Source: https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-private-competition-enforcement-review-edition-12/1180906/belgium
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:49:19+00:00

Document:
In 2017 and 2018, private antitrust litigation in Belgium was impacted by four developments. First, a limited number of private damages cases were brought before the Belgian courts in the aftermath of the European Trucks antitrust case. Secondly, the Cambridge Analytica data scandal culminated with the Belgian consumer organisation Test Aankoop lodging a case against Facebook before the Brussels Commercial Court. Thirdly, the Belgian railway infrastructure manager Infrabel initiated a private damages claim before the Commercial Court following a decision by the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) on bid rigging. Lastly, the follow-on case that the European Commission initiated following the Lifts and Escalators case was brought before the Belgian Supreme Court.
While in certain other jurisdictions, multiple private damages cases are pending relating to the European Trucks antitrust case, the record before the Belgian courts to date is quite limited. With the exception of one interim judgment designating an expert, no court decisions have been rendered to date.
The Cambridge Analytica data scandal centred around a privacy breach by Facebook in March 2018, whereby the political consultant Cambridge Analytica was able to access personal data of Facebook users. This data was subsequently used to influence elections in various countries. In the aftermath of this scandal, Test Aankoop filed a claim before the Commercial Court in June 2018, claiming at least €200 of damages per Facebook user that had been the victim of the privacy breach. Considering that around 33,000 people joined the action, this case would result in Facebook potentially facing a damages claim of €6.6 million in total.
At the end of 2018, Infrabel brought a damages case before the Belgian court against five companies active in the sector of traction substations. This claim is based on a decision of the BCA adopted in 2017.2 The BCA found that the five companies that were acting as contractors in a framework agreement for the renewal of traction substations had fixed prices between August 2010 and June 2016. Infrabel is now claiming damages of between €4 million and €6 million for the harm it has suffered following these illegal practices.
The European Lifts and Escalators case dates back to 2008 when the European Commission found that four elevator and escalator companies (Kone, Otis, ThyssenKrupp and Schindler) had participated in a cartel. In June 2008, the Commission initiated a follow-on damages case before the Brussels Commercial Court to recover the damage it had suffered following the infringing conduct of the elevator companies. The Commercial Court dismissed the Commission's claim due to lack of evidence on the Commission's side.3 Subsequently, the Commission lodged an appeal before the Brussels Court of Appeal whereby the latter ordered the four companies to disclose documents from the Commission's file on 28 October 2015 by interim judgment. The four companies appealed this judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Belgian Supreme Court. The Belgian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the interim judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal and referred the case back to that Court on 22 March 2018. The case is currently pending before the Brussels Court of Appeal.
Private damages actions can be brought by any natural or legal person, irrespective of the existence of a direct contractual relationship with the infringing undertaking, and regardless of whether there has been a prior finding of an infringement by a competition authority. A decision by a competition authority establishing a competition infringement is therefore not a prerequisite. Both standalone and follow-on actions for damages are available under Articles XVII.71 CEL to XVII.91 CEL.
As stated above, the general principles of Belgian tort law will remain applicable to private damages actions. This means that to bring a successful action for damages, the claimant must demonstrate a fault attributable to the defendant, the concrete and certain damage suffered by the claimant, and a causal link between the wrongdoing and the damage caused. With the new Implementation Act, however, the Belgian legislator has introduced a number of legal presumptions to lessen (or even reverse) the burden of proof to the benefit of claimants. One example is the rebuttable presumption that cartels cause harm.11 Within the new legal framework, it will be for the infringer to rebut the presumption. Private enforcement actions can be brought before the competent commercial court or the court of first instance.12 It is, however, important to flag that the Implementation Act does not quantify the presumed harm. The precise harm suffered will have to be demonstrated in each specific case. To the extent that the precise and concrete harm has been established, the claimant will be entitled to full compensation (i.e., actual loss, lost profit plus interest). The Belgian legislator does not allow for overcompensation or punitive damages.
Finally, the liability for infringing competition law is administrative in nature. Infringements of competition law are not criminally sanctioned in Belgium. The only exception concerns bid-rigging practices, where the companies involved can be sentenced to pay fines, and the individuals concerned can face imprisonment up to six months, or the payment of fines, or both.
