Show Less
You do not have access to this content

Competition Damages Actions in the EU

Law and Practice, Second Edition

David Ashton

In this revised and much expanded second edition David Ashton provides a comprehensive review of the EU damages directive (Directive 2014/104/EU) and its implementation, bringing the book up to date with the latest advances in EU Competition Law damages actions. This edition also features insights from practising lawyers on national developments in over 10 countries across Europe and an updated, separately authored, chapter on the quantification of loss. This book will provide practising lawyers and scholars alike with a clear, well-structured and updated guide to EU Competition Law Damages.
Show Summary Details
This content is available to you

INDEX

Law and Practice, Second Edition

David Ashton

abusive behaviour

damage caused by see quantification of damages, damage caused by abusive conduct

damage estimation see quantification of damages, abusive behaviour and damage estimation

access to evidence see evidence disclosure

Amaro, R 11.253

Angrist, J 14.81

applicable law choice and Rome II Regulation 13.01–42

Article 4 and rules for specific tort claims 13.06–7, 13.31

market of forum must be ‘directly and substantially affected’ by infringement 13.14–15, 13.19

applicable law choice and Rome II Regulation, Article 6(3) and competition-based litigation 13.08–42

applicable law choice and Rome II Regulation, Article 6(3) and competition-based litigation, effects-based approach (Article 6(3)(a)) 13.29–42

damage-localisation problems and Mosaikbetrachtung13.35–8

Mosaikbetrachtung as concurrent matter of jurisdiction and applicable law 13.39–42

and supra-national markets 13.36

applicable law choice and Rome II Regulation, Article 6(3) and competition-based litigation, lex fori approach 13.11–28, 13.32

concerns 13.23–8

‘direct and substantial effect’ test 13.15–18, 13.19, 13.29

effects-based approach 13.17

foreseeability test 13.15

and forum shopping 13.15

judicial cooperation concerns 13.25–6

and policy shopping 13.28

substantive de minimis test 13.17

US law comparison 13.20–22

US law comparison, ‘direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect’ test 13.22

apportionment, quantification of damages see quantification of damages, apportionment

Arrow, K 14.17

Ashurst study 0.15

assignment of claims, collective action see collective action, assignment of claims

attribution of responsibility 8.01–44

Finland 8.28–37

Germany 8.16–21

attribution of responsibility, EU law 8.01–13

asset transfers 8.05

and Directive 8.08–12

economic succession doctrine 8.04

parental liability 8.03

successors, lack of 8.05

attribution of responsibility, national law 8.14–44

‘decisive influence’ test 8.03, 8.14, 8.22

economic succession doctrine 8.15

attribution of responsibility, national law, Austria 8.22–7

in personam liability 8.27

joint and several liability of related companies 8.22–6

attribution of responsibility, national law, Finland 8.28–37

economic succession doctrine 8.29–31, 8.33–7

effectiveness and equivalence principles 8.35

liability for damages through causal connection 8.28

parental liability 8.30–33

attribution of responsibility, national law, Germany 8.16–21

in personam liability 8.21

liability requiring fault 8.19–20

parent company and subsidiary as separate legal entities 8.17–18

undertaking concept 8.17–19

attribution of responsibility, national law, Latvia 8.38–44

economic succession doctrine 8.38, 8.40–41, 8.44

liability in damages actions 8.42–3

parental liability 8.38–9

undertaking concept 8.38

Austria

attribution of responsibility 8.22–7

Civil Code 2.41, 2.43, 3.119, 8.26, 8.80–81, 9.48–51, 9.128

Code of Civil Procedure 7.66

evidence disclosure 5.129–33

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.62

in personam liability 8.27

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.106–23

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on, third-party notice 3.109, 3.114, 3.119

interest provisions 9.127–8

joint and several liability, advantage for immunity recipients 8.80–84

joint and several liability of related companies 8.22–6

limitation periods 9.48–52

presumption of harm 7.37–9

quantification of loss 7.66

scope of damage recoverable 7.10

underlying right to damages 2.41–3

Bailey, D 7.94, 13.18

Baker, D 11.84

balance of probabilities test

causation of infringements 6.33

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.41, 3.82

Barling, G 11.117, 11.124

Basedow, J 2.53, 9.120, 11.09, 12.89

Beenders, D 12.100, 12.137

Beisner, J 11.30

bid-rigging 8.87, 9.84, 14.06, 14.07

Bishop, S 14.01

Bolotova, Y 14.19

Boos, A 3.94, 4.150, 4.155, 8.77

brand damages, indirect purchaser standing 3.09, 3.166

breach of statutory duty, underlying right to damages 2.23, 2.30, 2.33, 2.54, 2.63

Brealey, M 3.43

Bredenoord-Spoek, M 11.175, 11.247

Buccirossi, P 14.96

Bueren, E 9.107, 14.23

Bulst, W 12.92

bundled claims 3.66–70, 11.187–8, 11.204

Buntscheck, M 11.203

Burbank, S 11.238, 11.240

burden of proof

evidence disclosure 4.19, 4.33, 4.34

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.40–52, 3.56, 3.82, 3.84–5, 3.93, 3.94–6, 3.161

business opportunity loss 6.32–3

business secrets 5.88, 5.91–6, 5.97, 5.102

Buxbaum, H 11.237

causation of infringements 6.01–41

balance of probabilities test 6.33

conditio sine qua non approach 6.03–6, 6.20

contractual link between claimant and members of cartel 6.19

de facto policy 6.06

English authorities on 12.95–6

equivalence and effectiveness principles 6.16

EU competition law damages actions 6.12–30

EU law 6.09–11

EU law, extra-contractual liability 6.10

foreseeability examination 6.23–4

liability though causal connection, Finland 8.28, 8.87

loss of business opportunity claim 6.32–3

lost profits claim 6.32

national courts in competition litigation 6.31–4

national courts in competition litigation, England and Wales 6.32–3

national courts in competition litigation, Germany 6.34

place of causal event 12.51–3, 12.54–73

policy-orientated approaches 6.05–8

and quantification of damages 14.129–33

quantification of harm 6.35–41

Schutznorm concept 2.15, 2.17, 6.23, 6.25, 6.29–30

sufficiently direct consequence test 6.10, 6.23

umbrella pricing 6.24, 6.37, 6.39–40

and underlying right to damages 2.24, 2.26, 2.54

cellophane fallacy, quantification of damages 14.29

Chatel, L 11.192

civil law, evidence disclosure see evidence disclosure, access to documents, civil law

Clark, S 11.28

class actions

collective action in Member States 11.125, 11.177, 11.178–88, 11.194–200, 11.217

quantification of damages, damage caused by abusive conduct 14.45

US class actions 11.84, 11.85, 11.227–43

collective action 0.16–17, 11.01–272

alternative 11.251

categories 11.14

litigation process impact 11.09–11

multiple claim avoidance 11.12, 11.177

opt-in and opt-out mechanisms 11.05, 11.15–31

opt-in system advantages 11.19–21

opt-in system drawbacks 11.22–4

opt-out mechanisms, ‘internal class conflict’ risks 11.30

opt-out mechanisms, ‘sweetheart settlements’ 11.30

opt-out system advantages 11.25–6

opt-out system drawbacks 11.27–31

as public enforcement complement 11.02–3

Spain 11.218–22

unclaimed damages 11.21, 11.160, 11.163, 11.225

collective action, assignment of claims 11.244–72

as alternative to collective redress 11.251

EU law 11.254–9

EU law, economies of scale 11.248

EU Law, evidence restrictions 11.255, 11.257–8

national law 11.260–72

national law, Germany 11.261–7

national law, Netherlands 11.268–72

national law, Netherlands, passing-on defence 11.272

terms of assignment 11.249–50

collective action at EU level 11.32–114

data protection rules 11.77

and enforcement of substantive rights 11.40–47

EU law 11.32–77

individual standing 11.44–7

collective action at EU level, consumer protection 11.49–55

intellectual property rights 11.56–7

widespread infringement concept 11.52–5

collective action at EU level, environmental liability 11.58–76

acts and omissions by private persons 11.71–6

qualified entities 11.50, 11.70, 11.86, 11.89, 11.91–2

‘sufficient interest’ and ‘impairment of a right’ conditions 11.59–70, 11.74

collective action at EU level, policy developments 11.78–114

claimants’ eligibility conditions 11.101–3

Commission’s 2011 consultation paper 11.95–8

Commission’s 2013 collective redress initiative 11.99–110

Commission’s joint information note 11.93–4

contingency fees 11.105

cross-border collective redress 11.102

damages distribution issues 11.87

double compensation avoidance 11.87

draft Directive, Commission 0.16, 2.76, 2.81, 2.85, 3.30, 3.47, 3.53, 9.01, 9.03, 11.03, 11.87, 11.89–92

Green Paper 0.15, 2.53, 2.77, 2.79, 3.29, 7.74, 8.53, 11.82–4, 12.138, 13.04, 13.09

group actions 11.89–90

individual consumers and SMEs 11.86

limitation periods and access to damages 11.107

‘loser pays’ principle 11.104

opt-in collective actions 11.86

‘opt-in’ principle 11.104

passing-on defence 11.113–14

proposal and Directive 11.111–14

public enforcement proceedings 11.106–7

representative actions and opt-out model 11.92

representative actions and qualified entities 11.89, 11.91–2

US class action comparison 11.84, 11.85

White Paper 0.15, 2.53, 2.77, 2.79–81, 2.85, 3.47–8, 8.08, 9.113, 11.85–8, 11.250

collective action in Member States 11.115–226

collective action in Member States, England and Wales 11.116–73

BIS (2012) consultation and 2013 BIS response 11.141–51

businesses and consumers, actions on behalf of both 11.142–3

collective proceedings in practice 11.164–73

Collective Settlement Approval Order (CSAO) 11.161

collective settlement regime in the CAT 11.154–73

collective settlement regime in the CAT, authorisation of the class representative 11.155–6

collective settlement regime in the CAT, eligibility of claims 11.157–9

Competition Act (prior to 1 October 2015), Section 47B 11.127–34

competition-based actions and ‘same interest’ test 11.119–21

Consumer Rights Act (2015) 11.152–3

damages and costs 11.162–3

DTI consultation (2006) and consumer protection 11.136–8

Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) 11.124–6

Group Litigation Orders (GLOs), class action comparison 11.125

‘loser pays’ rule 11.148, 11.159, 11.162, 14.45

naming claimants on claim form 11.134

OFT recommendations (2007) and consumer protection 11.139–40

opt-in actions 11.117

opt-in and opt-out actions 11.144–6, 11.158–9

and opt-out collective action 11.133–4, 11.140, 11.147–51

pre-damages opt-in 11.144–6

private bodies, actions brought by 11.147

regime reform 11.135–51

representative actions 11.119–23, 11.138

stand-alone and follow-on cases 11.142–3

collective action in Member States, France, Consumer Code 11.189–200

class actions and loi Hamon11.194–200

joint representation actions 11.189–93

leniency applicants 11.199

stand-alone class actions 11.198

collective action in Member States, Germany 11.29, 11.201–4

bundling of proceedings 11.204

representative actions 11.202–3

collective action in Member States, Italy 11.214–17

class actions 11.217

Consumer Code 11.214–15

collective action in Member States, Netherlands 11.174–88

and Amsterdam Court of Appeal jurisdiction 11.181, 11.184

bundled claims 11.187–8

foundation or association requirements 11.175–7, 11.188

opt-out class-action mechanism 11.177, 11.178–88

Wet Collectieve Afhandeling Massaschade (WCAM) (2005) 11.176, 11.178–88

collective action in Member States, Portugal 11.223–6

follow-on cases 11.226

opt-out regime 11.223

right of initiative requirements 11.224

collective action in Member States, Spain 11.218–22

identifiable or easily identifiable consumers 11.218–19

opt-in to follow-on action 11.221

representative action 11.220

collective action in Member States, Sweden, class actions 11.205–13

Competition Damages Act 11.212–13

opt-in solutions 11.207

private action 11.211

public action 11.208–9

representative action 11.210

collective action, US class actions 11.227–43

Class Action Fairness Act (2005) 11.239–43

class certification issues 11.242

common-question actions 11.236–7

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), Rule 2311.228–38

‘inconsistent or varying adjudications’ of separate actions 11.230, 11.235

opt-out opportunities 11.233, 11.236–8

representative actions 11.234

Combe, E 14.19

commitment decisions, Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1/20034.117, 4.118, 5.09–12, 5.72, 5.73

common law discovery procedure see evidence disclosure, access to documents, common law discovery procedure

common law principle of antitrust injury 2.18–21

comparator-based methods, quantification of damages 14.98–100

competition-based litigation, and Rome II Regulation see applicable law choice and Rome II Regulation, Article 6(3) and competition-based litigation

complements, producers of 14.21, 14.33

compounding and discounting, quantification of damages 14.119–23

conditio sine qua non approach, causation of infringements 6.03–6, 6.20

connected but not identical actions, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, lis pendens rule 12.118–21

Connor, J 7.33, 14.18, 14.19

consolidation of claims, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 see jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, special jurisdiction (Articles 7(2) and 8(1)), consolidation of claims (Article 8(1))

consumer protection

collective action in Member States 11.136–40, 11.152–3, 11.214–15, 11.218–19

EU collective action see collective action at EU level, consumer protection

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.162

contingency fees, collective action at EU level 11.105

‘continuous or repeated’ infringement, limitation periods 9.01, 9.10

contractual relationship

causation of infringements 6.10, 6.19

underlying right to damages 2.22–3, 2.52–62

contribution claim

evidence disclosure 4.140

joint and several liability 8.47–51, 8.62

Cooper, E 11.11

cooperative games theory, quantification of damages 14.116–17

cost-based and profitability-based approaches, quantification of damages 14.88–92, 14.96

counterfactual scenario, quantification of damages 14.09, 14.11, 14.56, 14.57, 14.61, 14.62, 14.67, 14.72, 14.79–80, 14.93–102, 14.112

Court of Justice of the European Union

Aalborg Portland v Commission7.85

Adams v Commission5.91

AEG Telefunken v Commission8.03

AFCon Management Consultants9.122

AGC Glass5.100

Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v Commission13.01

Airtours v Commission14.14

Akzo v Commission4.76, 5.91, 5.96, 5.98, 5.99, 5.101, 5.102, 5.120, 8.02, 8.22–3

Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v SpA San Giorgio1.06

Archer Daniels7.85

AssiDomän9.19

Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission5.91, 5.99

Banks v British Coal2.01, 2.74, 3.16, 3.59, 3.62, 7.01

Bertelsmann and Sony v Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala)14.14

Bianco3.16, 3.23, 3.41

Bier v Mines de Potasse d’Alsace12.51, 12.54–63, 12.66–7, 13.40–41

Brasserie du Pêcheur1.06, 1.07, 1.11, 1.14, 2.71, 2.79, 6.11

BRT v SABAM1.07

Camar2.72

CDC Hydrogen Peroxide v Akzo Nobel2.01, 2.57–61, 4.71–6, 11.244–7, 11.256, 12.19–39, 12.40, 12.54, 12.56, 12.59–60, 12.62, 12.76–80, 12.83–5, 12.99

CIF v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato7.20

Commission and France v Ladbroke Racing7.20

Commission v Agrofert Holding4.86

Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob4.86

Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau4.91

Crehan0.14, 1.03, 1.06, 2.01–24, 2.84, 3.12, 3.15–16, 3.35, 3.36, 3.74, 3.79, 6.12, 6.26, 11.47

Crehan, underlying right to damages see damages, underlying right to, Crehan case

Defrenne v Sabena1.09

Dekker2.73, 2.74

Delimitis v Henninger Bräu2.12

Donau Chemie2.28, 4.92–7, 4.103, 4.114, 4.127–9, 6.26, 7.38

Drouot12.106, 12.108, 12.109, 12.110

Dumez France v Hessische Landesbank12.58

Dumortier Frères3.18, 6.10

Dyestuffs13.18

Eco Swiss3.06

eDate Advertising12.58

EnBW Energie4.71, 4.77–83, 4.88–9, 4.96

ETI8.04, 8.05

Evonik Degussa v Commission4.76, 5.91, 5.98, 5.99, 5.104, 5.108, 5.110–13

Factortame III1.06

Fantask v Industriministeriet1.06

First and Franex4.107

flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines2.59–60, 12.54

Folien Fischer and Fofitec v Ritrama12.69–73

Francovich v Italian Republic1.06, 1.11, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 2.06, 2.07, 6.11, 6.14

Freeport12.80

Gas Insulated Switchgear4.77, 4.136

Gencor13.15, 13.16, 13.18

Greenpeace11.35

Grifoni v EAEC9.116

Gubisch Maschinenfabrik v Palumbo12.120

Hoffmann v Krieg12.115, 12.131

Homawoo v GMF Assurances13.05

ICI v Commission13.18

Ireks-Arkady3.17–18, 3.21, 3.35, 3.43

Irimie9.116

Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary1.12

Just v Danish Ministry for Fiscal Affairs1.06, 3.16, 3.19–22, 3.35

Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder12.74

Kone2.28, 3.05, 3.98, 6.19–30, 6.37, 6.39–40

Laboratoires Boiron v Urssaf de Lyon4.57

Land Berlin v Ellen Mirjam Sapir12.12

Littlewoods9.123–5

Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni1.04, 2.09, 2.25–8, 2.84, 3.10, 3.15, 3.79, 6.12, 6.13, 6.17, 7.01, 7.05, 7.11, 7.57, 7.73, 7.76, 7.78, 9.01–2, 9.10, 9.108–9, 9.113, 11.47

Marinari v Lloyds Bank12.58

Marshall II1.01, 9.109–10, 9.113–15

MasterCard v Commission4.68

Masterfoods5.03, 5.14, 5.27, 7.89–90

Michailidis3.16, 3.21, 3.26, 3.59

Mulder9.116, 9.121

Muñoz11.34, 11.44–5, 11.74

Netherlands v Commission4.71, 4.84–91, 4.94

Netherlands v Ruffer12.58

Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund11.37–8

Otis2.27, 2.84, 5.06, 5.08, 5.23, 6.14, 6.26

Overseas Union Insurance v New Hampshire Insurance12.122

Owens Bank v Bracco12.131, 12.132, 12.134–5

Owusu12.07

Painer12.80, 12.81

Pergan Hilfsstoffe4.147–8, 5.96, 5.132

Pfleiderer2.27, 4.92, 4.96, 4.98–105, 4.114, 4.122–4, 4.127–9, 4.137–9, 4.145, 4.148, 4.153–4, 4.190, 5.109, 6.26, 10.06

Postbank4.107

Powell Duffryn12.23

ProRail v Xpedys4.36

R v Secretary of State for Transport (Factortame I)1.06

Reisch Montage12.74, 12.84

Rewe-Zentralfinanz and Rewe-Zentral v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland1.01

