15 Amendments of Sophia IN 'T VELD related to 2013/0185(COD)
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) It is therefore necessary to ensure a more level playing field for undertakings operating in the internal market and to improve the conditions for consumers to exercise the rights they derive from the internal market. It is also appropriate to increase legal certainty and to reduce the differences between the Member States as to the national rules governing actions for damages for infringements of European competition law and, when applied in parallel to the latter, national competition law. An approximation of these rules and an obligation for the Member States to introduce collective redress mechanisms based on defined common principles will also help to prevent the emergence of wider differences between the Member States' rules governing actions for damages in competition cases.
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) This Directive reaffirms the acquis communautaire on the Union right to compensation for harm caused by infringements of Union competition law, particularly regarding standing and the definition of damage, as it has been stated in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and does not pre-empt any further development thereof. Anyone who has suffered harm caused by an infringement can claim compensation for the actual loss (damnum emergens), for the gain of which he has been deprived (loss of profit or lucrum cessans) and payment of interest accruing from the time the harm occurred until compensation is paid. This right is recognised for any natural or legal person -— consumers, undertakings and public authorities alike -— irrespective of the existence of a direct contractual relationship with the infringing undertaking, and regardless of whether or not there has been a prior finding of an infringement by a competition authority. This Directive should not requires Member States to introduce collective redress mechanisms for the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty based on defined common principles as stipulated in the Commission Recommendation 2013/396/EU.
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) In addition,Leniency programmes and settlement procedures are important tools for the public enforcement of Union competition law as they contribute to the detection, efficient prosecution and sanctioning of the most serious competition law infringements. Undertakings may be deterred from co-operating in this context if disclosure of documents they solely produce to this end were to expose them to civil liability under worse conditions than the co-infringers that do not co-operate with competition authorities. To ensure that undertakings are willing to cooperate with a competition authority under a leniency programme or a settlement procedure an exception to disclosure should apply to any disclosure measure that would unduly interfere with an ongoing investigation by a competition authority concerning an infringement of national or Union competition law. Information that was prepared by a competition authority in the course of its proceedings for the enforcement of national or Union competition law (such as a Statement of Objections) or by a party to those proceedings (such as replies to requests for information of the competition authority) should therefore be disclosable in actions for damages only after the competition authority has found an infringement of the national or Union competition rules or has otherwise closed its proceedings.
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) In the absence of Union rules on the quantification of harm caused by a competition law infringement, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State and for the national courts to determine what requirements the injured party has to meet when proving the amount of the harm suffered, how precisely he has to prove that amount, the methods that can be used in quantifying the amount and the consequences of not being able to fully meet the set requirements. However, these domestic requirements should not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence), nor should they render the exercise of the Union right to damages practically impossible or excessively difficult (principle of effectiveness). Regard should be had in this respect to any information asymmetries between the parties and to the fact that quantifying the harm means assessing how the market in question would have evolved had there been no infringement. This assessment implies a comparison with a situation which is by definition hypothetical and can thus never be made with complete accuracy. It is therefore appropriate to give national courts the power to estimate the amount of the harm caused by the competition law infringement. Member States shall ensure that where requested, NCAs will provide guidance on quantifying the harm.
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall introduce collective redress mechanisms based on defined common principles for the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty as stipulated in the Commission Recommendation 2013/396/EU.
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
2a. 'collective redress' means: (i) a legal mechanism that ensures a possibility to claim cessation of illegal behaviour collectively by two or more natural or legal persons or by an entity entitled to bring a representative action (injunctive collective redress); (ii) a legal mechanism that ensures a possibility to claim compensation collectively by two or more natural or legal persons claiming to have been harmed in a mass harm situation or by an entity entitled to bring a representative action (compensatory collective redress)
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 3
3. ‘action for damages’ means an action under national law by which an injured party brings a claim for damages before a national court; it may also cover actions by which someone acting on behalf of one or more injured parties brings a claim for damages before a national court, where national law provides for this possibilityby which a claim for damages is brought before a national court;
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 14
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 14
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Disclosure of evidence in the file of a competition authority that does not fall into any of the categories listed in paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article may be ordered in actions for damages at any time.
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that evidence which is obtained by a natural or legal person solely through access to the file of a competition authority in exercise of his rights of defence under Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003 or corresponding provisions of national law, and which is not inadmissible pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article, can only be used in an action for damages by that person or by the natural or legal person that succeeded in his rights, including the person that acquired his claim.
Amendment 223 #
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. Where requested, NCAs shall provide guidance on quantifying the harm.