Chillin'Competition

It is often overseen that there is a nexus between substantive competition law principles and procedural issues.

In this context, the current “resilience” of the forms-based approach in substantive competition law (see the recent Dole v. Commission case or the Expedia judgment) is likely to undermine the development of private enforcement.

If we follow §65 of the recent ECJ ruling in C-199/11, Europese Gemeenschap. v. Otis, national courts dealing with claims for damages in follow-on cases must comply with the agency’s prior decision, and admit the existence of an infringement akin to a fault.

Whilst it is true that, because of its obligation not to take decisions running counter to a Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the national court is required to accept that a prohibited agreement or practice exists, the existence of loss and of a direct causal link between the loss and the agreement or practice in question remains, by contrast, a matter to be assessed by the national court.

In this setting, the  main role of national courts is thus confined to estimating the harm inflicted on victims and to establishing causality (assuming §65 also applies to NCAs).

But how can they possibly do this if the decision simply talks of anticompetitive “object” in the abstract, and fails to scrutinize the impact of the impugned practice?

In my opinion, if (i) we are serious about private enforcement; and (ii) we read Europese Gemeenschap. v. Otis in a “task sharing” perspective, then agencies must provide a necessary estimation of the anticompetitive impact of the unlawful practices. Alternatively, if they rely on “object” arguments, they should at least offer to national courts full access to the evidence in their possession, so the later can make the math.