Blog Post

Antitrust damages: the European Commission’s proposal

The European Commission has just adopted its proposed directive that would harmonise within the EU rules related to antitrust damages. The initiative aims to enable victims of antitrust abuses to obtain compensation in a consistent and effective manner.

By: Date: June 11, 2013 Topic: Energy & Climate

The European Commission has just adopted its proposed directive that would harmonise within the EU rules related to antitrust damages. The initiative aims to enable victims of antitrust abuses to obtain compensation in a consistent and effective manner. To give a simple example of what that could mean in practice: in a recent policy brief, Bruegel estimated that cartels uncovered by the European Commission between 2000 and 2012 shifted up to €48 billion from customers of cartelised products to sellers. Once enforced, the antitrust damages directive should in principle allow a significant chunk of that value to be claimed back by customers, regardless of where those customers are based in Europe. Decisions of the European Commission and of national competition authorities could then be used as direct evidence in national civil courts that the infringement occurred.

Currently, only 16 countries allow victims to sue for antitrust damages. And because of legislative fragmentation within the single market, large-scale lawsuits are rare. Differences in the way rights to damages are guaranteed in the member states distort the incentives to comply with EU competition law and imply differences in the level of deterrence within the single market. Recent studies suggest that when actions for damages in courts are a credible threat, they help to reduce the incentives that companies might have to breach antitrust laws. Moreover, the lack of a consistent EU framework creates uncertainty and therefore makes it difficult for companies, particularly those that operate in multiple countries, to predict the risk they face if they breach antitrust law. Harmonisation is therefore good news.

The key issues of substance in the draft directive concern information disclosure and damage quantification. On the first issue, the Commission’s proposal attempts to strike a balance between the right of claimants to obtain all the necessary information to support their claim in Court, and the need to preserve the incentives for companies to reveal information about ongoing conspiracies. The proposal suggests that specific types of information provided by infringing companies should not be disclosed to claimants (namely: corporate statements by whistle-blowers and submissions aimed at settling cases amicably). Whistle-blowing companies should also be liable only for the damage they directly caused, that is they would not pay for the indirect damage caused by the establishment of a cartel, such as an overall increase in market prices by all market players. Quantification of damages is a tricky issue. It requires estimating the ‘counter-factual’ scenario, ie how the market would have performed had the infringement not been committed. This estimation will depend heavily on the starting assumptions and on the level of detail and accuracy of the available data.

The European Commission appears less bold on the more general issue of collective redress. On that subject, the proposal contains only guidelines that member states will be free to ignore. It is therefore doubtful if the guidelines will have any effect at all, given the strong domestic resistance from industry that EU governments face. US-style class-actions may cause an excessive and unjustified burden on companies, but the Commission’s proposal establishes a number of safeguards to limit the risk of litigation abuse. For example, it suggests that only state-appointed non-profit entities can act on behalf of claimants. Moreover, in the Commission’s framework, affected consumers would not join the action by default (as happens in the US). The so-called ‘opt-in’ option requires consumers to take the initiative to join the claimants’ group in order to be entitled to compensation. If these safeguards are considered sufficiently effective in preventing abuse or excessive burden for companies, it is therefore difficult to understand why these rules should just come in the form of guidelines and not be uniformly enforced throughout the single market.

The EC’s proposal will be presented and discussed at Bruegel on June, 20.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

Why China should fear the EU's carbon border tax

Expect Beijing to soon start lobbying against the proposal.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Date: July 26, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

External Publication

A Safety Net for the Green Economy

How to protect workers hurt by the fight against climate change.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: July 20, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

Are robots taking our jobs?

What will be the impact of automation on the economy? Bruegel's own Giuseppe Porcaro discusses with Aaron Benanav, Laura Nurski, and Alexis Moraitis.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 20, 2021
Read article
 

Blog Post

Will European Union recovery spending be enough to fill digital investment gaps?

The recovery facility will boost digital transformation, but questions remain whether it will be sufficient to achieve Europe’s digital ambitions.

By: Zsolt Darvas, J. Scott Marcus and Alkiviadis Tzaras Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 20, 2021
Read article More by this author
 

Blog Post

The European Union’s carbon border mechanism and the WTO

To avoid any backlash, the European Union should work with other World Trade Organisation members to define basic principles of carbon border adjustment mechanisms.

By: André Sapir Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Date: July 19, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Making sure green household investment pays off

Policies are needed to support green fuel switching by households; support should be phased out as the carbon price rises.

By: Ben McWilliams and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: July 19, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

A fitting plan for the European Green Deal?

How does the world's first roadmap for meeting climate goals stack up?

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Energy & Climate Date: July 15, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

‘Fit-for-55’ package: Squaring the circle

The European Union finds itself at the centre of a three-dimensional puzzle. Burdens need to be shared between 450 million citizens, 25 million businesses and EU countries in a way that is acceptable to enough of them.

By: Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: July 15, 2021
Read article Download PDF
 

Policy Contribution

A new direction for the European Union’s half-hearted semiconductor strategy

The EU needs a more targeted strategy to increase its presence in this strategic and thriving sector, building on its existing strengths, while accommodating its relatively low domestic needs.

By: Niclas Poitiers and Pauline Weil Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 15, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Upcoming Event

Sep
2
10:15

The role of the state in providing infrastructure for decarbonisation

Bruegel Annual Meetings, Day 2 - Who should be responsible for providing crucial infrastructure for decarbonisation and how should it be managed?

Speakers: Jean-Bernard Lévy, Diederik Samsom, Simone Tagliapietra, Laurence Tubiana and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Palais des Academies, Rue Ducale 1
Read about event More on this topic
 

Upcoming Event

Sep
2
14:30

Brave new digital industrial policy

Bruegel Annual Meetings, Day 2 - In this session our speakers will dicuss innovation and digitalisation.

Speakers: Francesca Bria, Kerstin Jorna, Marietje Schaake and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Palais des Académies, Rue Ducale 1, Brussels
Read about event
 

Upcoming Event

Sep
3
10:15

Sustainable finance

Bruegel Annual Meetings, Day 3 - In this session on the final day of the Meetings, our panelists will discuss the future of finance and its sustainability.

Speakers: Maria Demertzis, Alberto De Paoli, Pierre Heilbronn and Alexandra Jour-Schroeder Topic: Energy & Climate, Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Palais des Académies, Rue Ducale 1, Brussels
Load more posts