Consistent with EU principles, the application of antitrust laws in Belgium is governed by the effects doctrine. This means that antitrust laws in Belgium also apply to foreign companies or to domestic companies that act outside Belgium if their actions have an adverse effect on competition in the Belgian market.
There are no statutory or common law exemptions that apply to private antitrust litigation.
The jurisdiction of the Belgian courts to hear private antitrust disputes is established according to EU Regulation 1215/2012.21 Pursuant to Article 4(1) of this Regulation, Belgian courts have jurisdiction when the defendant has its domicile or usual residence in Belgium. The claimant can also bring private antitrust litigation before the Belgian courts if the event giving rise to the harm or the harm itself occurred in Belgium (Article 7(2) EU Regulation 1215/2012).
Article XVII.72 CEL provides that any natural or legal person who has suffered harm as a result of an infringement of competition law has the right to claim and obtain full compensation in accordance with the rules of ordinary law.
Claimants can bring standalone or follow-on actions for damages (following a decision by a competition authority establishing an infringement). Claimants can be a natural person or a legal entity.
The ordinary provisions of the Judicial Code will apply to assess the standing of the claimant. A claimant needs to have the capacity of holding the right invoked in the claim and must have an acquired, personal and immediate legal interest when filing the claim. The claimant can act if its rights are harmed or under serious threat of being harmed.28 Given the requisite personal interest, claims cannot be filed in the general interest.29 Individual claimants that have suffered personal harm are not prevented from grouping their claims in a single summons, with any damages being awarded to each claimant separately. It is also conceivable that various individual claims are assigned to a single person.
Private damages actions are generally characterised by an information asymmetry that exists to the detriment of the claimant trying to demonstrate its claim. Previously, the submission of evidence in this type of dispute was only governed by the general rules available in the Judicial Code. On the basis of Article 877 Judicial Code, judges are entitled to require the production of a specific document, including from third parties, provided that it can reasonably be assumed that the party (or a third party) has it in his or her possession and the document is considered relevant to the dispute.31 As opposed to common law countries, there is no pretrial discovery available under Belgian law.
When assessing the request for document production, the court must balance the legitimate interests of the parties and assess the proportionality of the request. Article XVII.74 CEL provides in particular that the court should take into account before ordering the disclosure the factual relevance, the costs of disclosure (in particular with relation to third parties) and whether the requested documents might hold any confidential information. To the extent that one of the parties is required to disclose documents holding confidential information, Article XVII.75 CEL grants the judge the power to order additional measures to ensure the confidential treatment of this information, such as allowing for the submission of non-confidential versions, having an expert draft a non-confidential summary or limiting the access to a select number of persons. In addition, Article XVII.76 CEL also provides that a (third) party that is ordered to disclose documents may submit written comments and be heard by the court, if the court gives him or her permission to do so, irrespective of whether the documents contain confidential information.
Under general procedural law, strict sanctions apply to parties and third parties not complying with the court's instructions on document production. In this respect, the court may impose a compensation or penalty payment if parties or third parties do not produce the required documents.44 In addition, since the entry into force of the Implementation Act, the court will be able to impose on (third) parties or their legal representatives a fine ranging from €1,000 to €10 million, depending on the specific circumstances of the case when they fail to comply with the rules set out above relating to the production of documents, the confidentiality of documents or the use of information gathered via the discovery process.45 Moreover, the court is also allowed to draw inferences that are detrimental to the party that breached the above rules. For example, the court will be able to establish that a discussion point has been proven or that claims and defences are rejected in whole or in part, or to order payment of the costs of the proceeding.46 Finally, the Belgian procedural rules also allow for parties to produce witnesses or to seek an order that some witnesses be heard.47 A cross-examination of the witnesses is, however, not allowed.
Article 962 Judicial Code permits a judge to appoint an expert. The judge can do so ex officio or with the consent of the parties. The parties can also produce their own expert reports. It is common that experts are used in complex litigations. Due to the (econometric and even economic) complexity of private damages cases, courts are expected to require the assistance of an expert, for example to quantify the harm.
The interlocutory judgment in which the judge appoints the expert will also contain a description of the assignment of the expert. The parties must cooperate with the expert. The costs relating to the expert's activity are borne by the parties.
The report produced by the expert is not legally binding on the court. The court can deviate from the advice of the expert. However, in practice the expert report will have significant evidentiary value.
