Cartel damages: Group liability and evidentiary burden in Germany
This article is part of the July 2020 edition of our competition law newsletter, focusing on some recent key developments.
On 8 July 2020, The German Lower Regional Court of Dortmund ("Court") recently handed down its ruling regarding follow-on damages against a specialist wholesale company for sanitary and heating products. Damages were sought following a fine of the German Federal Cartel Office ("FCO") relating to coordinated of price calculations. In its ruling, the Court comments on the general liability of group companies for damages caused by the economic unit they belong to as well as the necessary evidentiary burden placed on the plaintiff for the assertion of damages in follow-on antitrust proceedings.
what you need to know - key takeaways |
---|
|
One of the hot topics in private enforcement of competition law at the moment is the question of to whom liability for damages caused by anticompetitive behaviour extends. This question is particularly important in instances when a claim is brought against a (group) company which was not itself found to have infringed competition law, but which belongs to the same "economic unit" as the group entity that was subject to an infringement decision.
In its ruling, the Court challenges the positions of other German courts of first instance. The Court confirmed, drawing on the principles of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Skanska, that group companies are generally liable to cartel damage claims regarding breaches of competition law by other companies of the same group.
The Court, however, did not need to take its assessment any further as the action was unsubstantiated with respect to other prerequisites for liability under German law. The action was thus dismissed. Nevertheless, the Court seemed to sympathize with the a "free-handed" estimation of the amount in damages to be awarded by the judge. However, it was stressed that such an estimate requires the claimant to substantiate its claim, i.e. to properly establish the facts to base such estimate on.
In the present case, the Court found the claimant to have not met this requirement, since it only submitted a vast number of documents (much of which did not relate to the concerned products) and had relied on generic references to studies in order to determine the damage suffered. The Court ruled that a "free-handed" approach to calculating damages is only applicable if the facts presented allow the other party to effectively defend itself against such claim; in addition, the specific circumstances of the anti-competitive conduct also needs to be considered.
Contents
- Sector inquiry launched into the Internet of Things
- UK real estate director banned for seven years after court grants CMA order
- Australian Open Banking live, energy next - Consumer Data Right update
- €13 billion Apple tax recovery decision quashed
- Fines for ethylene purchasing cartel
- Procedural flaws invalidate French dawn raids
- €93 million fine for French double-sided cold meat cartel
- Cartel damages: Group liability and evidentiary burden in Germany
- Spanish authority publishes compliance guidance
- CMA seeks new regulatory regime for digital markets following market study
- Healthcare provider and consultants fined over £1.2 million for price fixing
Key Contacts
We bring together lawyers of the highest calibre with the technical knowledge, industry experience and regional know-how to provide the incisive advice our clients need.
Keep up to date
Sign up to receive the latest legal developments, insights and news from Ashurst. By signing up, you agree to receive commercial messages from us. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Sign upThe information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.
Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions.