Legal instruments for the estimation of harm

Transcription

1 Legal instruments for the estimation of harm Quantification of harm: how to quantify and estimate the harm EU Damages Directive Implementation Half Time Brussels, 16 June 2016 András M. Horváth LL.M. (London) Baker & McKenzie (Budapest) Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "partner" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda

2 Issues of quantifying harm Rules of the Directive Other legal instruments Agenda

3 Issues of quantifying harm Three main issues: What is harm? not all types of harm caused by anticompetitive practices falls under definition of damages (umbrella effect, loss of innovation) How do we calculate harm? comparative and other methods If calculation is not possible, how do we estimate harm? legal instruments (judicial estimation, presumption, expert opinion) 2016 Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda 3

4 Rules of the Directive Art. 17 Judicial estimation national courts empowered to estimate amount of harm if practically impossible or excessively difficult precisely to quantify harm Presumption cartels cause harm (rebuttable) Expert opinion national competition authorities may assist national courts to determine the quantum of damages 2016 Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda 4

5 Country Grounds Amount Austria Unreasonable difficulty Judge s discretion Belgium Mathematical certainty not possible Reasonable amount Czech Republic Impossibility / excessive difficulty Judge s discretion Estonia Impossibility Judge s discretion Finland Impossibility or exceptional difficulty / cost Reasonable amount Germany Proof of approximate amount of damage Approximate amount Hungary Impossibility Appropriate amount Italy Impossibility or exceptional difficulty Equitable amount Lithuania Difficulty Profit of plaintiff Luxembourg Impossibility Equitable amount Poland Impossibility or difficulty Appropriate amount Slovenia Impossibility / excessive difficultymount Judge s discretion Sweden Impossibility or excessive difficulty / disproportionate cost Reasonable amount 2016 Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda 5

6 Presumption Oxera study (2009) 93% of cartel cases lead to an overcharge Connor / Lande (2006) EU-wide cartels have an average overcharge of 28-54% Hungary Section 88/C of the Competition Act price fixing, market allocation, output limitation overcharge was 10% rebuttable 2016 Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda 6

7 National Competition Authorities Amicus curiae Art. 15 of 1/2003/EC Regulation Rüggeberg-Schinkel (2006): consolidated damages report Issues: no sufficient evidence available no sufficient expertise, resources (negative effect on public enforcement) equality of arms 2016 Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda 7

8 Expert opinion Expert evidence is generally admissible in Member States Issues: costs qualification appointment 2016 Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda 8

9 Separate procedure Separate phase Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Spain Separate decision Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Slovenia 2016 Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda 9

10 Thank you for your attention! András M. Horváth LL.M. (London) Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda 10