In the Lifts and Escalators case, the Brussels Commercial Court refused to appoint an expert. The Court found that the European Commission had failed to establish its harm with sufficient certainty to justify the cost and effort of expert proceedings.
As of 1 September 2014, it is possible in Belgium to bring an action for collective redress for a number of violations of both Belgian and EU rules.48 With the law of 6 June 2017 implementing the Private Damages Directive, the grounds to bring an action for collective redress were extended to infringements of European competition law.49 On the basis of Book XVII.17 – Title 2 CEL 'Collective recovery actions', it will be possible for groups of consumers or for groups of SMEs to initiate a legal action for collective recovery. This possibility was introduced for SMEs as of 1 June 2018.
Other specific Belgian legislation exists that may provide a legal basis for collective actions. In this respect, a collective interest action exists for injunctive relief against practices that harm consumer interests. It will not be possible for these organisations to recover damages for their members, but only for themselves to the extent that their own personal interests have been harmed. Finally, it is also possible under Belgian law to consolidate private damages actions when they are interconnected such that it is deemed appropriate to assess them together.56 From a substantive perspective, these actions will, however, remain individual actions.
The principle of full compensation applies to private antitrust litigation in Belgium. Article XVII.72 CEL provides that any natural or legal person who has suffered harm as a result of a competition law infringement has the right to claim and to obtain full compensation for such harm. The person who suffered harm must be reinstated in the position he or she would have been in if the infringement had not taken place. This implies that the claimant can seek compensatory damages that cover both the actual loss suffered and the profit forgone, plus (compensatory) interest. There is no limit as to the amount of damages that may be awarded.
The damages that can be sought are purely compensatory in nature. The Belgian courts are not entitled to award punitive or treble damages.
When setting the amount of the damage suffered, the court does not take into account the fine that the defendant had to pay in the context of public enforcement. However, Article IV.70 CEL provides the BCA with the ability to consider the amount paid in the context of a consensual settlement as a mitigating factor when determining the fine.
The losing party will in principle be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. These costs include the costs of service, filing and registration as well as the legal representation costs. The costs relating to legal representation are a fixed amount determined by law, based on the value of the claim, and do not correspond to the actual lawyers' fees paid.
Pursuant to Article XVII.83 CEL, the defendant may invoke as a defence against a claim for damages the fact that the claimant passed on the whole or part of the overcharge resulting from the infringement of competition law. Hence, following the transposition of the Private Damages Directive, it is clear that the defendant has a right to invoke a passing-on defence (as a defensive tool or shield). Article XVII.70 CEL provides as an exception that defendants in an action for collective redress cannot invoke a passing-on defence.
The definition of overcharge is identical to that stated in the Private Damages Directive:62 the difference between the price actually paid and the price that would otherwise have prevailed in the absence of an infringement of competition law.
The burden of proving that the overcharge was passed on shall be on the defendant, who may reasonably require disclosure from the claimant and third parties. Given that the burden of proof is placed on someone who will in fact not hold the necessary evidence, the defendant has the ability to reasonably request access to the relevant information in accordance with the rules on the disclosure of evidence.63 Where a passing-on defence is raised, it will be up to the claimant to demonstrate not to have passed on the overcharge to its own customers.
Article XVII.84 CEL provides that indirect purchasers of goods or services affected by an infringement benefit from a rebuttable presumption that direct buyers have passed on their overcharge. An indirect purchaser is deemed to have proven that passing-on has occurred if he or she has demonstrated that the defendant has committed an infringement of competition law, the infringement of competition law has resulted in an overcharge for the direct purchaser of the defendant, and the indirect purchaser has purchased the goods or services that were the object of the infringement of competition law, or has purchased goods or services derived from or containing them.
If the indirect purchaser has demonstrated each of these three points (cumulatively), then a rebuttable presumption exists that the indirect purchaser has prima facie shown the existence of a passing-on of an overcharge to its detriment. The scope of such overcharge is still to be quantified.66 The presumption is rebutted if the defendant (the infringer) can demonstrate credibly to the satisfaction of the court that the overcharge was not, or was not entirely, passed on to the indirect purchaser.
The majority of damages actions brought are follow-on claims relating to a decision rendered by either a national competition authority or the European Commission establishing an infringement of competition law. A decision by a competition authority establishing a competition law infringement is, however, not a prerequisite. It is possible to bring a standalone action for damages. Belgian law does not foresee, in general, limitations on or immunities from follow-on damages actions. In principle, private enforcement actions can be brought against both companies and individuals, including leniency applicants.
