19 Amendments of Bas EICKHOUT related to 2013/0185(COD)
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) To ensure effective public and private enforcement actions under civil law and effective public enforcement by competition authorities, both tools are required to interact to ensure maximum effectiveness of the competition rules, i. It is necessary to regulate the way the two forms of enforcement are coordinated, for instance the arrangements for access to documents held by competition authorities. Such coordination at Union level will also avoid divergence of applicable rules, which could jeopardise the proper functioning of the internal market.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In accordance with Article 26(2) of the Treaty, the internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured. There exist marked differences between the rules in the Member States governing actions for damages for infringements of national or Union competition law. Those differences lead to uncertainty concerning the actual effect of competition infringements on the business sector inflicted and the conditions under which injured parties can exercise the right to compensation they derive from the Treaty, and affect the substantive effectiveness of such rights. AsThe additional information asymmetry and the difficulties associated with quantifying antitrust harm injured parties often choose the forum of their Member State of establishment to claim damages, the discrepancies between the national rules lead to an uneven playing field, distort competition and reducing consumer confident as regards actions for damages and may affect competition on the markets on which these injured parties, as well as the infringing undertakings, operate. The lack of common unified and horizontal legal principles on redress to assure that the companies whom breaches the competition law and hold a profit on such activities at the cost of law abiding businesses, are not the ones to continue to benefit from the lack of legal consistency within the Union.
Amendment 75 #
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 will also help to prevent the emergence of wider differences between the Member States' rules governing actions for damages in competition cases to prevent a further lack of consumer confidence due to the current difficulties in obtaining compensation for the harm they have suffered.
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In the absence of Union law, actions for damages are governed by the national rules and procedures of the Member States. All national rules governing the exercise of the right to compensation for harm resulting from an infringement of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty, including those concerning aspects not dealt with in this Directive such as the notion of causal relationship between the infringement and the harm, must observe the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. This means that they may not be formulated or applied in a way that makes it excessively difficult, precious or practically impossible to exercise the right to compensation guaranteed by the Treaty, and they may not be formulated or applied less favourably than those applicable to similar domestic actions.
Amendment 79 #
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 require Member States to introduce collective redress mechanisms for the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty.
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) SMEs and consumers suffer damage because of legal ineffectiveness due to lack of cost effective enforcement of Article 101 and 102 of the Treaty. This imbalance gives opportunity for large companies to exploit their size and financial positions in the internal market towards SMEs. The collective redress procedures for access to justice, especially for SMEs and consumers, are a vital factor to enforce legal rights. The aims of the proposed directive may not be fully reached if collective redress is not available to SMEs and consumers to initiate legal procedures for damages for competition law infringements; the Commission shall launch a study assessing how Member States apply collective redress procedures to private damage claims for the enforcement of infringements to Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty.
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that all injured parties can proficiently and cost effectively exercise their claims for damages. 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 112 #
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 114 #
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 162 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) leniency corporate statements; (without the annexes) of the first leniency applicant; and
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 a (new)
Article 7 a (new)
Article 7 a Member States shall ensure that for the purposes of facilitating amicable negotiations, potential claimants can obtain the evidence regarding quantum of loss from the competition authority or the defendant without the need of starting a judicial action in court.
Amendment 191 #
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 fiveten years.
Amendment 199 #
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 unable to obtain full compensation from the other undertakings that were involved in the same infringement of competition law.
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the defendant has inflicted, planned or committed an infringement of competition law;
Amendment 209 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the infringement resulted in an overcharge for the direct purchasedistortion in the market as so for the purchaser or competitor of the defendant; and
Amendment 210 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the infringement resulted in an overcharge for the direct purchaseany purchaser or distortion to any competitor of the defendant; and
Amendment 216 #
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 any injured party that are likely to have suffered harm to claim compensation for loss of profits.
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall ensure when competition authorities approve the settlement for compensation or take the results of consensual dispute resolution into account, the quantification of damage and the identification of victims are included into their investigation.