Roche Nederland12.80, 12.99

San Giorgio3.16, 3.28, 3.40, 3.43, 3.60

Schenker4.134

Shevill12.52–3, 12.54–63, 13.39–42

Société Comateb1.06, 3.16, 3.21, 3.24–5, 3.59

Steenhorst-Neerings1.01

Sumitomo Chemical5.132

Sutton1.01

The Tatry12.73, 12.104, 12.108, 12.110, 12.113, 12.115, 12.121, 12.131

Toshiba7.86

UGIC v Group Josi12.14

Unectef v Heylens1.12

Van Gend en Loos0.05, 1.15, 1.16

Versalis8.03, 8.05

Von Colson1.01, 2.73

Weber’s Wine World3.21, 3.24, 3.25, 3.26–7, 3.41, 3.42, 3.44–5

Wood Pulp I13.18, 13.19

Zwartveld4.107

Crane, D 0.06

data protection rules, collective action at EU level 11.77

Davis, J 11.10

Davis, P 14.61

De Jong, J 11.182

De la Mare, T 9.27

De Leeuw, M 4.67

de minimus test 13.17

dead weight loss (DWL), quantification of damages 14.10, 14.11

decentralisation of enforcement of EU competition law 0.08, 5.128

‘decisive influence’ test, attribution of responsibility 8.03, 8.14, 8.22

Dehez, P 14.116

Delatre, J 11.30

Deutlmoser, R 11.201

Dickinson, A 13.40

difference-in-differences analysis, quantification of damages 14.60, 14.81–5, 14.96

direct injury requirement, underlying right to damages 2.24

‘direct and substantial effect’ test 13.15–18, 13.19, 13.29

disclosure of evidence see evidence disclosure

discounting damages, quantification of damages 14.119–23

double compensation avoidance 11.87

draft Directive, Commission 0.16, 2.76, 2.81, 2.85, 3.30, 3.47, 3.53, 9.01, 9.03, 11.03, 11.87, 11.89–92

economic loss, price effect and direct economic loss, indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.10, 3.28, 3.105

economic succession doctrine

attribution of responsibility, EU law 8.04

attribution of responsibility, national law 8.15

Finland 8.29–31, 8.33–7

Latvia 8.38, 8.40–41, 8.44

effectiveness principle see equivalence and effectiveness principles

effects-based approach, applicable law choice see applicable law choice and Rome II Regulation, Article 6(3) and competition-based litigation, effects-based approach (Article 6(3)(a))

Eilmansberger, T 1.14

England and Wales

access to documents and French blocking statute 4.38–47

BIS (2012) consultation and 2013 BIS response 11.141–51

causation of infringements 6.32–3

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 8.48

collective action see collective action in Member States, England and Wales

Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) 2.32, 3.75, 3.80, 3.82, 5.40–55, 6.32–3, 7.93–8, 9.25–33, 9.36, 10.18–19, 11.116–18, 11.130–31, 11.154–73

conduct calculated to make a profit which may well exceed the compensation payable 7.82–3, 7.86, 7.94

consolidation of claims 12.87–97

Consumer Rights Act 5.41, 9.25, 10.19, 11.152–3

Damages Act 3.83–6

disclosure rules and Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 4.13, 4.15

DTI consultation (2006) and consumer protection 11.136–8

Enterprise Act 11.116, 11.126–7

evidence disclosure 4.136–49

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.13–19, 5.40–55

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions, deference to previous decisions 5.14–17

follow-on damages 9.32

founding jurisdiction in tortious actions 12.64–8

Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) 11.124–6

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.75–86

joint and several liability 8.48

leniency documents 4.138, 4.140–41, 4.144, 7.87, 7.95

limitation periods 9.06, 9.18, 9.25–36

lis pendens rule 12.129–35

ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) principle 7.84–7, 7.88–9, 7.94

OFT recommendations (2007) and consumer protection 11.139–40

opt-out collective actions 10.19

presumption of harm 7.33

proportionality principle and evidence disclosure 4.139–41, 4.149

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.18–19

quantification of loss 7.55–7

and restitutionary damages 7.90

underlying right to damages 2.30–33, 2.63

England and Wales, cases

Albion Water v D.r Cymru Cyfyngedig7.98–102

Arcadia Group Brands v Visa9.35

BCL/BASF3.80, 9.33

Bord Na Mona5.13, 12.64–5, 12.97

Cardiff Bus6.32, 7.91–7, 7.101

Consumers Association v JJB Sports11.128–34, 11.193

Cooper Tire & Rubber3.81, 8.06, 12.61, 12.67, 12.69, 12.90, 12.93, 12.96, 12.108, 12.109, 12.110, 12.131–5, 12.139–40, 13.15

Courage Ltd v Crehan2.13

Crehan2.11–14, 2.29, 5.14–18, 7.55–7

Davies v Swan Motor Co8.48

Deutsche Bahn9.18, 9.31–2, 10.06, 12.66

Devenish7.81–3, 7.86–7, 7.95

Dubai Aluminium v Salaam8.48

Emerald Supplies v British Airways2.33, 4.148, 11.120–23

Emerson Electric v Morgan Crucible5.51–5, 9.30–31

Enron I5.36, 5.43–50

Enron II6.32–3

Ferrexpo v Gilson Investments12.135

Garden Cottage Foods2.31

Gibson v Pride Mobility Products11.166–71

Healthcare at Home v Genzyme6.32

Infederation Limited v Google5.22

JJB Sports and Allsports v Office of Fair Trading11.130

Kolden Holdings v Rodette Commerce12.108, 12.109

Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire7.72

MasterCard5.19

Merricks v MasterCard11.172

Microsoft Mobile v Sony Europe12, 42

National Grid4.38–47, 4.98, 4.124, 4.136–45, 4.149, 10.06

Nomura International v Banca MonteDei Paschi Di Siena12.135

Pan Atlantic Insurance v Pine Top Insurance11.122

Peugeot Citroen Automobiles UK v Pilkington Group9.36

Prentice v DaimlerChrysler11.126

‘Price fixing in Toys’ cartel case 11.23

Provimi2.54, 8.14, 12.18, 12.68, 12.87–91, 12.94–6, 12.116, 12.131

Rookes v Barnard 794, 7.80

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v MasterCard3.75–7, 3.82, 3.86, 10.19

Servier4.17, 4.43, 4.146–8

Tesco v MasterCard3.78

Toshiba Carrier12.93

UBS v Regione Calabria12.135

Umbro Holdings, Manchester United, Allsports, JJB Sports v Office of Fair Trading11.130

environmental liability, collective action at EU level see collective action at EU level, environmental liability

equivalence and effectiveness principles 1.04, 2.82–3, 3.10, 4.129, 6.16, 7.38, 8.35, 9.23, 9.109, 9.124–5

estimation of share of overcharge, indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.63–70

European Commission

attribution of responsibility see attribution of responsibility, EU law

causation of infringements 6.09–11, 6.10, 6.12–30

collective action see collective action at EU level

draft Directive 0.16, 2.76, 2.81, 2.85, 3.30, 3.47, 3.53, 9.01, 9.03, 11.03, 11.87, 11.89–92

evidence disclosure see evidence disclosure

evidential value see evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions, Commission decisions: Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

exemplary (punitive) damages 7.73–8

Green Paper 0.15, 2.53, 2.77, 2.79, 3.29, 7.74, 8.53, 11.82–4, 12.138, 13.04, 13.09

interest provisions see interest provisions, EU law

IPRs Directive 5.124–5

joint and several liability see joint and several liability, EU law

Late Payment Directive 9.118–20

limitation periods see limitation periods, EU law

private enforcement initiative 0.15–25

Product Liability Directive 2.75

quantification of loss 7.51–4

Regulation (EC) No 44/20012.60, 3.68, 4.88, 4.100, 4.110, 4.117–18, 4.131, 12.04, 12.06, 12.138–40

Regulation (EC) No 1049/20014.68

Regulation (EC) No 1206/20014.35

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 see Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

Regulation (EC) No 773/20044.62, 4.132, 4.186

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, jurisdictional issues see jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

scope of damage recoverable 7.01–7

underlying right to damages 2.01–14, 2.25–8

White Paper 0.15, 2.53, 2.77, 2.79–81, 2.85, 3.47–8, 8.08, 9.113, 11.85–8, 11.250

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, right to a fair trial 1.12

European Court of Human Rights

Gorraiz Lizarraga v Spain11.32

Lithgow v United Kingdom11.32

Pressos Compania Naviera v Belgium11.259

evidence disclosure 4.01–191

evidence held by a party or third party 4.01–61

evidential value of public enforcement decisions 4.05–7

‘follow-on’ actions 4.05–7

leniency programme 4.04, 4.14

settlement programme 4.03

evidence disclosure, access to documents, civil law 4.18–34

access to probative documents after initiation of proceedings 4.21–34

access to probative documents prior to initiation of proceedings 4.20

burden of proof 4.19, 4.33, 4.34

disclosure restrictions 4.23, 4.26, 4.31

Evidence Regulation, access under 4.35–47

expert witnesses 4.22

evidence disclosure, access to documents, common law discovery procedure 4.12–17

access to documents held by third parties 4.15–17

discovery tradition 4.12–13, 4.27, 4.29, 4.48, 4.55

fishing expeditions 4.54

evidence disclosure, access to documents, Directive rules

disclosure of evidence held by a party or a third party 4.48–61

discretion for national court to order disclosure 4.57–60

proportionality test 4.53–4

relevance requirement 4.51–2, 4.56

sanctions 4.50, 4.61

evidence disclosure, evidence included in file of competition authority 4.62–191

evidence disclosure, evidence included in file of competition authority, Commission file 4.62–97

application under the Access to Documents Regulation 4.67–97

application under the Access to Documents Regulation, exceptions 4.69–97

application under the Access to Documents Regulation, review obligation 4.82

cartel damages actions 4.71–97, 4.98–105

legal framework 4.62–6

leniency programmes 4.69–70, 4.74, 4.76–7, 4.80–81, 4.86, 4.88, 4.92

public interest in disclosure 4.70, 4.78, 4.88, 4.91, 4.95

restrictions 4.62–3

evidence disclosure, evidence included in file of competition authority, Commission file or NCA 4.98–191

Commission’s attempts to limit discoverability in US courts, and leniency programmes 4.183, 4.186, 4.189

contribution claim 4.140

Directive Article 6(5) 4.117, 4.119, 4.127, 4.133–5

Directive Article 6(5), non-appealing infringers 4.134–5

equivalence and effectiveness principles 4.129

EU courts 4.98–105

leniency documents 4.99–100, 4.104–5, 4.108, 4.114, 4.116, 4.120–23, 4.126–7, 4.130, 4.183, 4.186, 4.189

national court request under Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/20034.131

pre-existing information 4.122–4

proceeding closed by means of a commitment decision 4.117–18

rules introduced by Directive 4.106–35

settlement decisions taken in accordance with Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 4.132

evidence disclosure, evidence included in file of competition authority, Commission file or NCA, national law 4.136–91

