Activities of Antolín SÁNCHEZ PRESEDO related to 2008/2154(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules (debate)
Amendments (21)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 25 April 2007 on the Green Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules1,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas private- law prosecution of damages claims must be directed towards fully compensating the harm suffered, and whereas the principles of damage law whereby compensation for damage may not serve to enrich the victim and mullaw that prohibit unfair enrichment, forbidding multiple recovery of compensation for damage and avoiding punitive damages, which are incompatipble recovery ofwith sanctions imposed by compensatition for damage is to be avoidedauthorities under the principle of "non bis in idem", must be respected,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas although enforcement of competition law at Member State and at European level falls within the realm of public law and whereas manyby the Commission and the national competition authorities falls within the realm of public law and although private actions brought before national jurisdictional authorities have been rare and exceptional, some Member States have taken, or will take, measures to facilitate the prosecution of damage claims for private individuals in the event of infringement of European competition rules,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the bringing of private legal actions may complement and support, but not replace, the enforcement of cartel law by the authorities and whereas the staffing and funding of the competition authorities must be boosted, so that competition law infringements can be prosecuted more effectively,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas fair and quick out-of-court settlements should be preferred to litigation and authorities should encourage voluntary agreements and promote means of reaching fair settlements which are binding on the parties, rather than encourage litigation,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas no matter how a dispute is resolved, it is essential that procedures and safeguards are put in place to ensure that all parties receive fair treatment, while ensuring that the system is not abused,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the abovementioned White Paper and stresses that the Treaty’s competition law rules and, in particular, their effective enforcement demand that victims of competition law infringements must be able to claim compensation for the damage suffered;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Commission has not so far stated what legal base ist will be invoking for its proposed measures, and doubts that the Treaty offers a basis for the planned interventions into national damages and procedural law;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes the view that some obstacles to effective redress for victims of competition law infringements, such as mass and dispersed damages, information asymmetries and other problems encountered in prosecuting damages claims occur not only in EC competition law, but also in other areas such as product liability; nevertheless also considers that competition law has its own substance and rules and is an autonomous discipline that requires a specialised approach adapted to the particular complexities and difficulties encountered by victims with regard to its private enforcement;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that at the end of 2008 the Commission’s DG ‘Health and Consumers’ will be publishing the results of two studies on collective law enforcement instruments in the Member States and possible barriers to the single market resulting from the differing legislation in the Member States; points out also that the Commission has announced a Communication for late 2008 on the Community’s possible options for action; stresses that measures at European level must not lead to anrbitrary and unnecessary fragmentation of national procedural law, and asks thamust wbe wait for the results of the studies and for the Communication before consiharmoniously articulated; underling whether, and to what extent, a horizontal approach should be chosen to facilitate the prosecution of damage compensation claims; calls on the Commission in consequence to undertake an examination of the legal bes that an integrated approach should not delay or prevent the development of proposals and measures identified as necessary for the full enforcement of competition law, taking into account that some such measures could be extended to other arease and the need for a horizontal instrument, and to refrain in the meantime from presentingat all are coherent with current Community and national provisions anyd collective law enforcement mechanisms for private individuals in the area of EC competition lawmpatible with the future developments under consideration;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that the Member States, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests1,power to prosecute in representative actions should as ain general rulbe give the power to prosecute in representative actions to qualified entities, and that authorisations to pursue such actions should primarily be considered for associations which arrange for actions in law for damages for companien, by the Commission in cross-border claims or by the Member States, to qualified entities such as consumer or trade associations;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Asks that only a clearly identifiedIs of the opinion that only in the case of a collective opt-in action it is necessary to clearly identify the members of the group of people bethat is allowed to take part, whereas in representative actions, and that identification must have taken place by the time the claim is brought; stresses that only the damage actually suffered may be compensated; notes that in the cas brought by qualified entities designated in advance ofr a successful claim the compensation sued for must be paid to the identified group of people and that the qualified entity may only ever be compensated for the costs it has incurred in the course of prosecuting the claimuthorised ad hoc, it is sufficient that the victims on behalf of which the damages action is brought are identifiable;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that in the event of a successful stand-alone claim a subsequent prosecution by the authorities for breach of competition law is not excluded, but that the amount of the compensation awarded must be borne in mind in calcula; also reiterates that, in the event that the party that is alleged to have infringed the competition rules claims and proves that the damage was compensated voluntarily before the conclusion of the proceedings, this could be considered a mitigating factor in setting the fine;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Encourages undertakings to compensate the victims of their illicit behaviour as quickly and effectively as possible, and encourages competition authorities to take account of such compensation when determining the fine that is to be imposed upon the undertaking, although this should not, however, interfere either with the victim’s right to full compensation for the harm suffered or with the need to maintain the deterrent objective of fines;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for the Commission to be obliged, in the follow-up to an investigation by the authorities, to allow victims of competition infringements full access to Commission documents, and stresses that access to docuthe information necessary to bring a damages action, and stresses that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliaments c and only be denied where interests of the defendaf the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents1 defines a right of access to documents orf third parties that are pressingly in need of protection would thereby be endangered; 1 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. e institutions, which may refuse access only under the conditions set out in that Regulation, and in particular Article 4 thereof; notes that guidelines are needed regarding the treatment of leniency applications;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that a national court may notshould be bound by a decision of the national competition authority of another Member State, provided that that decision was adopted by a member of the European Competition Network (ECN) applying Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty to the same infringement;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that where national law requires that a culpable act must always be a prerequisite for a claim for compensation for damages, and that the competition law infringement must, at the least, be negligent therefore have been committed negligently, it should be for the infringer to demonstrate (once the infringement of Articles 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty has been proven) that the infringement was the result of an excusable error;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Approves the admissibility of the defence of passing on of damaovercharges and stresses that evidence for this defence must always be provided by the party advancing itinfringer, with the courts having the option of recourse to established national rules on the link between causality and liability in order to come to just decisions in individual cases;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes that fact that in the case of continuous or repeated infringements, limitation periods begin on the day when the infringement ceases or when the victim can reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the infringement, whichever is the later; stresses that rules on limitation periods also serve to create legal certainty and that in the event of a failure to establish liability an absolutebring public or private action a limitation period of tenfive years must therefore apply; also welcomes the fact that the limitation period for stand- alone claims is to be based on national law, and calls for this to apply to follow-up claims also; calls, in addition, in the case of prosecution by the authorities, for the limitation period for follow-up caseactions to be suspended, the suspension to begin with the opening of the proceedings and to end withlong enough to effectively allow for such actions after the definitive ruling or ending of the investigation by the cartel authority or with the binding judgment of the appellate court;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Welcomes the fact that the Member States are to determine their own rules on allocation of costs; insists that the Commission should neither use soft-law instruments to encourage the Member States to deviate to the advantage of the plaintiff from the principle that the loser must bear the costs of the other party norand to set out any guidelines on funding of damages claims if it is useful for the enforcement of competition rules; observes that it must be ensured that the asymmetry of resources between the claimant and the defendant in legal proceedings is not a deterrence to bringing well-founded actions for damages;