The principle of attorney–client privilege is widely recognised in Belgium. Similarly, correspondence by in-house lawyers and their employers is also covered by legal privilege, provided that the in-house lawyers are members of the Belgian institute of in-house lawyers.79 In 2010 the European Court of Justice decided that communications to and from in-house counsel are not protected by legal professional privilege in the context of a European Commission investigation.80 Legal professional privilege for in-house lawyers therefore only applies to proceedings before the Belgian authorities, and not when the Belgian authorities assist the European Commission in an investigation.
The Belgian law transposing the Private Damages Directive introduced the potential to obtain evidence from the file of the competition authorities. If certain conditions are fulfilled, the courts can order the disclosure of the file.83 Certain documents can only be disclosed after the competition authority has closed its investigation or has taken a decision. Certain documentation of the file of the competition authority can never be disclosed, such as leniency applications.84 The CEL has thus significantly facilitated the disclosure of the file of the competition authority compared to prior practice.
Articles 2044 to 2058 Civil Code give parties the right to settle disputes at all times at their own initiative. Settlement procedures are not judicial procedures as such. Parties can settle a dispute outside any court action or during an ongoing procedure before court.
Articles 2044 to 2058 Civil Code contain four conditions and characteristics of settlements. First, settlements can terminate existing disputes and prevent future claims. Secondly, settlements must be made in writing. Thirdly, parties can renounce certain rights or claims, but only in relation to the dispute that they aim to settle. Lastly, settlements are deemed the final adjudication of the dispute between the parties. A settlement can only be repealed for fraud or coercion, or when the cause of the settlement is or becomes void.
Settlements that are reached in the mandatory negotiation phase are binding on all members of the group. Parties can also ask for judicial approval of the settlement they have reached.86 Such judicial approval does not entail acknowledgment of guilt or liability with regard to the facts underlying the settlement.
In the majority of cases, settlements are kept confidential.
Alternative dispute mechanisms are available in Belgium for private antitrust claims. These mechanisms are not legal proceedings. Arbitration procedures are conventional in nature,87 and an arbitration agreement must determine the modalities thereof.
Article I.22.18° CEL defines consensual dispute resolution as any mechanism enabling parties to reach the out-of-court resolution of a dispute concerning a claim for damages, such as out-of-court settlements (including those where a judge can declare a settlement binding), mediation or arbitration. Article I.22.19° CEL defines consensual settlement as an agreement reached through consensual dispute resolution as well as an arbitral award.
The interplay between arbitration clauses and private damages claims remains an outstanding issue. To date, there is no guiding (Belgian) case law. Given the increasing trend for private damages cases and the growing emphasis on alternative dispute resolution, the Belgian courts are expected to provide guidance on this outstanding issue in the near future.
Various initiatives have been taken in Belgium to bring competition law and arbitration closer together. Contacts have been established between DG Competition of the European Commission, CEPANI91 and the Brussels School of Competition.92 These contacts have been externalised into seminars where arbitrators and competition lawyers have the chance to meet and exchange thoughts.
Following the transposition of the Private Damages Directive into Belgian law, undertakings that are found to have infringed competition law through joint behaviour will be held jointly and severally liable for the harm caused by such wrongdoing.93 In other words, each of the undertakings will be bound to compensate for the harm in full, and the injured party has the right to require full compensation from any of them until he or she has been fully compensated.
Following the transposition of the Private Damages Directive, Belgian judges will increasingly be faced with specific challenges that are to be dealt with de novo as they will require departing from the classic litigation culture. The following challenges come to mind.
First, it remains to be seen when the CEL will be applied fully in practice in a specific case. This will in particular require an assessment of which stipulations are considered of a substantive or procedural nature, including the presumptions that have been put in place.
The second challenge ahead is the actual quantification exercise of damages and the submission of economic evidence. It can be expected that this will be a complex exercise in practice, including specific econometric analysis. In addition, economic experts will need to gain experience in performing this exercise and a procedural court practice will need to be established.
A third development that will be monitored is the extent to which judges will depart from the classic application of the rules on evidence held by third parties (the classic application being established under Article 877 Judicial Code). The CEL allows for broader discovery requests in accordance with the stipulations of the Private Damages Directive.
