PL EN


2016 | 9(14) | 69-96
Article title

The Principle of Liability in Private Antitrust Enforcement in Selected European States In Light of the Implementation of the Damages Directive into the Polish Legal System

Authors
Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
In the vast majority of European countries, private antitrust enforcement falls under general rules of civil law. One of the issues to be discussed in relation to this type of litigation is the principle of liability, which exists in the given legal system, and its presumed impact on private enforcement. This problem has been debated in the course of the implementation works on the Damages Directive into the Polish legal system. A discussion on the principle of liability has taken place at least twice in this context. First, the issue was considered by the Civil Law Codification Commission and expressed in its Assumptions behind the Draft Act on complaints for damages caused by the breach of competition law. Subsequently, the principle of liability was assessed again at the reconciliation conference held at the Ministry of Justice. This is but a part of a broader discussion about the relationship between the rule of liability existing in national laws being applied to private enforcement cases and EU law as well as limitations arising from the latter. After outlining this interplay, the paper will briefly introduce solutions adopted with respect to the principle of liability in the context of private enforcement in selected European countries. The selection is not random, despite the fact that a limited number of countries has been analysed – eight including Poland. These include the most advanced EU Member States when it comes to private antitrust enforcement (such as the UK, Germany or the Netherlands), along with less developed examples (such as Italy or France), and even underdeveloped countries when it comes to the number and popularity of private antitrust litigations (such as Lithuania and Poland). This sort of analysis paints a relatively comprehensive picture of the adopted solutions in relation to the principles of liability governing private enforcement cases in Europe. The same is true for the issue of the burden of proof and presumptions/binding power in civil proceedings of decisions issued by competition authorities. Furthermore, what seemed to be crucial for the drafters of the Damages Directive, this sort of analysis makes it possible to formulate certain conclusions with respect to the relationship between the effectiveness of private enforcement in a given State and the adopted principle of liability. The final conclusions understandably focus on the Polish example, that is, the implementation of the Damages Directive into the Polish legal system.
FR
Dans la grande majorité des pays européens l'application privée du droit de la concurrence relève des règles générales du droit civil. Un de problème qui exige l’analyse dans ce type de litige est le principe de la responsabilité qui existe dans le système juridique particulier, ainsi que son effet sur l'exécution privée du droit de la concurrence. Ce problème était discuté pendant les travaux concernant la transposition de la directive relative aux certaines règles régissant les actions en dommages (« Damages Directive ») dans le système juridique polonais. La discussion sur le principe de la responsabilité a eu lieu au moins deux fois dans ce contexte. Tout d’abord, la question a été examinée par la Commission de codification du droit civil et exprimée dans ses hypothèses concernant le projet de loi sur les actions en dommages pour les infractions aux dispositions du droit de la concurrence. Ensuite, le principe de la responsabilité a été évalué de nouveau lors de la conférence de réconciliation qui a eu lieu au Ministère de la Justice. C’est juste une partie de discussion plus large concernant la relation entre le principe de la responsabilité existant dans les législations nationales appliquées dans des affaires d’application privée du droit de la concurrence et le droit de l'Union européenne, ainsi que les limitations qui en découlent. Après la présentation cette interaction, le document parlera brièvement des solutions adoptées dans certains pays européens afin de répondre au problème du principe de la responsabilité dans le contexte de l'application privée du droit de la concurrence. La sélection n'est pas aléatoire, malgré le fait qu'un nombre limité de pays a été analysé – huit pays dont la Pologne. Elle inclus les Etats Membres de l’Union européenne les plus avances en ce qui concerne l’application privée du droit de la concurrence (comme le Royaume-Uni, l'Allemagne ou les Pays-Bas), ainsi que des exemples de juridictions moins développés (comme l'Italie ou la France) et même des pays sous-développés en ce qui concerne le nombre et la popularité des actions en dommages dans le domaine du droit de la concurrence (comme la Lituanie et la Pologne). Ce type d'analyse donne une vision relativement complète des solutions concernant les principes de responsabilité dans le domaine d’application privée du droit de la concurrence adoptées en Europe. C’est la même chose en ce qui concerne la question de la charge de la preuve et des présomptions / le pouvoir contraignant des décisions rendues par les autorités de la concurrence dans les procédures civiles. En outre, ce qui semblait crucial pour les rédacteurs de « Damages Directive », ce type d'analyse permet de formuler certaines conclusions concernant la relation entre l’application privée du droit de la concurrence dans un État Membre particulier et le principe de responsabilité adopté dans cet État. Les conclusions finales se focalisent sur l'exemple polonais, c'est-à-dire sur la transposition de « Damages Directive » dans le système juridique polonais.
Year
Volume
Pages
69-96
Physical description
Dates
published
2016-12-31
printed
2016-12-31
Contributors
  • PhD in law, attorney-at-law, member of the Centre of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies at the Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, lecturer at Katowice School of Economics, dominik.wolski@wolski-legal.com
References
  • Buntscheck, M. and Stichweh, H. (2015). Germany: Private Antitrust Litigation, The European Antitrust Review, 154-158.
  • Clough, M. and McDougall, A. (2004). United Kingdom. London: Ashurst. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/national_reports/united_kingdom_en.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Crane, D.A. (2010). Optimizing Private Antitrust Enforcement, Vanderbilt Law Review 63(2), 675-723.
