Activities of Rebecca TAYLOR related to 2013/0185(COD)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union
Amendments (21)
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) Consumers or undertakings to whom actual loss has been passed on have suffered harm that has been caused by an infringement of national or Union competition law. While such harm should be compensated by the infringing undertaking, it may be particularly difficult for consumers or undertakings that did not themselves make any purchase from the infringing undertaking to prove the scope of that harm. It is therefore appropriate to provide that, where the existence of a claim for damages or the amount to be awarded depends on whether or to what degree an overcharge paid by the direct purchaser of the infringing undertaking has been passed on to the indirect purchaser, the latter is regarded as having brought the proof that an overcharge paid by that direct purchaser has been passed on to his level, where he is able to show prima facie that such passing- on has occurred. It is furthermore appropriate to define under what conditions the indirect purchaser is to be regarded as having established such prima facie proof, while also respecting that it is normal business practice to pass on overcharges down the supply chain. As regards the quantification of passing- on, the national court should have the power to estimate which share of the overcharge has been passed on to the level of indirect purchasers in the dispute pending before it. The infringing undertaking should be allowed to bring proof showing that the actual loss has not been passed on or has not been passed on entirely.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2
2. ‘national competition law’ means provisions of national law that predominantly pursue the same objective as Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and that are applied to the same case and in parallel to Union competition law pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003; This definition does not apply to national laws which impose criminal sanctions on natural persons except to the extent that such sanctions are the means whereby competition rules applying to undertakings are enforced.
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Article 5 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall take the necessary measures to give full effect to legal privileges and other rights not to be compelled to disclose evidence in accordance to national law.
Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 7
Article 5 – paragraph 7
7. Evidence shall include all types of evidence admissible before the national court seiszed, in particular documents and all other objects containing information, irrespective of the medium on which the information is storedwith the exception of leniency corporate statements.
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b – introductory part
(b) the destruction of relevant evidence, provided that, at the time of destruction:;
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b – point i
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b – point i
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b – point ii
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b – point ii
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall ensure that the limitation period shall not begin to run beforeon the latest date after an injured party knows, or can reasonably be expected to have knowledge of:
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point ii
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point ii
(ii) the qualification of such behaviour as an infringement of Union or national competition law, such as the result of a public action;
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that the limitation period for bringing an action for damages is at least fivesix years.
Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall ensure that the limitation period is suspended if a competition authority takes action for the purpose of the investigation or proceedings in respect of an infringement to which the action for damages relates. The suspension shall end at the earliest one year after the infringement decision has become final, when a case can no longer be appealed or reviewed, or the proceedings are otherwise terminated.
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that an undertaking which has been granted immunity from fines by a competition authority under a leniency programme shall be liable to injured parties other than its direct or indirect purchasers or providers only when such injured parties show that they are unait is not reasonably possible to obtain fullappropriate compensation from the other undertakings that were involved in the same infringement of competition law.
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the defendant in an action for damages can invoke as a defence against a claim for damages the fact that the claimant passed on the whole or part of the overcharge resulting from the infringement. TWithout prejudice to the commercial presumption that price increases are passed on down the supply chain, the burden of proving that the overcharge was passed on shall rest with the defendant who may reasonably require disclosures from the claimant.
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, where in an action for damages the existence of a claim for damages or the amount of compensation to be awarded depends on whether - or to what degree - an overcharge was passed on to the claimant, the burden of proving the existence and scope of such pass-on shall rest with the claimin line with the commercial presumption that price increases are passed on down the supply chain, the claimant can benefit from a legal presumption of pass-on under the conditions of paragraph 2. In order to prove these the claimant may reasonably require disclosures from the defendant.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. The rules laid down in this Chapter shall be without prejudice to the right of an injured party to claim compensation for loss of profits, actual loss, and interest from the time the harm occurred until the compensation in respect of that harm has been paid.
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) any relevant results from public competition cases which help to fulfil the criteria in paragraph 2 of Article 13.
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, in the case of a cartel infringement, it shall be presumed that the infringement caused harm within the market. The infringing undertaking shall have the right to rebut this presumption.
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the burden and the level of proof and of fact- pleading required for the quantification of harm does not render the exercise of the injured party's right to damages practically impossible or excessively difficult. Member States shall provide that the court be granted the power to estimate the amount of harm if the claimant is unable to directly prove the amount of harm suffered.