Advertisement

ERA Forum

pp 1–17 | Cite as

Disclosure rules of the Antitrust Damages Directive: finding the balance between public and private enforcement

  • László Bánk VargaEmail author
  • Bálint Gábor Kovács
  • Angéla Gábri
  • Blanka Szupera
Article

Abstract

The paper investigates to what extent the principles of private and public enforcement are adhered to in antitrust damages actions. The Antitrust Damages Directive eliminated the uncertainty created in the wake of the Pfleiderer judgment and reasonably limited national judges’ scope of discretion. Competition authorities tend to rely very heavily on leniency procedures so paradoxically it is in the claimants’ interest to prevent access to and disclosure of leniency documents in follow-on actions. The paper argues that the rules applied for contemporary documents can be regarded as the major weakness of the Directive.

Keywords

Antitrust Damages Directive Disclosure Leniency 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Almunia, J.: New challenges in mergers and antitrust. IBA annual competition conference. SPEECH/11/581 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balasingham, B.: The EU Leniency Policy: Reconciling Effectiveness and Fairness. International Competition Law Series, vol. 70 (2017). Kluwer Law International Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bien, F., Negri, M., Idot, L., Petrasincu, A., Kroes, F., Franck, J., Osti, C., Prieto, C., Wagner-von Papp, F., Remien, O., Bernhard, J., Paul, T.: In: Implementation of the EU Damages Directive into Member State Law, Concurrences N3-2017, Conference, September 12, 2017, pp. 1–67 (2017) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, C.: Access to documents under Reg 1049/2001 and private enforcement of EU competition law—the CDC Hydrogene Peroxide judgment (2012). Accessed 19.11.2018. Available at https://eutopialaw.com/2012/01/18/access-to-documents-under-reg-10492001-and-private-enforcement-of-eu-competition-law-the-cdc-hydrogene-peroxide-judgment/
  5. 5.
    Butorac Malnar, V.: Access to documents in antitrust litigation—EU and Croatian perspective. In: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, vol. 2015, 8(12) (2015) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cassels, T.K., Jones, K., Pike, R.: Access to documents held by regulatory authorities (2012). Accessed 16.04.2018. Available at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6e30fc2c-85c7-4882-9517-eb4c225cf03b
  7. 7.
    De Sousa e Alvim, M.: The new EU directive on antitrust damages—a giant step forward? ECLR. Eur. Compet. Law Rev. (A4/15.444), 6/2015, 245–248 (2015) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demedts, V.: The Future of International Competition Law Enforcement. An Assessment of the EU’s Cooperation Efforts. Brill Nijhoff, Boston (2018) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forrester, I.S.: The role of the CJEU in interpreting Directive 2014/104/EU on antitrust damages actions. ERA Forum 18, 67–77 (2017) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galič, A.: Disclosure of documents in private antitrust enforcement litigation. In: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, vol. 2015, 8(12) (2015) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gulińska, A.: Collecting evidence through access to competition authorities’ files—interplay or potential conflicts between private and public enforcement proceedings? In: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, vol. 2015, vol. 8(12) (2015). Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hegymegi-Barakonyi, Z., Horányi, M.: Közjogi kontra magánjogi jogérvényesítés. In: Boytha, Gy. (ed.) Versenyjogi jogsértések esetén érvényesíthető magánjogi igények. HVG-ORAC, Budapest (2008) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henry, D.: EU’s top court rules that blanket ban on access to leniency documents is not permitted (2013). Accessed 20.12.2018. Available at https://www.mwe.com/en/thought-leadership/publications/2013/06/eus-top-court-rules-that-blanket-ban-on-access-t__
  14. 14.
    Miks, A.: Az engedékenységi iratok kezelésével kapcsolatos legújabb fejlemények. Versenytükör 2012(1), 4–15 (2012) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morfey, A., Hausfeld, M.D., Petrasincu, A.: Private enforcement: an overview of the leading cases and opinions. 25.01.2018, e-Competitions Bulletin Private enforcement, Art. N° 85639, 3 (2018) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pace, L.F.: The Court of Justice ‘Antitrust enforcement negative harmonisation framework’ and the CDC and Pfleiderer judgments: ‘Another brick in the wall’. In: Cortese, B. (ed.) EU Competition Law. Between Public and Private Enforcement (2013). Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thiede, T.: Fine to follow-on? Private anti-trust actions in European law. China EU Law J. 5, 233–263 (2017) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Waelbroeck, D., Slater, D., Even-Shoshan, G.: Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules. Comparative Report (2004). Accessed 16.07.2018. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/comparative_report_clean_en.pdf
  19. 19.
    Wright, K.: The ambit of judicial competence after the EU antitrust damages directive. Leg. Issues Eur. Integr. 43(1), 15–40 (2016) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Europäische Rechtsakademie (ERA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • László Bánk Varga
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Bálint Gábor Kovács
    • 3
  • Angéla Gábri
    • 4
  • Blanka Szupera
    • 5
  1. 1.Department for International Relations, Hungarian Academy of JusticeNational Office for the JudiciaryBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Academy of European Law (ERA)TrierGermany
  3. 3.District Court of SzombathelySzombathelyHungary
  4. 4.District Court of DebrecenDebrecenHungary
  5. 5.Budapest District Court for the IV. and XV. DistrictsBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations