Menu

Why the implementation of Directive 2014/104/EU may not lead to more antitrust damages claims or increased compensation for antitrust victims?


Last Friday 27th, Fide organised a session to discuss the the implementation of Directive 2014/104/EU with speakers Sebastian Peyer, Senior Lecturer in Law, School of Law, University of East Anglia; and Carlos Pascual Pons, Partner of Competition Economics in KPMG Spain.




Last Friday 27th, Fide organised a session to discuss the the implementation of Directive 2014/104/EU. During the session, the following topics were reviewed:
  • The sphere of possible harmed people in an antitrust wrongdoing: the purchaser-chain, the provider-chain, the umbrella effect, clients indirectly affected, consumers. Is there a causation limit? 
  • May deliver in future the cumulative legal standing of both direct and indirect purchaser? 
  • Is there any space left for stand alone claims? 
  • Was is the division of the liability among joint tortfeasors where the administrative decision makes no statement as to the harm brought about by the cartel? 
  • Overcharges and other items of damages. 
Speakers:
  • Sebastian Peyer, Senior Lecturer in Law, School of Law, University of East Anglia. 
  • Carlos Pascual Pons, Partner of Competition Economics in KPMG Spain. 
Moderator:

Ángel Carrasco, Professor of Civil Law at the University of Castilla La Mancha. Academic Counselor of Gómez Acebo & Pombo. 

After analysing the two contradictory goals of the Directive (full compensation to victims of antitrust infringements and coordination of damages claims with public enforcement) the speakers examined the most salient rules of the Directive and their technical imperfections and the uncertain impact they may have in enhancing and promoting victims’ compensation (joint and several liability and contribution among co-infringers; extension of statute of limitations; presumption of harm in cartels; damages quantification; indirect purchasers actions). Some of these rules will undoubtedly be positive and favour victims’ standing to bring a claim, but in some instances they may introduce further complexities that make them backfire. Additionally, in too many instances they are quiet in crucial aspects that are left for national legal rules to be filled pursuant the principle of national procedural autonomy. At the end, it will be up to each Member State to implement the Directive, trying to correct some of its shortcomings or rather leave national judges to fill the gaps with discretion but respecting the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.