566).
[630] Art 264(2) Swiss Civil Procedure Code (n 242).
[631] Section 34-3 Norwegian Disputes Act (n 616).
[632] For an overview, O Sosnitza, ‘Die Leistungsverfügung im Kartellrecht - Anmerkungen zum Urteil des KG v 26 6 2003’ (2004) WRP 62 et seq.
[633] Art 835(2) and 873(2) Code of Civil Procedure France (n 613).
[634] Art 262 lit e Swiss Civil Procedure Code (n 242).
[635] Recital 15 EU Damages Directive (n 16).
[636] For example, Art 338 I Greek Civil Procedure Code (n 614); Art 750 Civil Procedure Act South Korea (n 484); Art 342 Civil Code Portugal (n 452).
[637] C Willems, ‘Kein Durchgang durch die „Doppeltür“? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Abmilderung von Informationsasymmetrien im Kartellzivilrecht nach der RL 2014/104/EU zum Kartellschadensersatz’ (2015) WRP 819.
[638] For example KZR 75/10 (n 503) para 44; Keßler (n 506) 87; Thomas (n 498) 48; Kersting (n 529) 586; Stomper (n 529) 412.
[639] For example, KZR 75/10 (n 503) para 69; KZR 8/18 (n 504) para 46; KZR 4/19 (n 504) para 37.
[640] For example, Rossignol (n 567).
[641] Art 47 Section 3 Brazil Competition Act (n 31).
[642] Art 109(1) MRFTA South Korea (n 6).
[643] Art 16(1) of Regulation 1/2003 (n 15); On the binding nature of Commission decisions see above at 5.1.2.
[644] See above at 5.1.2.
[645] Art 9 Damages Directive (n 16).
[646] Art 65 of Civil Wrongs Law 1933 (Cyprus).
[647] Art 62l, 62m Slovenian Prevention of the Restriction of Competition Act (n 444).
[648] BT-Drs 18/10207 (n 179) 57.
[649] Explanatory Note to the Estonian transposition law, Appendix 1, 10-12.
[650] On the rebuttable presumption of the EU Damages Directive see above at 6.1.5.
[651] ‘presumptions’ in Black's Law Dictionary (n 452); For example Art 344(1) Civil Code Portugal (n 452).
[652] On the rebuttable presumption of the EU Damages Directive see above at 6.1.5.
[653] Section 286 Abs 1 S 1 ZPO (n 566).
[654] Art 240 Greek Code of Civil Procedure (n 614)
[655] Case 2008Da6755 (Supreme Court, South Korea), Decision 28 October 2010.
[656] J Leubsdorf, ‘The Surprising History of the Preponderance Standard of Civil Proof’ (2016) 67 Florida Law Review 1569.
[657] On free assessment of evidence, Section 157 Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (n 242).
[658] On free assessment of evidence, Art 116 Codice di Procedura Civile (Civil Procedure Code) 28 October 1940 (Italy).
[659] Evidence Act 1995 (Australia).
[660] Art 339 Greek Code of Civil Procedure (n 614).
[661] Art 152(1) Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Civil Procedure Code) 1838 (Netherlands).
[662] 21-3 Dispute Act Norway (n 616).
[663] Art 56(2) Evidence Act Australia (n 659)
[664] Art 21-3 Dispute Act Norway (n 616)
[665] 702 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1937 (US).
[666] Art 21-12 Dispute Act Norway (n 616)
[667] Art 370 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (n 32).
[668] Art 388 Portuguese Civil Code (n 452) and Art 467 Código de Processo Civil (Code for Civil Procedure) Law No 41 of 26 June 2013 (Portugal).
[669] 299 Civil Procedure Rules Spain (n 618).
[670] See eg Case III ZR 201/80 (Germany, BGH), Judgment 27 May 1982 [NJW 1982, 287].
[671] Art 326, 335 Code of Civil Procedure Taiwan (n 483).
[672] Case VIII ZR 304/00 (Germany, BGH), Judgment of 9 January 2002 [NJW 2002, 1651].
