Activities of Eva LICHTENBERGER related to 2013/0185(COD)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (22)
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The Union right to compensation for antitrust harm requires each Member State to have procedural rules ensuring the effective exercise of that right. The need for effective procedural remedies also follows from the right to effective judicial protection as laid down in Article 47, first paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union53 and in Article 19(1), second subparagraph of the Treaty on European Union. __________________ 53Member States should ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law __________________ 53 OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391. OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391.
Amendment 27 #
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 29 #
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 31 #
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 further lack of consumer's confident in the internal market due to the current difficulties in obtaining compensation for the harm they have suffered.
Amendment 33 #
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 34 #
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 vital factors in order to preserve consumers' right of choice and avoid abusive acts, 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. Member States should ensure that all injured parties proficiently and cost effective can exercise their claims for damages. This includes assessing the possibilities of making collective redress procedures available for private damages claims.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Leniency programmes and settlement procedures are importantcan be some of the tools for the public enforcement of Union competition law asif 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 produce voluntary statements acknowledging their participation in an and if they contribute in having companies preliminary to report suspicions of possible own breach to prevent infringements of Union or natthe Unionals competition law to a competition authority under a leniency programme or a settlement procedure, such statements should be excepted from disclosure of evidence.
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that all injured parties can proficiently and costs 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. Member States shall ensure that all injured parties proficiently and cost effective can exercise their claims for damages. This includes assessing the possibilities of making collective redress procedures available for private damages claims.
Amendment 56 #
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 bringsby which a claim for damages is brought before a national court; it may also cover actions by which or 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 possibility;
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
3a. '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 62 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that, where a claimant has presented reasonably available facts andor evidence showing plausible grounds for suspecting that he, or those he represents, has suffered harm caused by the defendant's infringement of competition law, national courts can order the defendant or a third party to disclose evidence, regardless of whether or not this evidence is also included in the file of a competition authority, subject to the conditions set out in this Chapter. Member States shall ensure that courts are also able to order the claimant, the defendant or a third party to disclose reasonably available facts or evidence on request of the defendantsuch a claim.
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) in cases where the infringement is being or has been investigated by a competition authority, whether the request has been formulated specifically with regard to the nature, object or content of such documents rather than by a non- specific request concerning documents submitted to a competition authority or held in the file of such competition authority.
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that national courts have at their disposal effective measures to protect confidential information from improper use to the greatest extent possible whilst also ensuring that relevant evidence containing such information to the extent possible is available in the action for damages.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 6
Article 5 – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall ensure that, to the extent that their courts have powers to order disclosure without hearing the person from whom disclosure is sought, no penalty for non- compliance with such an order may be imposed until the addressee of such an order has been provided with the possibility to be heard by the court.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) leniency corporate statements of the first leniency applicant; and
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. 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 111 #
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 117 #
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 125 #
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 or committed an infringement of competition law;
Amendment 128 #
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 overchargedistortion in the market that resulted in an overcharge or a loss as so for the direct purchaser or competitor of the defendant; and
Amendment 130 #
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 have suffered harm to claim compensation for loss of profits.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall ensure that 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.