Finland 4.158

Italy 4.179–81

Italy, suspension of the civil proceedings 4.181

Lithuania 4.159–60

Netherlands 4.157

Portugal 4.182

US, Commission’s attempts to limit discoverability in US courts 4.183–91

US, Commission’s attempts to limit discoverability in US courts, comity arguments 4.187–9

evidence disclosure, evidence included in file of competition authority, Commission file or NCA, national law, England and Wales 4.136–49

legitimate expectations and proportionality principle 4.139–41, 4.149

leniency documents 4.138, 4.140–41, 4.144

evidence disclosure, evidence included in file of competition authority, Commission file or NCA, national law, France 4.161–78

Directive implementation effects 4.167–8

information prepared for competition authority 4.178

leniency documents 4.169–70

settlement and commitment proceedings 4.171–7

evidence disclosure, evidence included in file of competition authority, Commission file or NCA, national law, Germany 4.150–56

exceptions 4.151–3

leniency documents 4.152–5

evidence disclosure, publication of information relating to an infringement by the Commission or an NCA 5.88–133

evidence disclosure, publication of information relating to an infringement by the Commission or an NCA, Commission decisions 5.88–117

leniency materials protection 5.97–105

leniency materials protection, principles of legitimate expectations 5.113

leniency materials protection, risk of being held liable in civil proceedings 5.99–100, 5.109–12

public interest considerations 5.98, 5.102–4

relevant provisions of Directive 5.114–17

relevant provisions of Directive, exemptions for leniency statements 5.116–17

specific protection under Commission’s leniency Notice 5.106–13

summary publication and Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.1035.89–90

undertakings protection, ‘business secrets’ and ‘professional secrecy 5.88, 5.91–6, 5.97, 5.102

evidence disclosure, publication of information relating to an infringement by the Commission or an NCA, NCA decisions 5.118–33

Austria 5.129–33

and IPRs Directive 5.124–5

policy objective of increased decentralisation of the enforcement of EU competition law 0.08, 5.128

publication of information specific to individual participants 5.123–7, 5.131–3

evidence restrictions, collective action, assignment of claims 11.255, 11.257–8

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.01–87

Commission infringement decisions binding on national courts 5.04–7

NCA decisions: Article 9 of the Directive 5.27–37

NCA decisions: Article 9 of the Directive, final decisions 5.30–32

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions, Commission decisions: Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1/20035.02–26

commitment decisions 4.117, 4.118, 5.09–12, 5.72, 5.73

and national courts 5.13–37

and national courts, England and Wales 5.13–19

and national courts, England and Wales, deference to previous decisions 5.14–17

and national courts, Netherlands 5.20–23

and national courts, Portugal 5.24–6

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions, NCA decisions, evidential value in national law 5.38–87

Austria 5.62

England and Wales, Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) 5.40–55

England and Wales, precise identity of the parties on whom administrative decisions are binding 5.49–55

Finland 5.64

France 5.71–4

Germany 5.56–61

Italy 5.75–81

Italy, judicial review 5.77

Italy, limit to binding nature of administrative decisions 5.81

Latvia 5.65–7

Lithuania 5.68–70

Netherlands 5.63

Portugal 5–85–7

Spain 5.82–4

exclusionary abuse, quantification of damages see quantification of damages, abusive behaviour and damage estimation, exclusionary abuse

‘excusable error’ rule suggestion, damages, underlying right to 2.77–8, 2.81

exemplary (punitive) damages 7.72–102

EU law 7.73–8

exemplary (punitive) damages, national law 7.79–102

Germany 7.79

exemplary (punitive) damages, national law, England and Wales 7.80–102

conduct calculated to make a profit which may well exceed the compensation payable 7.82–3, 7.86, 7.94

exceptional circumstances 7.80

identity of interest 7.86, 7.94

leniency programmes 7.87, 7.95

ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) principle 7.84–7, 7.88–9, 7.94

and restitutionary damages 7.90

expert witnesses, evidence disclosure 4.22

exploitative abuse 14.51–4, 14.94–6

fair trial right 1.12–13

Fallon, M 2.53

fault requirement 2.63–85, 8.19–20

Ferey, S 14.116

Finland

access to documents 4.26

antitrust damages claims 2.68

attribution of responsibility 8.28–37

Competition Damages Act 5.64, 7.41–2, 8.29, 8.86–7, 9.62–3, 9.129–30, 10.22

economic succession doctrine 8.29–31, 8.33–7

effectiveness and equivalence principles 8.35

evidence disclosure 4.158

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.64

Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) 4.158, 9.62, 10.22–3

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.141–2

interest provisions 9.106, 9.129–31

joint and several liability 8.85–7

liability for damages through causal connection 8.28

limitation periods 9.57–63

Limitations Act 8.86, 9.63

parental liability 8.30–33

presumption of harm 7.41–2

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.22–3

time-barred liability 8.86

Finland, cases

Asphalt Cartel4.158, 5.64, 7.42, 8.30–37, 8.85, 8.87, 9.106, 9.129, 9.130

Car Spare Parts Cartel3.142, 5.64, 7.42

CDC Hydrogen Peroxide Cartel Damage Claims v Kemira Oyj12.42, 12.43–4

Radio Nova v Gramex7.42

Timber Cartel7.42

fishing expeditions, evidence disclosure 4.54

follow-on actions

collective action in Member States 11.142–3, 11.226

evidence disclosure 4.05–7

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.148–9

and limitation periods 9.05, 9.09, 9.11–13, 9.32, 9.83–7, 9.96

quantification of damages 14.109–14

see also stand-alone actions

foreseeability test 6.23–4, 12.25, 12.32–9, 13.15

forum shopping 9.117, 12.10, 12.68, 12.95, 12.102, 12.139, 13.15

founding jurisdictions in tortious action, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 see jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, special jurisdiction (Articles 7(2) and 8(1)), founding jurisdiction in tortious actions (Article 7(2))

France

access to documents 4.19, 4.38–42

annulment cases 9.82

antitrust damages actions 2.44–6, 2.64–5

class actions and loi Hamon11.194–200

collective action 11.189–200

Consumer Code 3.162, 11.189–200

evidence disclosure 4.161–78

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.71–4

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.144–51

joint representation actions 11.189–93

joint and several liability 8.49

leniency documents 4.169–70, 11.199

limitation periods 9.81–92

presumption of harm 7.44

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.28–34

scope of damage recoverable 7.09

stand-alone class actions 11.198

starting-point in follow-on damage claims 9.83–7

underlying right to damages 2.44–6, 2.64–5

France, cases

Ajinomoto Eurolysine3.22, 3.145–7, 3.150, 7.09

DKT International4.175–7, 5.73, 7.09, 7.44, 10.32

Eco-emballage4.176

JCB Sales5.71, 9.90

Les Sociétés Coopérative Le Gouessant et Sofral3.148

Lycées d’île de France9.84, 9.89

Orange Caraibes 10.71

Outremer telecom4.164

‘Que Choisir/mobile phone operators’ case 11.190–93

SARL Philippe Streiff Motorsport/SAS Speedy2.64

SAS Ma Liste de Courses/Société High4.165

Semavem4.163

UGAP/CAMIF10.28

Francq, S 2.53, 13.15

Friederiszick, H 14.02, 14.61

full compensation principle 3.38–9, 7.04–13, 9.110

Fumagalli, C 14.103, 14.108, 14.128

Garcés, E 14.61

Gateau, C 11.193

Gaudet, R 11.27, 11.30

Geradin, D 4.191

Germany

access to documents 4.24–5

antitrust damages claims 2.34–40

attribution of responsibility 8.16–21

bundling of proceedings 11.204

causation of infringements 6.34

Civil Code 2.37, 2.40, 2.66–7, 3.91, 3.102, 7.08, 8.20, 8.76, 9.42–4, 9.47, 9.126, 11.264

Code of Civil Procedure 2.36

collective action 11.29, 11.201–4, 11.261–7

evidence disclosure 4.150–56

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.56–61

exemplary (punitive) damages 7.79

in personam liability 8.21

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.87–105, 3.116–17

interest provisions 9.126

joint and several liability 8.76–9

leniency documents 4.152–5

liability requiring fault 8.19–20

limitation periods 9.37–47

negligent ignorance cases 9.41

parent company and subsidiary as separate legal entities 8.17–18

presumption of harm 7.34–6

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.20

quantification of loss 7.58–65

representative actions 11.202–3

restitution on grounds of unjust enrichment 9.47

scope of damage recoverable 7.08

umbrella purchasers 3.97–100

underlying right to damages 2.34–40, 2.66–70

undertaking concept 8.17–19

Germany, cases

Aufzugskartell8.17

Autoglas-Kartell3.89, 3.95, 3.96, 4.25, 5.58, 7.35

Badarmaturen8.21

Berliner Transportbeton7.35

CDC/Dyckerhoff11.261–7, 12.42, 12.85

Dornbracht8.21

Einsicht in Strafakten4.155

Fernsehwerbezeiten5.59

Grauzementkartell5.61, 7.35, 7.64, 7.65, 8.76, 8.78, 8.79, 9.36, 9.44

Kaffeeröster4.152

Löschfahrzeuge7.35, 7.61

Lottoblock II5.60, 7.62, 7.63, 7.65, 8.76

ORWI3.89–91, 3.104, 3.116, 3.122, 7.65

Papiergroβhandel7.35, 7.61

Schadenersatzpflicht der Lottogesellschaft5.59, 7.58, 7.59, 7.62, 7.63

Schadensersatz in Altfällen7.35, 8.17

Schienenfreunde3.97, 3.100, 3.105, 5.61, 7.35, 8.21, 9.126

Schutznorm2.15, 2.17, 6.23, 6.25, 6.29–30

Selbstdurchschreibepapier7.64

Spanplattenkartell7.35, 9.40

Versicherungsfusion8.18

Vitaminpreise Dortmund5.57, 7.64

Zementkartell7.58, 9.44, 9.47, 11.264, 11.269

Goldberg, P 3.178

Grafunder, R 4.132

Green, E 14.48

Green Paper, Commission 0.15, 2.53, 2.77, 2.79, 3.29, 7.74, 8.53, 11.82–4, 12.138, 13.04, 13.09

