The Condition of Fault in Private Enforcement of Competition Law – a Comparative Analysis of U.S. v. Polish and European Approach

• Authors: Marta Mackiewicz

Abstracts

FR

L’objectif de la loi polonaise sur les actions en dommages et intérêts pour les infractions au droit de la concurrence, qui se base sur le droit de l’UE et le transpose était de permettre aux entreprises d’utiliser efficacement l’exécution privée de leurs demandes de dommages et intérêts auprès des auteurs d’infractions au droit de la concurrence. La violation du droit de la concurrence est qualifiée comme un délit civil selon la loi sur les demandes d’indemnisation. Par conséquent, la loi sur les demandes d’indemnisation renvoie aux règles de responsabilité délictuelle. Les conditions de la responsabilité délictuelle classique en droit national n’ont pas exactement la même signification et portée dogmatique que les conditions de la responsabilité publique ou privée pour les infractions au droit national et européen de la concurrence. Dans la pratique, leur application par les tribunaux nationaux peut soulever de nombreuses questions concernant la conformité entre le droit national et le droit de l’UE. Le présent document vise à analyser l’une des principales conditions de la responsabilité délictuelle, à savoir la faute de l’entreprise ainsi que la faute de ses organes et dirigeants. Si on voulait comprendre la notion de faute dans les limites fixées par le droit civil, et suivre la formulation littérale des dispositions du code civil polonais relatives à la condition de faute, l’efficacité de l’exécution privée des demandes de dommages et intérêts résultant d’infractions au droit de la concurrence serait incertaine. Par conséquent, le présent article vise à fournir aux lecteurs une interprétation de la notion de faute, en tant que condition de la responsabilité des entreprises, qui permette d’atteindre l’objectif législatif de la loi sur les demandes d’indemnisation et de respecter les principes d’efficacité et d’équivalence du droit de l’UE. Afin de présenter un cadre complet, cet article examine également la jurisprudence de la CJUE concernant la “faute antitrust”, accompagnée d’une analyse comparative des approches allemande et française de la condition de faute ainsi que des lois antitrust américaines dans le même domaine.

EN

The purpose of the Polish Act on Claims for Damages for Remedying the Damage Caused by Infringements of Competition Law, based on and implementing EU law – the Damages Directive, was to enable undertakings to effectively use private enforcement of their damages claims from competition law offenders. Infringement of competition law is classified as a tort according to the said Act on Claims. Therefore, the Act on Claims refers to tort liability rules. The conditions of classic tort liability in domestic law do not have exactly the same dogmatic meaning and scope as the conditions of public or private liability for the infringements of domestic and EU competition law. In practice, their application by national courts may rise many questions regarding conformity between domestic and EU law. This paper aims to analyse one of the key conditions of tort liability, that is, the fault of both the undertaking – the offenders, as well as the fault of their governing bodies and officers. If one were to understand the notion of fault within the limits laid down by civil law, and follow the literal wording of the Polish Civil Code’s provisions referring to the fault condition, the efficiency of private enforcement of damage claims arising from infringements of competition law would be doubtful. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to provide the readers with such an interpretation of the notion of fault, as a condition of liability of undertakings, that the legislative purpose of the Act on Claims is achieved and that the principles of efficiency and equivalence of the EU law are observed. In order to present a comprehensive picture, this paper will also discuss the case law of the CJEU concerning ‘anti-trust fault’, accompanied by a comparative analysis of the German and French approach to the fault condition as well as United States antitrust laws in the same area.

Keywords

EN

anonymous fault; compensatory liability; corporate fault; infringement; of competition law; intent; interchange fees; negligence; private enforcement

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 13
• Issue: 21
• Pages: 71-98

