Damages: Who is liable in case of anticompetitive practices?

For some authors, the person responsible under civil law would obey to some principles that are incompatible with those of the competition law. This opinion, however, must be resisted. This article aims to show that the presence, in competition law, of texts designating "the undertaking" as the entity responsible for the anti-competitive practice , enables the civil law to have the same original solutions of competition law. The civil judge may well recognize, even in autonomous actions, that are liable to pay compensation, legal entities constituting the undertaking. This should not be confused with the question of whether it can or should apply the parental presumption which is so much discussed. This second question is much more delicate.

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. 1. The European Court of Justice has consistently held that "it is for the national courts responsible for applying, within the framework of their jurisdiction, the provisions of Community law to ensure that those rules have full effect and to protect the rights which they confer on individuals" in order to enable any person to seek compensation for damage resulting from anti-competitive [1]practices. Following the December 2005 [2]] Green Paper and the April 2008 [3]] White Paper on a general policy on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, a broad public consultation led to the European Commission's proposal for a Directive of 11 June 2013.

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.