The Escalators’ Series. Season: Private Enforcement. Episode: About the One that was not an Undertaking on the Relevant Market. Case Comment to Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 December 2019, Case C-435/18

• Authors: Kamil Dobosz

Abstracts

FR

Ce commentaire analyse l’arrêt de la Cour de justice dans la « Escalators’ Series » et ses implications potentielles. Comme les questions préjudicielles comportment plutôt des réponses claires, l’arrêt va au-delà des attentes. Son raisonnement n’est pas basé sur la nécessité de faire face à des obstacles nationaux spécifiques qui ont été principalement utilisés dans des affaires privée. Au contraire, la Cour de justice a estimé que l’article 101 du TFUE implique véritablement que toute partie endommagée sera en droit d’agir en tant que demandeur dans un litige de dommages et intérêts. Il n’y avait pas de place pour les spécificités juridiques nationales. En outre, le commentaire de l’affaire fait valoir que cette decision implique un retour à une approche plus économique dans le débat général. Ertaines réserves sont présentées dans le contexte d’une certaine tendance perceptible en ce qui concerne la manière dont la Cour de justice traite généralement les affaires. En outre, le commentaire de l’affaire fait valoir qu’il implique un retour au débat général avec une approche plus économique. Par ailleurs, certaines réserves sont présentées dans le cadre d’une certaine tendance perceptible en ce qui concerne la manière dont la Cour de justice traite en général les affaires.

EN

This case-note offers comments to the judgement of the Court of Justice in another escalators’ case and its potential implications. Given that the preliminary questions rather entail obvious response, the ruling goes beyond expectations. Its reasoning is not based on the necessity to cope with specific national obstacles that was predominantly utilized in face of private enforcement cases. Instead the Court of Justice held that genuinely Article 101 TFEU implies that, probably, any injured party will be entitled to act as a claimant in damages litigation. No room for national legal specificities was left then. Furthermore, the case comment argues that its side back is more economic approach return to the mainstream debate. Aside these and other insights, some misgivings are presented in a context of a certain noticeable tendency in terms of the fashion in which the Court of Justice in genere handles with the cases.

Keywords

EN

damages; private enforcement; Article 101 TFEU; preliminary ruling; competition law; national civil law; principle of effectiveness; more economic; approach

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 13
• Issue: 22
• Pages: 255-270

Dates

published

2020

Contributors

author

Kamil Dobosz

• Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Krakowie

• https://orcid.org/0000000324386369

References

• Bernatt, M. (2019). Rule of Law Crisis, Judiciary and Competition Law. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 4(46).
• Cruz Vilaca, J.L. da (2018). The intensity of judicial review in complex economic matters – recent competition law judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 6.
• Dobosz, K. (2018). Jednolitość stosowania prawa konkurencji Unii Europejskiej przez organy i sądy Państw Członkowskich. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
• Dobosz, K. (2018a). Od Walt Wilhelm do PZU? O relacji między krajowym i unijnym prawem konkurencji – krytyczna ocena nakładania odrębnych kar antymonopolowych. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 9.
• Dobosz, K. (2017). W stronę unifikacji systemów prawa konkurencji Unii Europejskiej i państw członkowskich – uwagi na tle orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej w zakresie spraw o charakterze czysto krajowym. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 10.
• Foer, A.A., Durst, A. (2018). The Multiple Goals Of Antitrust. The Antitrust Bulletin, 4(63).
• Kalliris, A., Pike, R. (2019). The Role of the European Commission as an Intervener in the Private Enforcement of Competition Law. Global Competition Litigation Review, 4.
• Jurkowska-Gomułka, A. (2015). How to Throw the Baby out with the Bath Water. A Few Remarks on the Currently Accepted Scope of Civil Liability for Antitrust Damages. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 8(12).
• Laborde, J.-F. (2019). Cartel damages actions in Europe: How courts have assessed cartel overcharges. Concurrences, 4.
• Libertini, M. (2019). Cumulative Enforcement of European and National Competition Law and the Ne Bis In Idem Principle. Case Comment to the Judgement of EU Court of Justice of 3 April 2019 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (Case C-617/17). Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 12(20).
• Lista, A. (2013). EU Competition Law and the Financial Services Sector. Informa Law from Routledge.
• Moisejevas, R. (2017). Passing-on of Overcharges and the Implementation of the Damages Directive in CEE Countries. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 10(15).
• Montagnani, M.L. (2007). Remedies to Exclusionary Innovation in the High-Tech Sector: Is there a Lesson from the Microsoft Saga. World Competition, 4(30).
• Ritz, C., Marx, C., Bogenreuther, M. (2019). Prima Facie Evidence in Cartel Damages Litigation – Landmark Decision by the German Federal Court of Justice in the Rail Cartel Case. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 8(10).
• Rodger, B.J., Sousa Ferro, M., Marcos, F. (2018). A Comparative View of the Implementation of the EU Antitrust Damages Directive in Sixteen Member States. Serie Jean Monnet Working Papers IE-Law School, AJ8-242-I, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3444376 (20.03.2020).
• Sousa Ferro, M., Oliveira e Costa, G. (2020). Otis: Another Great Judgement on Private Enforcement from the CJEU… But It could be Better, Competition Policy International, available at: https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/otis-another-greatjudgment-on-private-enforcement-from-the-cjeu-but-it-could-be-better/ (27.04.2020).
• Szmigielski, A. (2018). Między skutecznością równoległego stosowania prawa konkurencji Unii Europejskiej a ochroną praw podstawowych – rozważania o zakazie podwójnego karania w jednym postępowaniu antymonopolowym w świetle sprawy C-617/17, PZU. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 9.
• Caro De Sousa, P. (2018). EU and National Approaches to Passing on and Causation in Competition Damages Cases – A Doctrine in Search of Balance. Common Market Law Review, 6(55).
• Vallindas, G. (2018). Amicus Curiae: An overview of EU and national case law. e-Competitions Amicus curiae, 87106.
• Walle, S.V. (2018). Private enforcement of antitrust law in Belgium and the Netherlands – is there a race to attract antitrust damages actions?, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3183428 (17/01/2019), published in P.L. Parcu, G. Monti, M. Botta (eds), Private Enforcement Of Eu Competition Law – The Impact Of The Damages Directive, Edward Elgar.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2020.13.22.11

Biblioteka Nauki

2159074