A fourth question is whether an actual culture of assignment of claims will be established in Belgium, this not being the case to date.
A final consideration that comes to mind is to what extent decisions of the BCA and its findings will be taken into account by Belgian judges when assessing the question of the attribution of liability for certain conduct and causality.
It remains to be seen how the above challenges will be handled before the Belgian courts. Given the increased tendency of private damages cases in Belgium, it can be expected that several of the outstanding questions will be dealt with in the near future.
1 Frank Wijckmans is a partner, Maaike Visser is counsel, Karolien Francken is a senior associate and Monique Sengeløv and Manda Wilson are junior associates at Contrast. Our special thanks go to the lawyers from the Association of Belgian Competition Lawyers who shared their experiences regarding publicly known Belgian private damages cases.
2 Decision of the Belgian Competition Authority No. 17-IO-16-AUD of 2 May 2017 in case CONC-I/O-13/0031.
3 The judgment of 24 November 2014 of the Brussels Commercial Court can be consulted via the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/national_courts/cases/143115/143115_1_3.pdf.
4 In accordance with Article 584 Belgian Judicial Code, the claimant will have to prove that the action requires urgent relief.
5 Article 1039 Judicial Code.
6 In this respect, the nullity of the contract can be requested on the basis of Article 1184 Belgian Civil Code or a declaratory judgment can be sought on the basis of Article 18 Judicial Code.
7 The Implementation Act applies both to infringements of Article 101 and Article 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as to their counterpart under Belgian law, Article IV.1 and Article IV.2 CEL.
9 Article 1382 Civil Code.
10 Article XVII.37, 33° CEL; Article XVII.35 CEL stipulates that the courts of Brussels will have jurisdiction to hear actions for collective redress.
12 The provisions of the Judicial Code will apply.
13 Article 2262bis Judicial Code.
14 In the event of a single and continuous infringement, the infringement shall only be deemed to have ceased on the day on which the last infringement ended.
15 I Claeys and M Van Nieuwenborgh, 'De rechtsvordering tot schadevergoeding voor mededingings-inbreuken. Een grote stap vooruit?', TBH 2018, 2, (119) 136­–137.
16 Article XVII.90. §2 CEL.
19 Decision of the Belgian Competition Authority No. 2013-I/O-06 of 28 February 2013 in case MEDE-I/O-08/0009.
20 Decision of the Dutch Competition Authority of 16 December 2010 in case 6306.
21 Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters  O.J. L351/1.
22 Direct purchasers are defined as 'a natural or legal person who acquired, directly from an infringer, products that were the object of an infringement of competition law.' (Article I.22.20° CEL). Indirect purchasers are defined as 'a natural or legal person who acquired, not directly from an infringer, but from a direct purchaser or a subsequent purchaser, products that were the object of an infringement of competition law, or products containing them or derived therefrom.' (Article I.22.21° CEL).
23 An action for damages is defined as 'an action under Article XVII.72 by which a claim for damages is brought before a court by an alleged injured party, or by someone acting on behalf of one or more alleged injured parties, or by a natural or legal person that succeeded in the right of the alleged injured party, including the person that acquired the claim' (Article I.22.3° CEL).
24 Infringers are defined as 'an undertaking or association of undertakings which has committed an infringement of competition law' (Article I.22.2° CEL).
25 Infringement of competition law is defined as 'an infringement of Article 101 or 102 TFEU and/or Article IV.1 or IV.2' (Article I.22.1° CEL). Article IV.1 and IV.2 CEL are the Belgian equivalents of Article 101 and 102 TFEU.
27 Article XVII.84 CEL, see Section IX.
28 Articles 17 and 18 Judicial Code.
31 I Claeys and M Van Nieuwenborgh, 'De rechtsvordering tot schadevergoeding voor mededingings-inbreuken. Een grote stap vooruit?', TBH 2018, 2, (119) 131.
32 Consideration 16 of the Private Damages Directive.
33 Article XVII.79. §2 CEL; In accordance with Article XVII.79. §4 CEL, this protection will, however, only be granted to those parts containing the leniency declaration or the settlement proposal.
