natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Self-settlement, out-of-court settlements and plea agreements should be promoted in actions for damages.
Self-settlement, out-of-court settlements and plea agreements should be promoted in actions for damages.
It should be possible for their remedying to be justified and taken into account when it comes to deciding on what fine to set.
It should be possible for their remedying to be justified and taken into account when it comes to deciding on what fine to set.
Differences with the North American model
Differences with the North American model
While competition legislation in the United States is implemented in 90% of cases via private damages actions, these are very rarely brought in the European Union.
While competition legislation in the United States is implemented in 90% of cases via private damages actions, these are very rarely brought in the European Union.
Practices differ, but a comparison of the qualitative aspects is still more relevant.
Practices differ, but a comparison of the qualitative aspects is still more relevant.
Private actions can reflect very different approaches and models, and it would be a gross mistake to identify private actions with the North American model.
Private actions can reflect very different approaches and models, and it would be a gross mistake to identify private actions with the North American model.
In the United States, the judicial authorities that rule on private claims impose punitive damage payments of three times the damage occasioned.
In the United States, the judicial authorities that rule on private claims impose punitive damage payments of three times the damage occasioned.
In the European Union, the competition authorities have the monopoly on imposing fines, and the European model of private actions is a complement rather than an alternative to public legal action.
In the European Union, the competition authorities have the monopoly on imposing fines, and the European model of private actions is a complement rather than an alternative to public legal action.
The North American model is based on a set of elements (judicial bodies consisting of non-professionals, 'class actions', strict requirements on the disclosure of documents, punitive damage payments of three times the damage occasioned, risk-free litigation owing to the lawyer's fees being pegged to the outcome and payment by each party of the costs of litigation, etc.).
The North American model is based on a set of elements (judicial bodies consisting of non-professionals, 'class actions', strict requirements on the disclosure of documents, punitive damage payments of three times the damage occasioned, risk-free litigation owing to the lawyer's fees being pegged to the outcome and payment by each party of the costs of litigation, etc.).
No formula of this type exists in European legal practice.
No formula of this type exists in European legal practice.
The European model cannot be compared to the North American one simply on the basis of some of these elements.
The European model cannot be compared to the North American one simply on the basis of some of these elements.
This report proposes a clearly differential approach, in line with the experience acquired by the Community and the Member States.
This report proposes a clearly differential approach, in line with the experience acquired by the Community and the Member States.
Need for a common focus in the European Union
Need for a common focus in the European Union
Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty should be implemented uniformly regardless of the administrative or judicial nature of the authority giving the ruling.
Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty should be implemented uniformly regardless of the administrative or judicial nature of the authority giving the ruling.
Decisions should be consistent and reflect common principles of security and effectiveness that avoid distortions and a lack of cohesion within the Union.
Decisions should be consistent and reflect common principles of security and effectiveness that avoid distortions and a lack of cohesion within the Union.
The Commission's Green Paper raises several interesting points on the way these should be addressed in the future.
The Commission's Green Paper raises several interesting points on the way these should be addressed in the future.
Private actions can be follow-up actions (after adoption of a decision by the competition authorities establishing that a breach has been committed) or autonomous ones (where no breach has been established and the judicial authority must deliver a ruling as a precondition for liability for damages).
Private actions can be follow-up actions (after adoption of a decision by the competition authorities establishing that a breach has been committed) or autonomous ones (where no breach has been established and the judicial authority must deliver a ruling as a precondition for liability for damages).
In the interests of the consistency of the system, undifferentiated decisions on whether a breach has been committed must be reached through common rules and equivalent powers to enable:
In the interests of the consistency of the system, undifferentiated decisions on whether a breach has been committed must be reached through common rules and equivalent powers to enable:
- adoption of provisional measures, measures of enquiry and anticipatory measures;
- adoption of provisional measures, measures of enquiry and anticipatory measures;
- establishment of the facts and establishment and assessment of the burden of proof;
- establishment of the facts and establishment and assessment of the burden of proof;
- protection of confidential information and the effectiveness of leniency programmes;
- protection of confidential information and the effectiveness of leniency programmes;
- reinforced cooperation between authorities, making for a more reliable and effective system.
- reinforced cooperation between authorities, making for a more reliable and effective system.
There is also a need for more specific bases, in order for the judicial authorities to rule on claims for compensation in a uniform manner.
There is also a need for more specific bases, in order for the judicial authorities to rule on claims for compensation in a uniform manner.