  • Elsner, B., Zandler, D. and Kos, M. (2016). Austria. In: I. Knable Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review. London: Law Business Research Ltd, 49-59.
  • Gudziunas, M., Audzevicius, R. and Kozubowska, B. (2014). Lithuania, Private Antitrust Litigation, 93-98.
  • Gumbis, J., Juonys, M. and Keserauskas, S. (2004). Lithuania. Vilnius: Lideika, Petrauskas, Valiūnas ir partneriai. Retrieved from: (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/national_reports/lithuania_en.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Havu, K. (2014). Fault in EU law based competition restriction damages cases, Maastricht European Private Law Institute Working Paper No. 2014/16, July 2016. Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2465912 (02.09.2016).
  • Jones, A. (2016). Private Enforcement of UE Competition Law: A Comparison with, and Lessons from, the US. A Dickson Poon Transnational Law Institute, King’s College London, Research Paper Series, Paper No. 10/2016. Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2715796 (02.09.2016).
  • Jurkowska, A. (2008). Private Antitrust Enforcement – Case of Poland. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 1(1), 59-79.
  • Kuijpers, M., Tuinenga, S., Wiskin, S., Dietzel, K., Campbell, S., Fritzsche, A. (2015). Actions for Damages in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 6(2), 1-14. Retrieved from: https://www.stibbe.com/~/media/03%20news/publications/amsterdam/ stefan%20tuinenga/journal%20of%20european%20competitionlaw%20%20practice-2015--jeclap-lpu125.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Leeflang, F. and Kuijper, M. (2013). Netherlands, Private Antitrust Litigation, 94-99. Retrieved from: http://www.boekel.com/media/617927/private_antitrust_litigation_in_the_netherlands_-_2013.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Lenoir, N., Plankensteiner, M. and Truffier, M. (2015). France: Private Antitrust Litigation, The European Antitrust Review, 127-133. Retrieved from: http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/Publication/a41298ed-1a62-4ff0-8cb4-fa825d8c08e7/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/38d554af-0c20-47a3-b35b-fb2c51b7cc97/1408_GCR_Private%20Antitrust%20Litigfation%202015_French%20Chapter_Private%20Enforcement.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Monti, M. (2001). Effective Private Enforcement of EC Antitrust Law. Speech delivered at Sixth UE Competition Law and Policy Workshop, Florence. Retrieved from: europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-01-258_en.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Neumayr, F. and Ablasser-Neuhuber, A. (2016). Austria – Competition Litigation 2017, International Comparative Legal Guides Retrieved from: http://www.iclg.co.uk/practice-areas/competition-litigation/competition-litigation-2017/austria# chaptercontent1
  • Peyer, S. (2010). Myths and Untold Stories – Private Antitrust Enforcement in Germany, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy, Working Paper 10-12. Retrieved from: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/29237/1/Peyer_-_Myths_and_Untold_Stories-Private_Antitrust_Enforcement_in_Germany.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Peyer, S. (2015). Compensation and the Damages Directive, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy, Working Paper 15-10. Retrieved from: http://competitionpolicy.ac.uk/documents/8158338/8368036/15-10+CCP+Working+Paper/78f92b0e-6f92-4538-bca7-4f45e8de7b2b (02.09.2016).
  • Safjan, M. (2008). In: K. Pietrzykowski (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Tom I. Warszawa: CH Beck.
  • Siragusa, M., D’Ostuni, M. and Rizza, C. (2014), Italy, Private Antitrust Litigation, 79-87. Retrieved from: https://www.clearygottlieb.com/~/media/cgsh/files/other-pdfs/private-antitrust-litigation-italy-2014.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Stanikunas, R.A. and Burinskas, A. (2015). The Interaction of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Lithuania. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 8(12), 237-257.
  • Stefanicki, R. (2014). Prywatnoprawne środki dochodzenia roszczeń z tytułu naruszenia reguł konkurencji. Warszawa: CH Beck.
  • Tardella, E. and Maggiore, M. (2004). Italy. Milan: Ashurst. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/national_reports/italy_en.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Thill-Tayara, M. and Giner Asins, M. (2015). France. In: I. Knable Gotts (ed.), The Private Competition Enforcement Review. London: Law Business Research Ltd, 170-184.
  • VerLoren van Themaat, W., Hettema, J. and Buruma, H. (2004). Netherlands. Brussels: Ashurst. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/national_reports/netherlands_en.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Wach, K., Epping, M., Zinsmeister, U. and Bonacker, E. (2004). Germany. München: Ashurst. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/national_reports/germany_en.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Waterson, M. (2010). Beer – the ties that bind, Warwick Economic Research Papers, University of Warwick, Paper No. 930. Retrieved from: https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/2010/twerp_930.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Wollmann, H. and Prisker, A. (2004). Austria. Wien: Schönherr Rechtsanwälte OEG. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/national_reports/austria_en.pdf (02.09.2016).
  • Wolski, D. (2012a). Harmonizacja a ujednolicenie norm prawa prywatnego – wybrane zagadnienia. In: C. Mik (ed.), Unia Europejska: zjednoczeni w różnorodności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 315-346.
  • Wolski, D. (2012b). Projekt rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie wspólnego europejskiego prawa sprzedaży, Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego XXI(3), 809–827.
  • Wolski, D. (2012c). Wątpliwości dotyczące podstaw traktatowych projektu rozporządzenia w sprawie europejskiego prawa sprzedaży, Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego X, 138-152.
  • Wolski, D. (2016). Zasada i przesłanki odpowiedzialności odszkodowawczej, ustalenie wysokości szkody, przerzucanie nadmiernych obciążeń. In: D. Wolski, A. Piszcz (eds), Dochodzenie przed sądem polskim roszczeń odszkodowawczych z tytułu naruszenia reguł konkurencji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 39-62.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-68a43569-cf80-49b7-ab00-e8733ef54883
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.