Gregory, A 14.91

Griffin, J 14.19

group actions 11.89–90, 11.124–6

see also collective action

Gujarati, D 14.125

Hamilton, J 14.63

harmonisation of remedies 1.10, 1.17–18

Harrington, J 14.71, 14.124

Harris, C 11.28

Haus, F 8.17, 8.18, 8.19, 11.204

Heim, L 8.19

Heinichen, C 4.155

Hellner, M 13.17, 13.31

Hellwig, M 14.36

Hess, B 13.42

Hofstee, W 12.100, 12.137

Holmes, M 11.126

Hovenkamp, H 11.07

Hungary

NCA decisions, evidential value 5.39

presumption of harm 7.49–50

Hüschelrath, K 14.125

illegally-charged levies 3.19–27, 9.123–5

‘impairment of a right’ condition, collective action at EU level 11.59–70, 11.74

in personam liability 8.21, 8.27

‘inconsistent or varying adjudications’ of separate actions 11.230, 11.235

Inderst, R 3.99, 14.14, 14.29, 14.87, 14.124

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.01–191

balance of probabilities test 3.41, 3.82

brand damages 3.09, 3.166

bundling of claims 3.66–70

burden of proof 3.40–52, 3.56, 3.82, 3.84–5, 3.93, 3.94–6, 3.161

effectiveness principle 3.10

full compensation principle 3.38–9

harm in antitrust legislation 3.04–11

indirect purchaser standing 3.12–14, 3.56–7, 3.92, 3.94–6

loss types 3.07–8

lost sales effect 3.07–10, 3.22–30

national courts’ estimation of share of overcharge 3.63–70

own fault concept 3.101–2

partial passing-on and supply chain levels 3.05, 3.59–72, 3.158–61, 3.183

passing-on defence 3.15–72, 3.85

passing-on defence, Article 340(2) TFEU 3.17–18

passing-on defence, recovery of illegally-levied duties 3.19–27

presumption of harm 3.58

presumption of passing-on 3.53–8

price effect and direct economic loss 3.10, 3.28, 3.105

profits adjustment 3.116–17

proving passing-on as defence 3.46–9

proving passing-on offensively 3.50–52

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and burden of proof 3.51–2

social losses 3.08–9

supply chains and ‘umbrella purchasers’ 3.05

unjust enrichment 3.19, 3.21–30, 3.32–9, 3.41, 3.44, 3.59, 3.104, 3.166, 3.182

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on, national law 3.73–191

Austria 3.106–23

Austria, indirect purchaser standing 3.106–11

Austria, passing-on defence 3.112–23

Austria, profits adjustment 3.116–17

Austria, third-party notice 3.109, 3.114, 3.119

England and Wales 3.75–86

England and Wales, Damages Act 3.83–6

England and Wales, indirect purchaser standing 3.75–8

England and Wales, passing-on defence 3.79–86

Finland 3.141–2

France 3.144–51

France, follow-on damages action 3.148–9

Germany 3.87–105

Germany, burden of proof as regards indirect purchaser claims 3.94–6

Germany, indirect purchaser standing 3.87–100

Germany, passing-on 3.95–6

Germany, passing-on defence 3.101–5, 3.116, 3.122

Germany, profits adjustment 3.116–17

Germany, umbrella purchasers 3.97–100

Italy 3.152–62

Italy, consumer protection provisions 3.162

Lithuania 3.143

Netherlands 3.124–40

Netherlands, passing-on defence 3.128–40

Portugal 3.168

Spain 3.163–7

Spain, indirect purchaser standing 3.163–5

Spain, passing-on defence 3.166–7

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on, national law, US 3.169–91

antitrust injury 3.170–71

Class Action Fairness Act 3.191

‘co-conspirator’ exception 3.188

‘cost-plus’ exception 3.187

direct purchaser identification 3.183–4

‘harmonisation’ statutes 3.190

indirect purchaser standing 3.179–84

indirect purchaser standing, efficiency of rule 3.190–91

indirect purchaser standing, exceptions 3.185–9

‘ownership or control’ exception 3.186

passing-on defence 3.172–8, 3.186

unjust enrichment doctrine 3.182

individual participants

collective action at EU level 11.44–7, 11.86

in personam liability 8.21, 8.27

publication of information specific to 5.123–7, 5.131–3

rights protection and interim relief 1.06

underlying right to damages 2.09

infringements, causation of see causation of infringements

innovation effects, damage caused by abusive conduct 14.17

intellectual property rights

collective action at EU level, consumer protection 11.56–7

IPRs Directive 5.124–5

interest, ‘actual loss’ and ‘loss of profit’, plus interest 7.01–13

interest provisions 9.105–34

interest provisions, EU law 9.108–25

and applicable national rules 9.114–15

and equivalence and effectiveness principles 9.109, 9.124–5

forum shopping 9.117

full compensation principle 9.110

Late Payment Directive 9.118–20

non-contractual liability of the Union 9.121–2

period in respect of which interest is due 9.113–16

recovery of illegally-charged levies 9.123–5

interest provisions, national law 9.126–34

Austria 9.127–8

Finland 9.106, 9.129–31

Germany 9.126

Lithuania 9.132–4

intermediary product, quantification of damages 14.37, 14.42

internal class conflict risks, collective action 11.30

Issacharoff, S 11.24

Italy

access to documents and burden of proof 4.32–4

Civil Code 7.13, 7.68, 8.92, 9.94

class actions 11.217

collective action 11.214–17

Consumer Code 3.162, 11.214–15

consumer protection provisions 3.162

evidence disclosure 4.179–81

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.75–81

follow-on actions and consumers or undertakings differences 9.96

Implementing Decree 3.157, 3.160, 4.32, 4.180, 5.76–7, 5.80, 7.13, 7.45–7, 8.92–6, 9.94–5, 10.35–7, 11.216–17

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.152–62

joint and several liability 8.92–7

judicial review, evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.77

limitation periods 9.93–7

presumption of harm 7.45–7

proportionality principle 10.38

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.35–8

quantification of loss 7.67–8

scope of damage recoverable 7.11–13

SME exemption, joint and several liability, national law 8.94–7

Italy, cases

Alitalia/AGCM4.32

Brennercom/Telecom5.78

BT Italia/Vodafone9.96

Comi/Cargest4.33–4

International Broker/Refining Companies3.156

Manfredi7.49

Swiss International Airlines/SEA3.155

Telecom Italia/Albacom5.75

Teleunit/Telecom9.96

Teleunit/Vodafone5.79

Uno Communications/Telecom9.96

VIH/Juventus FC3.153–4

Jakubovic, Z 14.124

Jang, H 14.113

joint representation actions, collective action in Member States 11.189–93

joint and several liability 8.45–97

arbitration clauses, joint and several liability, jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/201212.45

bid-rigging 8.87

jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, special jurisdiction (Articles 7(2) and 8(1)) 12.61

limitation periods, EU law, exemption for joint and several liability for immunity recipients 9.17–22

quantification of damages, apportionment of damages 14.115–16

related companies, Austria 8.22–6

joint and several liability, EU law 8.46–75

contribution claim (infringers bringing proceedings between themselves) 8.47–51, 8.62

leniency and immunity recipients 8.52–67

leniency and immunity recipients, conditional rebate 8.53

leniency and immunity recipients, imitation periods 8.60

‘relative responsibility’ consideration 8.50, 8.63, 8.76

SME rules 8.68–75

joint and several liability, national law 8.76–97

Austria, advantage for immunity recipients 8.80–84

England and Wales 8.48

Finland 8.85–7

Finland, and causality 8.87

Finland, participation in cartel for entire duration 8.85

Finland, time-barred liability 8.86

France 8.49

Germany 8.76–9

Germany, contesting claimant’s factual statements by means of pleading lack of knowledge 8.78–9

Italy 8.92–7

Italy, immunity recipients 8.96

Italy, SME exemption 8.94–7

Latvia 8.88–91

Jones, A 0.06

judicial cooperation concerns, lex fori approach 13.25–6

jurisdictional issues 12.01–140

court choices 12.08–10

forum shopping 12.10, 12.68, 12.95, 12.102, 12.139

parallel proceedings problems 12.10

jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/201212.04–45

application to parties domiciled outside EU 12.11–14

arbitration clauses 12.40–45

arbitration clauses, joint and several liability 12.45

foreseeability test 12.25, 12.32–9

general jurisdiction (Article 4(1)) 12.15–16, 13.13

jurisdiction agreements (Article 25) 12.17–45

jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, lis pendens rule 12.102–40

actions between same parties 12.105–10, 12.126–7

application by national courts 12.129–37

application to concurrent litigation brought outside the EU 12.124–8

application to parties domiciled outside the EU 12.122–3

Article 2912.104–11, 12.126–7, 12.136–7, 12.140

Article 30 and related actions 12.112–21, 12.129–35, 12.136–7, 12.139

Article 30 and related actions, irreconcilability for purposes of Article 30(3) 12.115–17

conflicting decisions 12.115–16, 12.119–20, 12.130, 12.139

connected but not identical actions 12.118–21

Dutch authorities on 12.136–7

English authorities on 12.129–35

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 review 12.138–40

and ‘same cause of action’ 12.103, 12.104, 12.123, 12.125–6

jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Mosaikbetrachtung problem 12.45

party unaware of infringement 12.20–25, 12.30

jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, special jurisdiction (Articles 7(2) and 8(1)) 12.46–101

Article 4 general jurisdiction rule 12.47–9

civil claim for damages or restitution based on act giving rise to criminal proceedings 12.47

founding jurisdiction in tortious actions (Article 7(2)) 12.51–73

joint and several liability 12.61

operations of a branch, agency or other establishment 12.47

place of causal event 12.51–3, 12.54–73

separate actions 12.59, 12.62

unjust enrichment 12.47

jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, special jurisdiction (Articles 7(2) and 8(1)), consolidation of claims (Article 8(1)) 12.74–101, 13.13, 13.14, 13.42

Dutch application 12.98–101

Dutch application, torpedo action 12.100

English authorities on 12.87–97

jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, special jurisdiction (Articles 7(2) and 8(1)), founding jurisdiction in tortious actions (Article 7(2)) 12.51–73

jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, special jurisdiction (Articles 7(2) and 8(1)), consolidation of claims (Article 8(1))