'Regulation versus litigation'
'Regulation versus litigation'
The Court of Justice of the Communities has pointed to the supplementary nature of its case law (' in the absence of Community rules governing the matter '), in establishing that actions for damages before the national authorities should be settled in accordance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.
The Court of Justice of the Communities has pointed to the supplementary nature of its case law (' in the absence of Community rules governing the matter '), in establishing that actions for damages before the national authorities should be settled in accordance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.
The internal principle of equivalence is valid in the resolution of domestic and problematic actions, and also in hearings between parties, with that of effectiveness, when it takes precedence, but would it not be reasonable to avoid 25 or more different scenarios?
The internal principle of equivalence is valid in the resolution of domestic and problematic actions, and also in hearings between parties, with that of effectiveness, when it takes precedence, but would it not be reasonable to avoid 25 or more different scenarios?
An increase in litigiousness and judicial complexity is detrimental to claimants and to the effectiveness of the system.
An increase in litigiousness and judicial complexity is detrimental to claimants and to the effectiveness of the system.
The area requires a Community regulatory framework which affords greater security and efficacy.
The area requires a Community regulatory framework which affords greater security and efficacy.
The task of the judicial authorities in the field of Community competition law is not to write the law but to render it effective by settling concrete cases through ' inter partes ' debates.
The task of the judicial authorities in the field of Community competition law is not to write the law but to render it effective by settling concrete cases through ' inter partes ' debates.
It is up to the regulator to select alternatives in fundamental issues and to lay down provisions, via public and open debate in the European Union, thereby bestowing greater legitimacy and taking to account the general interest.
It is up to the regulator to select alternatives in fundamental issues and to lay down provisions, via public and open debate in the European Union, thereby bestowing greater legitimacy and taking to account the general interest.
The special role of the European Commission
The special role of the European Commission
The bringing of private actions does not alter the powers or responsibilities conferred on the Commission under the Treaty.
The bringing of private actions does not alter the powers or responsibilities conferred on the Commission under the Treaty.
Its functions as regards ensuring the application of the principles set out in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty are of major importance.
Its functions as regards ensuring the application of the principles set out in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty are of major importance.
Moving from stunted private actions to a balanced system, with two complementary pillars, calls for political will and intellectual leadership.
Moving from stunted private actions to a balanced system, with two complementary pillars, calls for political will and intellectual leadership.
The Commission must address this challenge in the form of a reference work on the application of competition law, and adopt measures to ensure its success.
The Commission must address this challenge in the form of a reference work on the application of competition law, and adopt measures to ensure its success.
As basic tasks it must update the regulations, set out guidelines that enable their development, publish general policy documents to increase understanding of them and spur cooperation between the competent authorities.
As basic tasks it must update the regulations, set out guidelines that enable their development, publish general policy documents to increase understanding of them and spur cooperation between the competent authorities.
Strengthening of the European Parliament's role in competition policy
Strengthening of the European Parliament's role in competition policy
As a representative institution, Parliament must lend competition policy the democratic legitimacy it needs.
As a representative institution, Parliament must lend competition policy the democratic legitimacy it needs.
Parliament must play a more leading and more active role if a culture of competition is to be extended throughout society.
Parliament must play a more leading and more active role if a culture of competition is to be extended throughout society.
Competition in the Community is no longer a budding administrative discipline but a consolidated policy of enormous significance for undertakings and the public, and one fundamental to European integration.
Competition in the Community is no longer a budding administrative discipline but a consolidated policy of enormous significance for undertakings and the public, and one fundamental to European integration.
If it is to be made fully democratic, Parliament's role must be strengthened, its powers of recommendation and monitoring increased and its co‑legislative status recognised.
If it is to be made fully democratic, Parliament's role must be strengthened, its powers of recommendation and monitoring increased and its co‑legislative status recognised.