Dates

published

2020

Contributors

author

Marta Mackiewicz

• Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego w Warszawie

• https://orcid.org/0000000180052342

References

• Ashton, D. (2018). Competition Damages Actions in the EU Law and Practice, Elgar Competition Law and Practice.
• Błaszczyk, P. (2011). Odpowiedzialność cywilna osób działających za spółkę handlową w procesie jej łączenia się, podziału i przekształcenia. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
• Cass, R.A. and Hylton, K.N. (2001). Anitrust intent, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Regulatory Policy Program.
• Dąbrowa, J. (1970). Odpowiedzialność deliktowa osoby prawnej za winę własną i cudzą, Studia Cywilistyczne, XVI.
• Fisher, M.F. (1988). Matsushita: Myth v. Analysis in the Economics of Predation, Chicago Kent Law Review, 64, 969–977.
• Geradin, D. and Henry, D. (2005). The EC Fining Policy for Violations of Competition Law: an Empirical Review of the Commission Decisional Practice and the Community Courts Judgments, European Competition Journal 1(2), 401–473; https://doi.org/10.5235/ecj.v1n2.401.
• Głowacka, A. (2016). Wina osoby prawnej. Koncepcja winy anonimowej. ACTA ERASMIANA XII.
• Gifford, D. (1986). The Role of the Ninth Circuit in the Development of the Law of Attempt to Monopolize, Notre Dame Law Review 61, 1021–23.
• Havu, K. (2014). Fault in EU law based competition restriction damages cases, Maastricht University Working Papers 16; https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2465912.
• Havu, K. (2017). Causation and Damage: What the Directive Does Not Solve – Remarks on Relevant EU law and on Finish Implementation, Conference Paper.
• Havu, K. (2019). EU competition litigation. Transposing and the first experiences of the new regime. In: Swedish Studies in European Law. Volume XII, edited by M. Strand et al.
• Jones, A. and Sufrin, B. (2011). EU Competition Law, Text, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Komninos, A. (2009). Civil Antitrust Remedies Between Community and National Law. In: The Outer Limits of European Union Law, edited by C. Barnard and O. Odudu. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing, 363–400; https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472564702.ch-015.
• Komninos, A. (2008). EC Private Antitrust Enforcement, Decentralized Application of EC Competition Law by National Courts, Oxford – Portland: Hart Publishing; https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472560216.
• Van Beal, J. and Bellis, J.F. (2010). Competition Law of the European Community, Alphen aan den Rijn:Kluwer Law International.
• Machnikowski, A. (2009). In: System Prawa Prywatnego, Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna. edited by Z. Radwański and A. Olejniczak. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
• McGown, D. (1999). Networks and Intention in Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law, 24 J. Corp. L. 24485, 513.
• Monti, G. (2010). EU competition law on European private law. In: Cambridge Companion to European Union Private Law, edited by C. Twigg-Flesner, Cambrigde University Press, 286–297; https://doi.org/10.1017/cco9780511777714.022.
• Monti, G., Parcu, P.L., Botta, M. (2018). Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: the Impact of the Damages Directive, Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Milutinovic, V. (2007). Private Enforcement, Upcoming Issues. In: EC Competition Law, A critical Assessment, edited by G. Amato and C.D. Ehlermann. Oxford – Portland: Hart Publishing.
• Milutinovic, V. (2010). Right to damages under EC Competition Law, From Courage v. Crehan to the White Paper and Beyond, Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
• Okolski, J., Modrzejewski, J., Gasiński, Ł. (2005). Odpowiedzialność członków zarządu w spółkach kapitałowych – miernik staranności. In: Prawo prywatne czasu przemian. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana prof. Stanisławowi Sołtysińskiem, edited by A. Nowicka. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
• Quinn, M.C. (1990). Predatory Pricing Strategies: The Relevance of Intent under Antitrust, Unfair Competition and Tort Law, St. John L. Rev. 64.
• Posner, R.A. (1976). Antitrust Law: An economic perspective. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
• Radwański, Z. and Olejniczak, A. (2009). System Prawa Prywatnego, Tom 6, Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
• Safjan, M. (1994). Odpowiedzialność deliktowa osób prawnych. Stan obecny i kilka uwag de lege ferenda, Studia Iuridica, XXI.
• Shepsle, K. (1991). Congress Is a ‘They” Not an „It”: Legislative Intent as Oxymoron, INT’L Rev. L. & Econ. 12.
• Śmieja, A. (2009). In: System Prawa Prywatnego, Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna. edited by Z. Radwański and A. Olejniczak. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
• Sośniak, M. (1959). Bezprawność zachowania, jako przesłanka odpowiedzialności za czyny niedozwolone. Kraków. In: Radwański, Z. i Olejniczak, A. (2009). System Prawa Prywatnego Tom 6, Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
• Stawicki, A. and Stawicki, E. (2016). Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów. Komentarz, System Informacji Prawnej Lex.
• Szumański, A. and Szwaja, J. (2008). Kodeks spółek handlowych. Tom III. Komentarz do artykułów 301–458. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
• Szpunar, A. (1947). Nadużycie prawa podmiotowego, Kraków. In: Radwański, Z.,
• Olejniczak,A. (2009). System Prawa Prywatnego, Tom 6, Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
• Wachs, W. (1999). The Microsoft Antitrust Litigation: In the Name of Competition, U. Tol. L. Rev. 30, 498–99.
• Wajda, D. (2009). Obowiązek lojalności w spółkach handlowych. Warszawa: C.H. Beck. Waelbroeck, D., Slater, D., Even – Shoshan, G. (2004). Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules, prepared for the European Commission. Comparative report, Ashurst.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2020.13.21.3

Biblioteka Nauki

2158943