Presentation on theme: "Www.ccp.uea.ac.uk. To draw a picture… www.ccp.uea.ac.uk Coordination of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law (Work in progress) Sebastian."— Presentation transcript:
To draw a picture…
Coordination of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law (Work in progress) Sebastian Peyer ESRC Centre for Competition Policy and Norwich Law School University of East Anglia
NCAs face new task because of strengthened private enforcement and decentralisation Decentralised application of EC law Strengthening of private enforcement might cause risks of divergence: Different application of EU law between national jurisdictions Inconsistency between EU and national law Different application by different types of enforcers Likely that monitoring will become the primary task of competition authorities
My research asks how NCAs coordinate private and public enforcement Question: How do national competition authorities (NCAs) monitor and, if necessary, intervene in private actions? What are (some of) the implications?
I will address these questions comparing similar provisions in the UK and Germany Reasons for a comparison of the UK and Germany old Act Against Restraints of Competition (GWB) v new Competition Act civil v common law Provisions to be compared Section 90 GWB (Germany) Practice Direction Competition Law – Claims relating to the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (UK)
What do s. 90 GWB and Practice Direction Competition Law provide for? Notification of cases concerning EC and national competition law Request for relevant documents Courts can be asked to transmit relevant documents to NCA Submission of written and oral observations latter requires permission of the court
Notification duty provides useful data… Number of private enforcement cases in Germany: YearNotified casesthereof damages Total damages cases were so-called shield cases were damages were used as defence (Source: Bundeskartellamt)
… but submission of written and oral observations raises a number of questions! Questions that have been discussed in Germany but not been addressed in the UK: Can the BKartA commence a parallel investigation to obtain information? Can the BKartA introduce new facts or only issue a legal opinion? How do courts deal with new facts and legal opinions submitted by the BKartA?
The BKartA can commence a parallel investigation to gather information… BKartA can commence investigations and request information based on an initial suspicion at any time (discretionary decision) from a defendant/claimant Investigation after plaintiffs complaint possible if initial suspicion criteria is met Criticised as fishing expedition: Claimant complains to BKartA hoping that obtained information will be brought forward in private litigation
…and bring forward any type of information to be used by the court Legal opinions – no problem New facts – problematic Civil litigation is determined by the parties – they decide what facts or evidence they want to bring forward (principle of presentation or adversarial principle) In order to use new facts introduced by BKartA to their advantage parties must generally adopt them Otherwise court is barred from taking them into consideration However, aliquid semper haeret – something always sticks!
A German case illustrating some of the abovementioned problems Kammergericht of 27 March 1981: The BKartA formally requested information from the party of a parallel pending private antitrust case The complaint against this request was unsuccessful The Kammergericht stated that: - No considerateness on part of the BKartA is required - Gathering information is no undue procedural help - The BKartA acts in public interest and does not support a certain party
These problems do not only exist in Germany but in the UK as well Undue procedural help Distortion of balance of powers/equal footing possible Intervention powers of NCAs are special - normally, friends of the court do not have the power to investigate and request information! By-passing UK discovery rules? UK law provides discovery to obtain information, however, complaint and (written) observation might be a cheaper alternative to gather additional information and avoid costly discovery
What I have concluded so far… NCAs have special role as amicus curiae due to their extensive investigative powers OFT and BKartA are provided with strong tools to monitor and intervene in private enforcement actions Submitting written or oral observations might distort the balance of powers between the parties in civil proceedings
… and what I am still wondering about. Do NCAs act as expert witnesses rather than amicus curiae? What about the overall costs of coherence? If competition authorities are still needed to investigate a case and request information what is the benefit of private enforcement as to cost savings? Are there any safeguards to avoid strategic (mis)use of notifications in the UK (Settle to my conditions or I will notify the OFT) or complaints to the BKartA while private claims are pending?