Kilpailuoikeudellinen vahingonkorvausdirektiivi julkis- ja yksityisoikeudellisen soveltamisen rajapinnassa
Avainsanat:
vahingonkorvaus, kilpailunrajoitus, kilpailuoikeus, eurooppaoikeus, direktiiviAbstrakti
Antitrust Damages Directive in the interface of public and private enforcement of competition law
The directive on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (2014/104/EU) was adopted in November 2014. The directive has two main objectives. The first objective is to ensure the effective private enforcement of competition law by facilitating damages claims in the courts of the EU Member States. The second objective is to balance private enforcement and public enforcement. The Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy has recently published a proposal for the national implementation of the Damages Directive. Drafted in the form of a legislative Bill, the report of the working group proposes a new Act on actions for damages for reason of infringement of competition law. The new legislation would apply to liability in damages arising from infringement of both EU and national competition law. The aim is to clarify and simplify the filing of claims for damages and their processing, and to make sure that those suffering from infringements of competition law can be fully compensated. Another aim is to coordinate the enforcement of the competition rules by competition authorities with the handling of claims for damages in the courts.
The article first analyses the case-law of the European Court of Justice and the pertinent problems that are important to fully understand the background and goal setting of the directive. Thereafter the directive and the proposed Finnish implementation are discussed. The directive regulates compensation for infringements of competition law in greater detail than the existing legislation does. The report proposes provisions on, among other things, presumption of harm applying to cartels, burden of proof for passing on overcharges, limitation of joint and several liability and recourse liability for an undertaking that has been granted immunity from cartel fines as a result of its leniency application. Additionally, the provisions on the impact of an infringement decision on court proceedings in a damages case, on the disclosure of evidence and on limitation periods are discussed. Some of the new principles diverge from established tort law principles in Finland. The reason for this difference is either to enhance effective private enforcement or to protect public enforcement from the intrusive effects of private enforcement, in particular as far as leniency is concerned. The article critically evaluates the directive and the implementation plan in Finland. Recommendations for further improvement are made. Public and private enforcement serve ultimately the same goal, effective competition law, although the means are different.