[673] Evidence Act Australia (n 659); Part 23 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Australia); J L B Allsop, ‘Expert Evidence Practice Note (GPN-EXPT)’ (25 October 2016) Federal Court of Australia https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-expt accessed 21 June 2023.
[674] On judicial damages estimation see above at 6.1.4.
[675] Royal Mail v DAF Trucks (n 480) para 235; Hereto also: F Marcos, ‘Cutting the Baby in Half – The First Decision of the UK Competition Appeals Tribunal on Damages in the Trucks Cartel’ (31 March 2023) Kluwer Competition Law Blog https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2023/03/31/cutting-the-baby-in-half-the-first-decision-of-the-uk-competition-appeals-tribunal-on-damages-in-the-trucks-cartel/ accessed 26 June 2023.
[676] Royal Mail v DAF Trucks (n 480) para 486.
[677] H Andersson, ‘The Quest for Evidence - Still an Uphill Battle for Cartel Victims?’ in M Strand, V Bastidas Venegas and M C Iacovides (eds), EU Competition Litigation: Transposition and First Experiences of the New Regime (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2019) 133.
[678] Recital 15 Damages Directive (n 16); In detail L Hornkohl, Geschäftsgeheimnisschutz im Kartellschadensersatzprozess (Mohr Siebeck 2021) 59 et seq.
[679] Recital 15 Damages Directive (n 16).
[680] Commission, ‘Impact Assessment Report Damages actions for breach of the EU antitrust rules Accompanying the proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union’ (Staff Working Document) COM (2013) SWD 203 final, para 106 et seq.
[681] D Calisti, L Haasbeek and F Kubik, ‘The Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions: Towards a stronger competition culture in Europe, founded on the combined power of public and private enforcement of the EU competition rules’ (2014) 12 NZKart 466, 467.
[682] Recital 15 Damages Directive (n 16).
[683] A Ruster and S Von Massow, ‘Disclosure in European Competition Litigation Through the Lens of US Discovery’ (2020) 43(3) World Competition 347, 348; R Becker, ‘Kartellrechtliche Schadenersatzklagen à l´américaine’ in W Möschel and F Bien (eds), Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung durch private Schadenersatzklagen? (Nomos 2010) 37.
[684] Malinauskaite and Cauffman (n 189) 500, 501; Rodger, Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 487; Commission, ‘Staff working paper accompanying the White paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules’ (Staff Working Document) COM (2008) SEC 0404 final, para 90, 104; D Waelbroeck, D Slater and G Even-Shoshan, ‘Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules’ (2004) Ashurst 61.
[685] Rules 26 – 37 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (n 665).
[686] For example, California, ss 2016–2036, Civil Discovery Act 1986 (California, US); Title 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1872 (California, US).
[687] Ruster and Von Massow (n 683) 347, 349.
[688] Rule 26(a)(3) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (n 665).
[689] For example ibid Rule 27.
[690] Ibid Rule 33.
[691] Ibid Rule 34.
[692] Ibid Rule 26 (a).
[693] Rusterand Von Massov (n 683) 347, 349.
[694] T B McElroy, ‘Federal Pre-Trial Procedure in an Antitrust Suit’ (1977) 31 South Western Law Journal 649; Y Chapman, ‘Pretrial Discovery in Antitrust Cases’ (1978) 8(3) Memphis State University Law Review 615.
[695] Part 31 Civil Procedure Rules UK (n 621); V Brandt, Das englische Disclosure-Verfahren (Mohr Siebeck 2015) passim.
[696] Art 59 Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile (New Code of Civil Procedure) 2001 (Luxembourg); Malinauskaite and Cauffman (n 189) 501.
[697] J Stripeikiene, ‘Klevo Lapas v ORLEN Lietuva’ in G Monti and P L Parcu (eds), European Networking and Training for National Competition Enforcers (ENTraNCE 2012). Selected Case Notes (RSCAS (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies) 2014/68) 37 http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/31771/RSCAS_2014_68.pdf?sequence=1 accessed 25 June 2023.