‘same situation of fact’ condition 12.77, 12.83, 12.99

English authorities on, causation interpretation 12.95–6

English authorities on, ‘undertaking’ interpretation 12.89–92

jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, special jurisdiction (Articles 7(2) and 8(1)), founding jurisdiction in tortious actions (Article 7(2))

application of Bier/Shevill jurisprudence to competition-based litigation 12.51, 12.52–3, 12.54–63, 12.66–7, 13.39–42

as basis for torpedo litigation 12.69–73, 12.100, 12.136, 12.140

English authorities on 12.64–8

Kahlenberg, H 8.19

Klumpe, G 8.19

Knigge, A 11.182

Kolay, S 14.113

Komninos, A 2.01, 5.05, 5.28

Könen, D 8.19

Konings, J 14.88

Kortmann, J 11.175, 11.247

Kötz, H 2.29

Lande, R 7.33, 11.10, 14.18, 14.19

Late Payment Directive 9.118–20

Latvia

attribution of responsibility 8.38–44

Civil Procedure Law 7.71

Competition Council 5.65–6, 8.40–41, 8.88–90, 10.27

economic succession doctrine 8.38, 8.40–41, 8.44

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.65–7

joint and several liability 8.88–91

liability in damages actions 8.42–3

limitation periods 9.77

parental liability 8.38–9

presumption of harm 7.43

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.27

quantification of loss 7.69–71

scope of damage recoverable 7.23–4

undertaking concept 8.38

Latvia, cases

Divions v Udeka and Ventspils7.24, 7.69, 7.71, 8.88–91

KIA Auto8.38

PKL Flote7.23

Zi’notājs7.71, 8.43

Lawnicka, D 2.53

legal context 1.01–20

boundary between remedial rules and procedural rules 1.17–18

CJEU remedies case-law 1.01–7

equivalency and effectiveness principles 1.04

harmonisation of remedies 1.10, 1.17–18

individuals’ rights protection and interim relief 1.06

move from rights to remedies 1.08–18

passing-on defence 1.06

procedural autonomy principle 1.08

recovery of damages in cases of breach 1.03

remedies and damages actions application 1.19–20

right of recovery of purchase price on seller (direct right) 1.14–16, 1.19

right to enforce 1.14–16, 1.19

right to a fair trial 1.12–13

Leibenstein, H 14.16

leniency programmes

collective action in Member States 11.199

evidence disclosure see under evidence disclosure

exemplary (punitive) damages 7.87, 7.95

joint and several liability, EU law 8.52–67

materials protection 5.97–105, 5.109–12

Leskinen, C 11.19

Levenstein, M 14.19

lex fori approach see applicable law choice and Rome II Regulation, Article 6(3) and competition-based litigation, lex fori approach

liability

attribution of responsibility see attribution of responsibility

joint and several see joint and several liability

leniency materials protection, risk of being held liable in civil proceedings 5.99–100, 5.109–12

limitation periods 9.01–104

limitation periods and access to damages, collective action at EU level, policy developments 11.107

limitation periods, EU law 9.01–24

‘continuous or repeated’ infringement 9.01, 9.10

effectiveness principle 9.23

exemption for joint and several liability for immunity recipients 9.17–22

follow-on actions and suspension of period 9.05, 9.09, 9.11–13

infringement decision, not all infringers appeal 9.16, 9.16–20

public authority involvement 9.09, 9.11, 9.13, 9.15

‘reasonable and sufficient’ limitation period 9.20

suspension at commencement of dispute resolution process 9.24

limitation periods, national law 9.25–104

Austria 9.48–52

England and Wales 9.06, 9.18, 9.25–36

England and Wales, Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015 transitional provisions 9.25–33, 9.36

England and Wales, extra-territorial effects 9.36

England and Wales, follow-on damages 9.32

Finland 9.57–63

Finland, Limitations Act 9.63

France 9.81–92

France, annulment cases 9.82

France, bid-rigging 9.84

France, interruption of limitation period 9.88–91

France, starting-point in follow-on damage claims 9.83–7

France, suspension of limitation period 9.92

Germany 9.37–47

Germany, negligent ignorance cases 9.41

Germany, restitution on grounds of unjust enrichment 9.47

Germany, suspension grounds 9.43–6

Italy 9.93–7

Italy, follow-on actions and consumers or undertakings differences 9.96

Italy, suspension of limitation period 9.97

Latvia 9.77

Lithuania 9.78–80

Netherlands 9.53–6

Portugal 9.100–104

Spain 9.98–9

Sweden 9.64–76

Sweden, Competition Damages Act 9.74–6

Sweden, competition law 9.69–73

lis pendens rule, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 see jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, lis pendens rule

Lithuania

access to documents 4.27–8, 4.122

Civil Code 9.132–3

Code of Civil Procedure 4.27–8, 4.159, 5.69–70, 7.16, 10.24

evidence disclosure 4.159–60

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.68–70

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.143

interest provisions 9.132–4

Law on Competition 4.159, 9.133, 10.26

limitation periods 9.78–80

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.24–6

scope of damage recoverable 7.14–22

Lithuania, cases

FlyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines v AirBaltic and Airport Riga7.17–22, 12.59

Klevo lapas v Orlen Lietuva5.68

Pienožvaigžde[.]s v Republic of Lithuania9.79

 iauliu? tara v Stumbras5.68–9, 7.15–16

‘loser pays’ principle 11.104, 11.148, 11.159, 11.162, 14.45

loss of opportunity 6.32–3, 7.07

lost sales effect, indirect purchaser standing 3.07–10, 3.22–30

Maier-Rigaud, F 3.05, 3.10, 6.35, 6.37, 6.40

market analysis, quantification of damages 14.52, 14.60, 14.77–80, 14.82–3, 14.86–7, 14.94–5, 14.105–6

Marvel, H 14.113

Miller, G 11.24

Mills, D 14.113

Monnier, C 14.19

Mosaikbetrachtung12.45, 13.35–42

Mühlbach, T 3.94, 4.150, 4.155, 8.77

Mulheron, R 11.19, 11.26, 11.123, 11.143

multiple claim avoidance, collective action 11.12, 11.177

Murtagh, M 11.236

Nagy, C 14.45

Napel, S 14.118

national competition authority, evidence disclosure see evidence disclosure, evidence included in file of competition authority, Commission file or NCA

national law

applicable national rules, and interest provisions, EU law 9.114–15

application by national courts, jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, lis pendens rule 12.129–37

attribution of responsibility see attribution of responsibility, national law

collective action, assignment of claims 11.260–72

in competition litigation, causation of infringements 6.31–4

damage, presumption of harm see damage, presumption of harm, national law

damages, underlying right to see damages, underlying right to, national law

discretion for national court to order disclosure, evidence disclosure, access to documents, Directive rules 4.57–60

estimation of share of overcharge, indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.63–70

evidence disclosure see evidence disclosure, evidence included in file of competition authority, Commission file or NCA, national law

and evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions, Commission decisions: Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1/20035.13–37

exemplary (punitive) damages see damage, exemplary (punitive) damages, national law

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on see indirect purchaser standing and passing-on, national law

interest provisions see interest provisions, national law

joint and several liability see joint and several liability, national law

limitation periods see limitation periods, national law

NCA decisions: Article 9 of the Directive, evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.27–37

NCA decisions: Article 9 of the Directive, final decisions, evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.30–32

provision of remedy in damages for enforcement of rights, damages, underlying right to 2.01–24

and public authorities’ expertise see public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of

quantification of loss see damage, quantification of loss, national law

recoverable damage see damage, scope of damage recoverable, national law

see also individual countries

Nazzini, R 11.06

ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) principle 7.84–7, 7.88–9, 7.94

Neal, P 3.178

negligent ignorance cases, Germany 9.41

Netherlands

access to documents 4.31

Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) 4.157, 5.63, 10.21

Civil Code 3.130, 7.40, 9.53, 11.174–7, 11.187

Code of Civil Procedure 4.31, 5.63, 10.21, 11.184

collective action 1.174–88, 11.181, 11.184

collective action, assignment of claims 11.268–72

consolidation of claims 12.98–101

evidence disclosure 4.157

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.20–23, 5.63

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.124–40

limitation periods 9.53–6

lis pendens rule 12.136–7

opt-out class-action mechanism 11.177, 11.178–88

presumption of harm 7.40

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.21

Wet Collectieve Afhandeling Massaschade (WCAM) (2005) 11.174, 11.176, 11.178–88

Netherlands, cases

candle waxes case 5.20–22, 11.269

Cathode Ray Tubes12.99

Converium11.182–5

Dawn Foods v Südzucker12.136–7

elevators11.270, 12.42, 12.101

Hoge Raad3.136–40

KLM Air Cargo3.127, 5.23, 11.271, 12.100

Rechtbank9.54, 9.55

sodium chlorate12.19, 12.42, 12.98

TenneT v Alstom3.131, 3.136

Niitväli E 11.203

Nordh, R 11.207

nullity sanction 2.08, 2.46, 2.49, 2.54, 2.56

Oldehaver, G 14.118

opt-in and opt-out mechanisms, collective action see under collective action

Osterdahl, I 4.67

outside EU

litigation brought 12.124–8

parties domiciled 12.11–14, 12.122–3

see also place of causal event

overcharge

and indirect purchaser standing see indirect purchaser standing and passing-on

quantification of damages, damage caused by abusive conduct 14.12, 14.18, 14.19, 14.35, 14.37, 14.44

underlying right to damages 2.33, 2.40, 2.51

own fault concept, indirect purchaser standing 3.101–2

parent company and subsidiary as separate legal entities, Germany 8.17–18

parental liability 8.03, 8.30–33, 8.38–9

passing-on

and collective action 11.113–14, 11.272

and indirect purchaser standing see indirect purchaser standing and passing-on

legal context 1.06

Peleg, B 14.116

Peyer, S 0.18

Pischke, J-S 14.81

place of causal event 12.51–3, 12.54–73

see also outside EU

Plender, R 13.18, 13.29, 13.30

Poillot-Peruzzetto, S 2.53

policy developments, collective action, EU see collective action at EU level, policy developments