относно Зелената книга относно исковете за вреди при нарушаване на антитръстовите правила на ЕО
on the Green Paper: Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules
Bert Doorn
Bert Doorn
(*) Засилено сътрудничество между комисии – член 47 от правилника
(*) Enhanced cooperation between committees – Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
Комисията по правни въпроси приканва водещата комисия по икономически и парични въпроси да включи в предложението за резолюция, което ще приеме, следните предложения:
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
A. като има предвид, че потребителите и предприятията, претърпели вреди вследствие на нарушение на антитръстовите правила имат право на обезщетение,
A. whereas consumers and businesses who have suffered damage as a result of breach of antitrust rules have a right to compensation,
Б. като има предвид, че конкурентното право на държавите-членки се прилага главно чрез средствата на публичното право, както и факта, че между държавите-членки съществуват значителни разлики и пречки, които биха могли да възпрепятстват потенциалните ищци да предявят иск за обезщетение,
B. whereas in the Member States, competition law is chiefly enforced through public-law channels and considerable differences and obstacles exist at Member State level which may prevent potential claimants from pursuing actions for compensation,
В. като има предвид, че съгласно член 85 от Договора за ЕО Комисията има задължение да гарантира прилагането на принципите, предвидени в членове 81 и 82 от Договора относно конкурентното право; като има предвид, че Договорът предвижда други правни основания, които биха могли да допринесат за ефективността на тези принципи, например член 65, който дава право на Европейския съюз да отстранява пречките пред правилното провеждане на гражданските производства с трансграничен елемент; и като има предвид, че Съдът на Европейските общности счита, че при липсата на общностни разпоредби относно правото на увредените лица да предявят иск за обезщетение на вреди пред национално съдилище, именно националната правна система на всяка държава-членка трябва да определи компетентните съдилища и да установи подробни процесуални правила, уреждащи искове за защита на права на физически лица, пряко произтичащи от правото на Общността, при положение че тези правила не са по-неблагоприятни в сравнение с правилата, уреждащи сходни дела по вътрешното право (принцип на еквивалентност), и в случай че те на практика не осуетяват или не затрудняват прекомерно упражняването на правата, предоставени от правото на Общността (принцип на ефективност).
C. whereas Article 85 of the EC Treaty requires the Commission to ensure application of the principles laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty concerning competition law; whereas the Treaty provides for other legal bases that can contribute to the effectiveness of those principles, such as Article 65, which enables the European Union to eliminate obstacles to the good functioning of proceedings in civil matters having cross-border implications; and whereas as the Court of Justice considers that, in the absence of Community rules governing the right of victims to claim damages before the national courts, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive directly from Community law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence), and provided that they do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness),
Г. като има предвид, че промените в областта на гражданското съдопроизводство на ЕС, и по-специално достъпа до правосъдие, не следват хода на последните промени в европейското конкурентно право на вътрешния пазар,
D. whereas developments in EU civil justice, in particular access to justice, have not kept pace with recent developments in EU competition law in the internal market,
Д. като има предвид, че всяко предложение на Комисията в области извън нейната изключителна компетентност съгласно Договора за ЕО трябва да съответства на принципа на субсидиарност и да отговаря на критериите съгласно принципа на пропорционалност,
E. whereas any proposal by the Commission in areas for which the Commission does not have exclusive competence must – pursuant to the EC Treaty – comply with the subsidiarity principle and meet proportionality criteria,
Ж. като има предвид, че съществуващите механизми за възстановяване на вреди при нарушение на антитръстовите правила на европейско равнище не гарантират пълната ефектност на член 81 от Договора за ЕО, по-специално по отношение на увредените лица,
G. whereas the existing redress mechanisms for breach of antitrust rules at European level do not guarantee the full effectiveness of Article 81 of the EC Treaty, in particular with regard to victims,
З. като има предвид, че много държави-членки търсят начини за осигуряване на по-добра защита на потребителите чрез допускане на колективни искове, и като има предвид, че разнопосочните действия в това отношение биха могли да доведат до нарушаване на конкуренцията на вътрешния пазар,
H. whereas many Member States are looking at ways to better protect consumers by allowing collective actions, and whereas differing courses of action may lead to distortion of competition in the internal market,
Счита, че гражданите или предприятията, претърпели вреди вследствие на нарушение на конкурентното право би трябвало да имат възможността да предявят иск за обезщетение за понесените загуби; освен това счита, че подобни нарушения трябва да бъдат установени по официален път чрез приложимите процедури и в случай че личните интереси на увредените лица са пряко засегнати;
Considers that citizens or businesses suffering damage as a result of a breach of competition law should have the opportunity to claim compensation for their losses; considers furthermore that such breaches must be formally established through the applicable procedures and provided that injured parties' own interests are directly concerned;