34 Article XVII.79. §3 CEL.
35 Article XVII.79. §1 CEL.
36 Article XVII.79. §5 CEL.
37 Article XVII.78. §1 CEL.
38 Article XVII.78. §2 CEL.
39 Article XVII.77. §2 CEL.
40 Article XVII.77. §1 CEL.
41 Article XVII.80. §1 CEL.
42 Article XVII.80. §2 CEL.
44 Article 882 Judicial Code.
45 Article XVII.81. §1 CEL.
46 Article XVII.81. §4 CEL.
47 Article 915 et seq. Judicial Code.
48 Article XVII.35 CEL: 'The Brussels courts have exclusive jurisdictions to hear actions for collective redress'.
49 Article XVII.36, 1° CEL juncto Article XVII.37.1° (a) and 33° CEL.
51 I Claeys and M Van Nieuwenborgh, 'De rechtsvordering tot schadevergoeding voor mededingingsinbreuken. Een grote stap vooruit?', TBH 2018, 2, (119) 138.
53 Article XVII.43. §2 CEL.
55 Article XVII.57 CEL – Article XVII.62 CEL.
56 Article 30 Belgian Civil Code.
57 Communication from the Commission on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, O.J. 13 June 2013, 167, 19; Practical guide regarding quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, SWD (2013) 205; Study on the passing-on of overcharges (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/KD0216916ENN.pdf).
58 Article IV.77 CEL juncto Article 962 Judicial Code.
59 Cass. 13 January 1999, Arr.Cass, 1999, 40.
60 Kh. Gent 23 March 2017, TBM 2017, 179.
61 I Claeys and M Van Nieuwenborgh, 'De rechtsvordering tot schadevergoeding voor mededingingsinbreuken. Een grote stap vooruit?', TBH 2018, 2, (119) 131.
63 Article XVII.74 and following CEL.
65 F Wijckmans, M Visser, S Jaques and E Noël, 'The EU Private Damages Directive, Practical Insights', Intersentia 2016, p. 62, paragraphs 199–200.
66 F Wijckmans, M Visser, S Jaques and E Noël, 'The EU Private Damages Directive, Practical Insights', Intersentia 2016, p. 65, paragraphs 211–212.
67 F Wijckmans, M Visser, S Jaques and E Noël, 'The EU Private Damages Directive, Practical Insights', Intersentia 2016, p. 67, paragraph 218 and following.
69 The three cumulative conditions are at any time during the infringement the SME had a market share below 5 per cent; the economic viability of the SME could be jeopardised and cause its assets to lose all their value; and the SME cannot have been the leader or coercer of the infringement, and is not a repeat offender.
70 Article XVII.86. §2 and §3 CEL.
71 Article XVII.86. §2 and §3 CEL.
72 Article XVII.88. §1 CEL.
73 Article XVII.82. §1 CEL.
74 I Claeys and M Van Nieuwenborgh, 'De rechtsvordering tot schadevergoeding voor mededingings-inbreuken. Een grote stap vooruit?', TBH 2018, 2, (119) 123–124.
75 Article XVII.82. §2 CEL.
76 Commercial Court Brussels 24 April 2015, TBM 2015, No. 3, (212) 216.
77 Consideration 34 of the Private Damages Directive.
78 Skanska Industrial Solutions ea, C-724/17, O.J. C 5 March 2018, 83, 14.
79 Article 5 Act of 1 March 2000 establishing an institute for in-house lawyers.
80 Akzo v. Commission, case C-550/07 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:512.
81 Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
85 Article XVII.45, Section 1 CEL.
87 Arbitration is governed by Articles 1676 to 1723 Judicial Code.
90 Article XVII.88 CEL. See F Wijckmans, M Visser, S Jaques and E Noël, The EU Private Damages Directive, Practical Insights, Intersentia 2016, pp. 77–79, paragraphs 254–258.
91 CEPANI is the Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation: http://www.cepani.be/en.
92 More information on the Brussels School of Competition can be found at http://bsc.brussels/.
96 Article XVII.87. §1 CEL.
97 Article XVII.87. §2 CEL.
98 Article XVIII.88. §1 CEL.
99 Article XVII.88. §3 CEL.

References: §2
 §2
 §4
 §3
 §1
 §5
 §1
 §2
 §2
 §1
 §1
 §2
 §1
 §4
 §2
 §2
 §3
 §2
 §3
 §1
 §1
 §2
 v. 
 §1
 §2
 §1
 §3