policy shopping 13.28

Porter, R 14.48

Portugal

access to documents 4.29–30

Civil Code 3.168, 9.101, 9.102

collective action 11.223–6

evidence disclosure 4.182

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5–85–7, 5.24–6

follow-on cases 11.226

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.168

limitation periods 9.100–104

opt-out regime 11.223

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.40

right of initiative requirements 11.224

Portugal, cases

Carrefour3.168

DECO v PT11.225

Franchise de hotelaria3.168

Gas bottles5.25

IMS Health3.168, 5.87

JCG v Tabaqueira5.85

Leite3.168

Nestlé (III)5.86

NOS v PT5.86, 9.104

OdC v Sport TV11.226

Onitelecom v PT9.103

Reuter4.30

Salvador Caetano3.168

Sociedade Central de Cervejas v Carmo Augusto Nascimento10.40

Sociedade Central de Cervejas v Factorfina10.40

Sport TV4.182

Tabou Calzados3.168

VSC e FPF v RTP3.168, 5.24

Posner, R 14.18

pre-existing information, evidence disclosure 4.122–4

predatory pricing 7.17, 7.92, 14.48, 14.50, 14.52, 14.103, 14.105–6, 14.110, 14.113

presumption of harm 7.25–50

Finland 7.41–2

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.58

and price effects 7.32

presumption of harm, national law 7.33–50

Austria 7.37–9

England and Wales 7.33

Finland 7.41–2

France 7.44

Germany 7.34–6

Hungary 7.49–50

Italy 7.45–7

Latvia 7.43

Netherlands 7.40

Spain 7.48

price effects

bid-rigging 8.87, 9.84, 14.06, 14.07

damage caused by abusive conduct 14.12–15, 14.18–19, 14.25, 14.28–46

and direct economic loss, indirect purchaser standing 3.10, 3.28, 3.105

presumption of harm 7.32

right of recovery of purchase price 1.14–16, 1.19

prior administrative infringement decisions, evidential value see evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions

private action, collective action 11.71–6, 11.147, 11.211

private enforcement 0.02–3, 0.05–25

Ashurst study 0.15

Barroso II Commission 0.16

collective redress initiative 0.16–17

Commission’s private enforcement initiative 0.15–25

procedural delays 0.21–2

Regulation (EC) No 1/20030.08–9

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, ‘legal exception’ system 0.09–10

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, Modernisation and Modernisation II 0.08–13

settlements, lack of reporting on 0.20

see also public enforcement

procedural autonomy principle 1.08

procedural rules, boundary with remedial rules 1.17–18

producers of complements 14.21, 14.33

Product Liability Directive 2.75

professional secrecy 5.88, 5.91–6, 5.97, 5.102

profits

‘actual loss’ and ‘loss of profit’, plus interest 7.01–13

attribution of responsibility 7.82–3, 7.86, 7.94

causation of infringements 6.32

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.116–17

quantification of damages 14.06, 14.88–92, 14.96, 14.105–6, 14.107–8

proportionality principle 4.53–4, 4.139–41, 4.149, 4.182, 10.10–11, 10.15, 10.35, 10.38

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.01–40

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of, EU law 10.01–16

Consultation of the Commission 10.01–13

NCA consultation 10.14–16

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of, national law, NCA consultation 10.17–40

England and Wales 10.18–19

England and Wales, opt-out collective actions 10.19

Finland 10.22–3

France 10.28–34

France, Competition Authority (FCA) intervention 10.28–32

France, intervention of the ministre de l’économie 10.33–4

Germany 10.20

Italy 10.35–8

Italy, proportionality principle 10.38

Latvia 10.27

Lithuania 10.24–6

Netherlands 10.21

Portugal 10.40

Spain 10.39

public authority involvement, limitation periods 9.09, 9.11, 9.13, 9.15

public enforcement 0.04–5, 0.06

collective action 11.02–3, 11.106–7, 11.208–9

complementary role played by private damages actions before national courts 0.11–13

evidential value of 4.05–7

see also private enforcement

public interest considerations, evidence disclosure 4.70, 4.78, 4.88, 4.91, 4.95, 5.98, 5.102–4

publication of information specific to individual participants 5.123–7, 5.131–3

punitive damages see exemplary (punitive) damages

qualified entities, collective action 11.50, 11.70, 11.86, 11.89, 11.91–2

‘qualified entities’ standing, collective action at EU level, environmental liability 11.70

quantification of damages 14.01–137

after-effects, estimation of 14.124–5

compounding and discounting damages 14.119–23

confidence intervals 14.137

estimation problems 14.02

‘relative responsibility’ consideration 14.115

remoteness and causality 14.129–33

statistical methods, accuracy of 14.126–8

statistical methods, accuracy of, practicality concept 14.127

and supply chains 14.05, 14.23

quantification of damages, abusive behaviour and damage estimation 14.93–114

counterfactual scenario 14.93–102, 14.112

exploitative abuse 14.94–6

follow-on suits (phase III) 14.109–14

retroactive discount systems 14.47, 14.52, 14.100, 14.105, 14.113

quantification of damages, abusive behaviour and damage estimation, exclusionary abuse 14.97–114, 14.135–6

comparator-based methods 14.98–100

establishment of ‘in the absence of exclusionary abuse’ 14.100

potential competitors, targeting 14.111

profit losses (phase II) 14.107–8

profit and market share decline 14.105–6

quantification of damages, apportionment 14.115–18

and cooperative games theory 14.116–17

joint and several liability 14.115–16

Shapley value concept 14.117–18

quantification of damages, cartel cases and damage estimation 14.55–92

cost-based and profitability-based approaches 14.88–92, 14.96

counterfactual price estimation 14.56, 14.57, 14.61, 14.62, 14.67, 14.72, 14.79–80

difference-in-differences analysis 14.60, 14.81–5, 14.96

market cross-sectional analysis 14.60, 14.77–80, 14.82–3, 14.94–5

market simulated comparator 14.86–7

time series analysis 14.60, 14.61–76, 14.81, 14.82–3

time series analysis, before-and-after method 14.62–4, 14.67–72, 14.94

time series analysis, composition effects 14.74–6

time series analysis, dummy variable approach 14.65–6, 14.73

time series analysis, forecasting approach 14.67–73

quantification of damages, damage caused by abusive conduct 14.05–53, 14.47–53

cellophane fallacy 14.29

class actions 14.45

counterfactual or but-for scenario 14.09, 14.11

damage types 14.10–19

dead weight loss (DWL) 14.10, 14.11

economic actors damaged by cartels 14.20–36

effects on producers of complements 14.21, 14.33

exclusionary and exploitative abuses 14–48–50, 14.08, 14.47

exploitative and exclusionary conduct 14.51–4

and general equilibrium theory 14.23

horizontal effects 14.21

inefficiencies 14.10, 14.12, 14.15, 14.16–17

innovation effects 14.17

intermediary product 14.37, 14.42

market characteristics, changing 14.17

market entry barriers 14.52

negative externalities and unclaimed damage 14.44–5

overcharge 14.12, 14.18, 14.19, 14.35, 14.37, 14.44

predatory pricing 14.48, 14.50, 14.52, 14.103, 14.105–6, 14.110, 14.113

price effects 14.12–15, 14.18–19, 14.25, 14.28–46

price-fixing or bid-rigging cartels 14.06, 14.07

profit increase goals 14.06

quantity effects 14.07, 14.11–15, 14.18, 14.20, 14.21, 14.24–5, 14.28–46

tying and market power leverage 14.49, 14.100, 14.136

umbrella effects 14.13, 14.29

vertical effects 14.21–46

vertical effects, downstream 14.23, 14.27–32, 14.43–4

vertical effects, upstream 14.23, 14.24–6, 14.40

and wealth transfer and welfare losses 14.05, 14.10, 14.11–15

quantification of harm, causation of infringements 6.35–41

quantification of loss 7.51–71

EU law 7.51–4

quantification of loss, national law 7.55–71

Austria 7.66

England and Wales 7.55–7

Germany 7.58–65

Italy 7.67–8

Latvia 7.69–71

recoverable damage 7.01–24

in cases of breach 1.03

EU law 7.01–7

illegally-charged levies 9.123–5

loss of opportunity 6.32–3, 7.07

purchase price 1.14–16, 1.19

recoverable damage, national law 7.08–24

Austria 7.10

France 7.09

Germany 7.08

Italy 7.11–13

Latvia 7.23–4

Lithuania 7.14–22

Regulation (EC) No 44/20012.60, 3.68, 4.88, 4.100, 4.110, 4.117–18, 4.131, 12.04, 12.06, 12.138–40

Regulation (EC) No 1049/20014.68

Regulation (EC) No 1206/20014.35

Regulation (EC) No 1/200311.106, 13.01

attribution of responsibility 8.10, 8.17

evidence disclosure 5.27, 5.65, 5.71, 5.88–94, 5.105, 5.128

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions see evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions, Commission decisions: Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.51–2

private enforcement 0.08–13

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.01, 10.04, 10.07, 10.13–14, 10.21, 10.25, 10.34

Regulation (EC) No 773/20044.62, 4.132, 4.186

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, jurisdictional issues see jurisdictional issues, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

‘relative responsibility’ consideration

joint and several liability 8.50, 8.63, 8.76

quantification of damages 14.115

relevance requirement, evidence disclosure 4.51–2, 4.56

remedial rules, boundary with procedural rules 1.17–18

remedies, move from rights to 1.08–18

remoteness and causality, quantification of damages 14.129–33

representative actions, collective action 11.89, 11.91–2, 11.119–23, 11.138, 11.202–3, 11.210, 11.220, 11.234

responsibility attribution see attribution of responsibility

retroactive discount systems, quantification of damages 14.47, 14.52, 14.100, 14.105, 14.113

Ridyard, D 7.33

right of initiative requirements, Portugal 11.224

right to a fair trial 1.12–13

rights, move from rights to remedies 1.08–18

Rodger, B 0.18, 0.20

Röller, L-H 14.61

Rome II Regulation, and applicable law choice see applicable law choice and Rome II Regulation