Следователно счита, че правните системи на държавите-членки следва да гарантират ефективно гражданско съдопроизводство, което позволява предявяването на иск за обезщетение на вреди, претърпени вследствие на нарушение на правото за защита на конкуренцията;
Considers, therefore, that the legal systems of the Member States should provide for effective civil law procedures whereby compensation may be claimed for damage resulting from breaches of antitrust law;
Счита, че всяка инициатива на Комисията относно правото на увредените лица да предявят иск пред национално съдилище за обезщетение на вреди трябва задължително да се придружава от оценка на въздействието, в която се прави преценка на правното основание на инициативата и нейното съответствие с принципите на субсидиарност и пропорционалност, като трябва задължително да отразява деликатния баланс на многовековното развитие на различните правни системи в рамките на ЕС;
Considers that any Commission initiative governing the right of victims to claim damages before the national courts must be accompanied by an impact assessment that evaluates the legal basis of the initiative and its compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and must reflect the delicate balances of centuries of development in the different legal systems across the EU;
Настоятелно призовава държавите-членки, чиито граждани и предприятия не разполагат ефективно с подобно право за предявяване на иск за обезщетение на вреди, да внесат съответните промени в уредбата на своето гражданскопроцесуално право;
Urges those Member States in which citizens and businesses do not yet have such an effective right to claim compensation to adapt their civil procedural law;
Настоятелно призовава държавите-членки да приемат, че всяко предварително установено нарушение от компетентния орган в областта на конкуренцията, след като бъде окончателно потвърдено в хода на евентуално обжалване, автоматично представлява пряко (prima facie) доказателство за вина при гражданско дело със същия предмет, при положение че ответникът е имал подходяща възможност да се защитава в административното производство;
Urges Member States to accept that a prior finding of infringement arrived at by the competition authority, once final and confirmed on a possible appeal, automatically constitutes prima facie proof of fault in civil proceedings involving the same issues, provided that the defendant had an adequate opportunity to defend itself in the administrative proceedings;
Също така подчертава, че държавите-членки следва да отчетат факта, че възможността да се противопостави възражение за прехвърляне пречи на установяването на размера на вредите и причинно-следствената връзка;
Also underlines that Member States should consider that the possibility to assert a passing-on defence is detrimental to the finding of the extent of the damage and the causal link;
Призовава Комисията да работи в тясно сътрудничество с компетентните национални органи на държавите-членки с оглед намаляване на влиянието на пречките с трансграничен характер, които възпрепятстват граждани и предприятия от ЕС да предявяват иск за обезщетение на вреди при нарушение на антитръстовите правила на ЕС в държавите-членки; счита, че при необходимост Комисията следва да предприеме правни действия за отстраняване на подобни пречки;
Calls on the Commission to work closely with the competent national authorities of the Member States in order to mitigate any cross-border obstacles that prevent EU citizens and businesses from filing cross-border damages claims in cases of breaches of EC antitrust rules in Member States; considers that, if necessary, the Commission should take legal action to remove such obstacles;
Предлага давностният срок за правото на предявяване на иск за обезщетение в случай на нарушение на правото за защита на конкуренцията да се спира от момента, в който Комисията или компетентният орган за конкуренцията в една или повече държави-членки образува производство по разследване на подобно нарушение;
Suggests that the limitation period applying to the right to claim compensation in the event of a breach of antitrust law should be suspended from the time when the Commission or competition authority in one or more Member States opens an investigation into such breach;
Счита още, че исковете за обезщетение на вреди вследствие на нарушение на правото за защита на конкуренцията не изискват разглеждане в специализирани съдилища, освен ако това не е предвидено в съдебните процедури на държавите-членки;
Further considers that claims for damages resulting from a breach of antitrust laws do not require any specialised courts, unless provided for in the legal procedures of the Member States;
Счита, че всеки предложен инструмент за действие трябва да отговаря напълно на обществения ред в държавите-членки, по-специално по отношение на наказателните вреди;
Considers that any proposed instrument must fully respect the public policy of the Member States, in particular with regard to punitive damages;
Счита, че не е целесъобразно да се адаптират на общностно равнище националните разпоредби относно предоставянето на документните доказателства и тежестта на доказване в граждански съдебни дела за вреди по член 81 и 82 от Договора за ЕО;
Considers it inappropriate to adapt at Community level the national rules concerning the disclosure of documentary evidence and the burden of proof in civil proceedings for damages under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty;
Счита освен това, че не е необходимо да се водят обсъждания и създават разпоредби на общностно равнище относно необходимостта от назначаване на вещи лица, разясняване на изискванията на закона за наличие на причинно-следствена връзка и възможността за предявяване на колективен иск, тъй като може да се счита, че тези елементи са присъщи на националните правни системи;
Further considers it unnecessary to discuss and prescribe at Community level the need for the appointment of experts, clarification of the legal requirement of causation and the possibility of bringing collective actions, since those elements may be regarded as rooted in the tradition of national legal systems;