PL EN


2018 | 11(17) | 93-111
Article title

Private Antitrust Enforcement Without Punitive Damages: A Half-Baked Reform?

Authors
Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Directive 2014/104/EU on private antitrust enforcement opted for the exclusion of punitive damages from the category of recoverable damages following a violation of antitrust law. This article will outline the concept of punitive damages and analyse the relevant case-law of the courts of the Member States, of the ECtHR and of the ECJ. Then, it will examine the regime laid down in the Directive and consider the possible reasons why the European legislator opted for this exclusion. Thus, the opportunity to introduce such a provision into the European legal system will be evaluated, taking into consideration the problem of overdeterrence, the problem of the division of functions between public and private enforcement, and making a comparison with the relevant provisions of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Finally, a possible modification of Article 3(3) of the Directive will be suggested, in the framework of the review that the Commission is required to undertake by December 27, 2020
FR
La Directive 2014/104/UE sur l’application privée du droit de la concurrence a opté pour l’exclusion des dommages-intérêts punitifs de la catégorie des dommages recouvrables suite à la violation du droit de la concurrence. Cet article décrira la notion de dommages-intérêts punitifs et analysera la jurisprudence pertinente des tribunaux des États membres, de la CEDH et de la CJUE. Ensuite, il examinera le régime prévu par la Directive et examinera les raisons possibles pour lesquelles le législateur européen a opté pour cette exclusion. Donc, l’opportunité d’introduire une telle disposition dans le système juridique européen sera d’évaluée en prenant en considération le problème de la dissuasion excessive, celui de la répartition des fonctions entre l’application publique et privée du droit de la concurrence et en faisant une comparaison avec les dispositions pertinentes de la Directive 2004/48/ EC relative au respect des droits de propriété intellectuelle. Enfin, une éventuelle modification de l’article 3, paragraphe 3, de la Directive sera d’envisagée, dans le cadre d’une révision de la Directive que la Commission doit faire au plus tard le 27 décembre 2020
Year
Volume
Pages
93-111
Physical description
Dates
published
2018-08-30
Contributors
author
  • University of Naples Federico II – Department of Law
References
  • Al Mureden, E. and De Pamphilis, M. (2017). Valutazione dei danni. In: P. Manzini (ed.), Il risarcimento del danno per violazioni del diritto della concorrenza. Commento al d.lgs. n. 3/2017(pp. 126–157). Turin: Giappichelli Editore.
  • American Bar Association, Antitrust Section (1986). Treble-Damages Remedy. Monograph n. 13, 18.
  • Baer, B. (2014). Public and Private Antitrust Enforcement in the United States. Retrieved from: https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/517756/download (20.06.2018).
  • Barcellona, M. (2008). Funzione compensativa della responsabilità e private enforcement della disciplina antitrust. Contratto e impresa 1(p. 120). Retrieved from: http://www.iusimpresa.com/risultati.php?hdd_lg=&hdd_mono=16099&hdd_autore=38930&hdd_ricerca=RB (20.06.2018).
  • Bastianon, S. (2009). I costi delle azioni risarcitorie antitrust. In: F.R. Dal Pozzo and B.Nascimbene (eds),Il private enforcement delle norme sulla concorrenza(pp. 137–150). Milan: Giuffrè Editore.
  • Bastianon, S. (2006). Il risarcimento del danno antitrust tra esigenze di giustizia e problemi di efficienza. Prime riflessioni sul Libro verde della Commissione. Mercato Concorrenza Regole2, 322.
  • Bau, L. (2014). The History and Treatment of Damages in Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.lindsayllp.ca/the-history-and-treatment-of-damages-in-canada/ (20.06.2018).
  • Borgia, F. (2008). Sentenza straniera di condanna a danni punitivi e ordine pubblico. In: Studi in onore di Umberto Leanza (pp. 851 et seq.). Naples: Editoriale Scientifica
  • Buccirossi, P., Ciari, L., Duso, T., Spagnolo, G. and Vitale, C. (2009). Deterrence incompetition law, Governance and the efficiency of economic system. Working Paper n. 285. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b7bd/197aeb3863247b307aba98225d60a0c5e312.pdf (20.06.2018).