Rossi, L. 4.29

Rother, C 11.203

Rowe, T 11.236

Russell, T 11.09, 11.87

Saggers, G 14.119

sales, lost sales effect, indirect purchaser standing 3.07–10, 3.22–30

‘same cause of action’, and lis pendens rule 12.103, 12.104, 12.123, 12.125–6

‘same interest’ test, collective action 11.53, 11.55, 11.119–21

sanctions

evidence disclosure, access to documents 4.50, 4.61

nullity to 2.08, 2.46, 2.49, 2.54, 2.56

Savov, V 11.245, 11.247, 11.251, 11.252, 11.253

Schinkel, M 14.36

Schreiber, T 3.65, 11.245, 11.247, 11.249

Schumpeter, J 14.17

Schwalbe, U 14.01–137

secrecy, professional 5.88, 5.91–6, 5.97, 5.102

Seegers, M 8.45, 8.50, 8.58, 8.60, 8.63, 8.94, 11.249

Selten, R 14.110

separate actions

collective action 11.230, 11.235

Regulation (EU) No 1215/201212.59, 12.62

Serafimova, M 8.19

Shapley value concept, quantification of damages 14.117–18

significant responsibility reference, underlying right to damages 2.22, 2.54

SME rules

collective action 11.86

joint and several liability 8.68–75, 8.94–7

Smith, M 11.245

Smuda, F 14.23

social losses

dead weight loss (DWL) 14.10, 14.11

indirect purchaser standing 3.08–9

wealth transfer and welfare losses 14.05, 14.10, 14.11–153

Sousa Ferro, M 2.50, 2.62, 4.29, 11.226, 12.36

Spain

antitrust damages actions 2.47–51

Civil Code 2.47–50, 9.98

collective action 11.218–22

evidential value of prior administrative infringement decisions 5.82–4

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.163–7

limitation periods 9.98–9

opt-in to follow-on action 11.221

presumption of harm 7.48

public authorities, procedures for national courts’ recourse to expertise of 10.39

representative action 11.220

underlying right to damages 2.47–51

Spain, cases

Audiencia Provincial5.82

Ausbanc v Telefónica Móviles11.220

Céntrica v Iberdrola9.98

EC Copecelt v Cepsa5.82

Football TV rights5.82

Hugo and Prourbal v Repsol5.82

Nestlé v Ebro Foods3.166, 5.82

Repsol v Ribera5.82

Tribunal Supremo5.82

stand-alone actions

collective action 11.142–3, 11.198

see also follow-on actions

subsidiaries, parent company and subsidiary as separate legal entities, Germany 8.17–18

Sudhölter, P. 14.116

‘sufficient interest’ condition, collective action 11.59–70, 11.74

sufficiently direct consequence test, causation of infringements 6.10, 6.23

supply chains

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.05, 3.59–72, 3.158–61, 3.183

and quantification of damages 14.05, 14.23

Suslow, V 14.19

suspension, limitation periods 9.05, 9.09, 9.11–13, 9.24, 9.43–6, 9.92, 9.97

Sweden

class actions 11.205–13

Competition Damages Act 9.74–6, 11.212–13

limitation periods 9.64–76

opt-in solutions 11.207

private action, class actions 11.211

public class actions 11.208–9

quantification of damages loss 7.52

representative action, class actions 11.210

Tele29.72, 9.73

sweetheart settlements, collective action 11.30

Thiede, T 8.19

third parties, and evidence disclosure 4.01–61, 4.15–17, 4.48–61

Thomas, S 3.99

time series analysis, quantification of damages 14.60, 14.61–76, 14.81, 14.82–3

torpedo action 12.69–73, 12.100, 12.136, 12.140

tortious and contractual liability, distinction between 2.52–62

tying agreements 2.11–12, 2.24

market power leverage 14.49, 14.100, 14.136

Tzakas, D-P 11.87

UK, England and Wales see England and Wales

Ulen, T 14.44

umbrella effects

causation of infringements 6.24, 6.37, 6.39–40

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.05, 3.97–100

quantification of damages 14.13, 14.29

unaware, party unaware of infringement 12.20–25, 12.30

unclaimed damages 11.21, 11.160, 11.163, 11.225, 14.44–5

underlying right to damages 2.01–85

breach of statutory duty 2.63

cartelist behaviour 2.33, 2.42

directly effective rights on individuals 2.09

equivalence and effectiveness principles 2.82–3

EU law, establishment as matter of 2.01–14, 2.25–8

‘excusable error’ rule suggestion 2.77–8, 2.81

fault requirement 2.63–85

Manfredi case 2.25–8, 2.84

see also Court of Justice of the European Union, Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni

national courts’ provision of remedy in damages for enforcement of rights 2.01–24

nullity sanction 2.08, 2.46, 2.49, 2.54, 2.56

overcharge 2.33, 2.40, 2.51

tortious and contractual liability, distinction between 2.52–62

unjust enrichment claim 2.40, 2.49

underlying right to damages, Crehan case 2.01–24, 2.84

breach of statutory duty argument 2.23, 2.30, 2.33, 2.54

causation issue 2.24, 2.26, 2.54

common law principle of antitrust injury 2.18–21

contractual relationship 2.22–3, 2.56

direct injury requirement 2.24

proceedings before English courts 2.11–14

significant responsibility reference 2.22, 2.54

suitability of case to establish right to damages 2.15–24

see also Court of Justice of the European Union, Crehan

underlying right to damages, national law 2.29–85

Austria 2.41–3

England and Wales 2.30–33, 2.63

France 2.44–6, 2.64–5

Germany 2.34–40, 2.66–70

Spain 2.47–51

undertaking concept

attribution of responsibility 8.17–19, 8.38

Regulation (EU) No 1215/201212.89–92

undertakings protection, evidence disclosure 5.88, 5.91–6, 5.97, 5.102

unjust enrichment

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on 3.19, 3.21–30, 3.32–9, 3.41, 3.44, 3.59, 3.104, 3.166, 3.182

limitation periods 9.47

Regulation (EU) No 1215/201212.47

underlying right to damages 2.40, 2.49

US

cartel damages and value chain downstream 14.35

Cartwright Act (California) 3.177

Class Action Fairness Act 3.191, 11.239–43

class actions 11.07, 11.84, 11.85, 11.227–43

Clayton Act 2.19, 3.171, 5.04

Commission’s attempts to limit discoverability in US courts 4.183–91

Detroit Automobile Dealers Association (DADA) 14.72

Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) 12.02, 13.21–2

Gulf Coast Claims Facility 11.133

‘harmonisation’ statutes 3.190

indirect purchaser standing and passing-on see indirect purchaser standing and passing-on, national law, US

lex fori approach 13.20–22

passing-on, policy-based approach 3.01–3

private antitrust enforcement 0.06, 0.25, 2.15, 2.18–19

representative actions 11.234

Sherman Act 3.171, 13.21–2

unjust enrichment doctrine 3.182

US, cases

AGC v California State Council of Carpenters2.19, 2.20, 2.24, 3.171, 3.190

In re Air Cargo Shipping Services4.183, 4.190

Alcoa13.22

Atlantic City Electric Company v General Electric Company11.227

Atlantic Richfield v USA Petroleum3.171

Blue Shield of Virginia v McCready3.181

Brunswick Corp. v Peublo Bowl-O-Mat2.15, 3.171

Campos v Ticketmaster3.184

Cargill3.171

Clayworth3.177

County of Suffolk v Long Island Lighting11.235

In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation3.171

Empagran12.02, 12.95, 13.22

In re Flat Glass Antitrust legislation4.183, 4.189

Hanover Shoe v United Shoe Machinery Corp.3.01, 3.22, 3.172–6, 3.178, 3.180, 3.182

Hawaii v Standard Oil Co. of Cal.3.171

Hoffmann-La Roche4.183

Howard Hess Dental Labs v Dentsply International3.184

Illinois Brick Co. v Illinois3.01, 3.181–91

Jewish Hosp. Ass’n v Stewart Mech. Enters.3.186

Kansas v Utilicorp United3.187

In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation3.190

In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation4.183

Morrison v National Australia Bank11.182

Motorola Mobility v AU Optronics13.22

In re OSB Antitrust Litigation3.187

Paper Systems v Nippon Paper Industries3.188

Paycom Billing Services v MasterCard International3.184

Reilly v Hearst Corp.3.171

In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer11.28

In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation4.183

TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation3.171, 4.183

Tyson Foods v Bouaphakeo11.242

In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation4.183, 4.185, 4.189

Warren General Hospital v Amgen3.183–4

In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation3.184

Van Dijk, T 3.09, 14.44

Van Gerven, W 1.05, 1.06, 1.17–18, 2.04, 6.10

Van Lith, H 11.178

Van Nuffel, P 2.84, 4.117, 5.34, 5.39, 6.10, 6.27, 6.29, 7.07, 7.77, 8.11, 8.45, 8.60, 8.64, 8.70, 8.71, 8.72, 8.75, 9.01, 9.08, 9.09, 9.10, 9.11, 9.13, 9.22, 10.16, 11.259, 12.94

Verboven, F 3.09, 14.44

vertical effects, quantification of damages 14.21–46

Vollrath, C 13.31, 13.33

Von Bar, C 6.02, 6.05, 6.06, 6.07, 6.20

Wachs, S 8.19, 11.204

Wagner-von Papp, F 4.24, 4.48, 4.51, 4.57, 4.128, 4.130, 5.108

Walker, M 14.01

wealth transfer and welfare losses 14.05, 14.10, 14.11–153

see also social losses

Werden, G 14.18

Weston, M 11.201

Whish, R 7.94, 13.18

Whitbeck, J 11.242

White Paper, Commission 0.15, 2.53, 2.77, 2.79–81, 2.85, 3.47–8, 8.08, 9.113, 11.85–8, 11.250

Wilderspin, M 12.89, 13.18, 13.29, 13.30

Wils, W 4.112, 4.128, 4.131, 7.74, 7.84, 7.89, 8.74

Withers, C 12.54

Wooldridge, J 14.79

Wright, K 5.30, 10.03, 10.16

Wurmnest, W 7.79, 13.15

Young, H 14.116

Zweigert, K 2.29