[698] L Hornkohl, ‘Überwindung von ungewissen Sachverhalten – Ist die Zeit reif für eine allgemeine Offenlegung von Beweismitteln im deutschen Zivilprozess?’ (2012) Zeitschrift für das gesamte Verfahrensrecht (GVRZ) 17; Commission Staff Working Paper White Paper (n 684) para 90, 104; Calisit, Haasbeek and Kubik (n 681) 466, 467; Kersting (n 529) 581, 565; S Jungermann, ‘Weltweit erste Auslieferung an die USA wegen Kartellverstoss - aus Deutschland’ (2014) 6 WuW 563, 4-5; H Janssen ‘Schadensersatz wegen Verletzung des Kartellrechts – Auswirkungen der neuen EU-Richtlinie’ (2015) Compliance-Berater (CB) 35-37 https://www.luther-lawfirm.com/uploads/tx_fwluther/cb-2015-1-2_Janssen.pdf accessed 24 June 2023; Schweitzer (n 527) 335, 341; H Hellmann and B Steinbrück, ‘Discovery Light – Informations- und Beweismittelbeschaffung im Rahmen von Kartellschadensersatzklagen’ (2017) 4 NZKart 164, 165.
[699] Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Report (n 680) para 41.
[700] AD v PACCAR Inc and Others, Case C-163/21 (CJEU), Judgment 10 November 2022 [ECLI:EU:C:2022:863], Opinion of AG Szpunar, para 50.
[701] Art 5(8) Damages Directive (n 16).
[702] A Howard, ‘The Damages Directive in the United Kingdon’ in A Biondo and G Muscolo and R Nazzini (eds) After the Damages Directive: Policy and Practice in the EU Member States and the United Kingdom (Kluwer Law International 2022) 577, 578.
[703] Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Report (n 680) para 106 et seq.
[704] Recital 15 Damages Directive (n 16).
[705] Ibid Art 14 (1).
[706] Ibid Art 13.
[707] B Kreße, ‘Der Zugang Kartellgeschädigter zu Verfahrensdokumenten der Europäischen Kommission als Wettbewerbsbehörde’ (2016) WRP 567, 573.
[708] Hornkohl (n 678) p 143.
[709] L Hornkohl, ‘The Protection of Confidential Information and Disclosure in EU Private Enforcement of Competition Law’ (2023) Global Competition Litigation Review 46 et seq; In detail: Hornkohl (n 678) passim.
[710] RegioJet (n 19) para 57 – 59.
[711] Art 6 – 8 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, 2004/48 of 29 April 2004 (EU).
[712] Hornkohl (n 698) 17.
[713] Rodger, Ferro and Marcos (n 119) 487.
[714] Section 37j Competition Act Austria (n 1).
[715] Section 88/J Act LVII on the Prohibition of Unfair Trading Practices and Unfair Competition (n 459).
[716] Art 3, 4, and 5 Legislative Decree 14 January 2017 No 3 (n 52).
[717] Art 283bis(a) ff Spanish Civil Procedure Rules (n 618).
[718] Hereto recently, Case KZR 20/21 (BGH, Germany), Judgment 4 April 2023 [ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:040423UKZR20.21.0]; BT-Drs 18/10207 (n 179) 62.
[719] Rules 7 22, 7 23, 20 Federal Court Rules (n 673); Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd (FCAFC, Australia), Judgment of 2017 [193].
[720] Art 342 et seq Code of Civil Procedure Taiwan (n 483).
[721] UK Ministry of Justice, ‘Practice Direction 31C – Disclosure and Inspection in Relation to Competition Claims’ (2023) UK Ministry of Justice https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31/practice-direction-31c-disclosure-and-inspection-in-relation-to-competition-claims accessed 30 June 2023.
[722] Ibid Section 2 Practice Direction 31C.
[723] RESOLUÇÃO No 21, DE 11 DE SETEMBRO DE 2018 (CADE Resolution No 21, of 11 September 2018) 2018 (Brazil).