  • Busnelli, F.D. (2009). Deterrenza, responsabilità civile, fatto illecito, danni punitivi. In:Europa e diritto privato, issue 4, 934 et seq.
  • Cappelletti, M. (2015). Punitive Damages and the Public/Private Distinction: A Comparison Between the United States and Italy. Retrieved from: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:25818261 (20.06.2018).
  • Casolari, F. (2017). Diritto ad un pieno risarcimento. In: P. Manzini (ed.), Il risarcimento del danno per violazioni del diritto della concorrenza. Commento al d.lgs. n. 3/2017(pp.1–14). Turin: Giappichelli Editore.
  • Cavanagh, E.D. (2005). Antitrust Remedies Revisited. Oregon Law Review 84(1). Retrieved from: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/4643 (20.06.2018).
  • Lande, R.H. and Connor, J.M. (2007). Cartel Overcharges and Optimal Cartel Fines. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1029755 (20.06.2018).
  • Croff, C. (1981). La prassi giudiziaria statunitense antitrust e il Protection of interests Trading Act del Regno Unito. Rivista di Diritto Internazionale, 600 et seq.
  • De Bruyne, J., De Potter de Ten Broeck, M. and Van Hiel, I. (eds). (2015). Policy within and through law: proceedings of the 2014 ACCA-conference. Antwerpen – Apeldoorn – Portland: Maklu.
  • Denozza, F. and Toffoletti, L. (2009). Le funzioni delle azioni private nel Libro Bianco sul risarcimento del danno antitrust: compensazione, deterrenza e coordinamento con l’azione pubblica. In: F. Rossi Dal Pozzo and B. Nascimbene (eds), Il private enforcement delle norme sulla concorrenza(pp. 101–122). Milan.: Giuffrè Editore.
  • Directorate for financial and enterprise affairs competition committee (2015). Relationship between public and private antitrust enforcement.Retrieved from: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-other-international-competition-fora/publicprivate_united_states.pdf (20.06.2018).
  • European Commission. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights /com/2010/0779 final/. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC0779 (20.06.2018).
  • European Group on Tort Law. Principles of European Tort Law. Article 10.101. Retrieved from: http://www.egtl.org (20.06.2018).
  • Ezrachi, A. and Ioannidou, M. (2012). Public compensation as a Complementary Mechanism to Damages Actions: From Policy Justifications to Formal Implementation. Journal of European Competition Law and Practice 6, 536.
  • Fonderico, G. (2015). Private e Public enforcement. Annali Italiani del diritto d’autore, della cultura e dello spettacolo XXIV, 3–14.
  • Fulton, J. (2017). Litigation and enforcement in the UK (Scotland): overview. Retrieved from: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-593-006?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.) (20.06.2018).
  • Galanter, M. and Luban, D. (1993). Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism.American University Law Review 42, 1394–1462.
  • Gotanda, J.Y. (2003). Punitive Damages: A Comparative Analysis. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/wps/art8/ (20.06.2018).
  • Iannuccelli, P. (2015). La responsabilità delle imprese nel diritto della concorrenza dell’Unione europea e la Direttiva 2014/104. Milan: Giuffrè Editore.
  • Koziol, H. (2008). Punitive Damages – A European Perspective. Louisiana Law Review 68 (3). Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=6240&context=lalrev (20.06.2018).
  • Lopez De Gonzalo M. (2017). La Corte di Cassazione cambia orientamento sui punitive damages. Diritto del Commercio Internazionale 3, 714–721.
  • Lopez de Gonzalo, M. (2017). Proprietà intellettuale e danni punitivi di fronte alla Corte di giustizia europea.Diritto del Commercio Internazionale 2 , 435–454.
  • Meurkens, L. (2014). The punitive damages debate in continental Europe: food for thought. Retrieved from: http://www.ssrn.com (20.06.2018).
  • Meurkens, R.C. (2014). Punitive Damages – The Civil Remedy in American Law, Lessons and Caveats for Continental Europe. Wolters Kluwer Business. Retrieved from: https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/portal/en/publications/punitive-damages-the-civil-remedy-in-american-law-lessons-and-caveats-for-continental-europe(c4e5feeb-ad60-43d3-b0d2-67c794d312f3).html (20.06.2018).
  • Montanari, A. (2017). La resistibile ascesa del risarcimento punitivo nell’ordinamento italiano (a proposito dell’ordinanza n. 9978/2016 della Corte di Cassazione). Diritto civile contemporaneo. Retrieved from: http://dirittocivilecontemporaneo.com/2017/02/la-resistibile-ascesa-del-risarcimento-punitivo-nellordinamento-italiano-a-proposito-dellordinanza-n-99782016-della-corte-di-cassazione/ (20.06.2018).
  • Pallotta, O. (2017). Public e private antitrust enforcement alla luce della direttiva 2014/104/UE: l’equilibrio alterato. Studi sull’integrazione europea 3, 621-640.Quarta, F. (2016). Illecito civile, danni puntivi e ordine pubblico. Responsabilità Civile e Previdenza 4, 1159–1172.
  • Rabkin, J.A. (1998). The secret life of the Private Attorney General. Law and Contemporary Problems 61(1). Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/754b/8d7dadbf5160db25a61e1a9a8c15aaade3a6.pdf (20.06.2018).
  • Rouhette, T. (2008). The availability of punitive damages in Europe: growing trend ornonexistent concept? Defense Counsel Journal 74 (4), 320–340.
  • Salomone, E. (2007). Il risarcimento del danno da illeciti antitrust: profili di tutela interna e comunitaria. Rivista trimestrale diritto processuale civile 61(3), 875–902.
  • Saravalle, A. (1993). I punitive damages nelle sentenze delle corti europee e dei tribunali arbitrali. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale,875.
  • Schirripa, M. (2017). I danni punitivi nel panorama internazionale e nella situazione italiana: verso il loro riconoscimento?. Retrieved from: www.comparazionedirittocivile. it (20.06.2018).
  • Scottish Law Commission(2008).Report on Damages for Wrongful Death.
  • Spoto, G. (2008). I danni punitivi e il risarcimento del danno ambientale. In: F. Alcaro et al. (eds), Valori della persona e modelli di tutela contro i rischi ambientali e genotossici. Florence: Firenze University Press.
  • Taddei Elmi, G. (2014). Il risarcimento dei Danni antitrust tra compensazione e deterrenza. Il modello Americano e la proposta di direttiva UE del 2013.
  • The law reform commission (1998). Consultation paper on aggravated, exemplary and restitutionary damages. Retrieved from: http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpAggravatedDamages.htm (20.06.2018).
  • Todino, M. (2015). Il danno risarcibile. Annali italiani del diritto d’autore, della cultura e dello spettacolo XXIV, 15–31.
  • Valerini, F. (2013). Il giudizio di merito nell’azione antitrust.In: L.F. Pace (ed.), Dizionario sistematico del diritto della concorrenza(pp. 231–246). Retrieved from: http://www.competition-law.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Dizionario-completo.pdf (20.06.2018).
  • Vanleenhove, C. (2012). Punitive damages and European Law, quo vademus?. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2054595 (20.06.2018).
  • William Mitchell Law Review (1986). The Antitrust Treble Damages Remedy. William Mitchell Law Review 9(2), Article 9, p. 13. Retrieved from: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2632&context=wmlr (20.06.2018).
  • Wils, W.P.J. (2009). The Relationship between Public Antitrust Enforcement and Private Actions for Damages. World Competition 32(1), 3–26.
  • Zarra, G. (2016). The doctrine of punitive damages and international arbitration. Diritto del Commercio internazionale 4, 963–991.
  • Zarra G. (2017). L’ordine pubblico attraverso la lente del giudice di legittimità: in margine a Sezioni Unite 16601/17. Diritto del Commercio Internazionale 3, 722–749. Concorrenza e Mercato 1, 183–234.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-073c127a-425d-479c-93e7-18727f02631a
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.