A new Belgian law aiming at facilitating damages claims for competition law infringements
03/07/2017

The Belgian law of 6 June 20171entered into force on 22 June 2017 (hereafter, the “Law”) transposes the ‘Damages Directive’ (Directive 2014/104/EU2), which aims to boost private enforcement of competition law in the European Union (“EU”) by guaranteeing that victims of competition law infringements can effectively introduce claims in the national jurisdictions of the Member States. The purpose of the Law is to remove some of the obstacles that claimants experience, such as proving the competition law infringement and calculating the damages caused. The Law has been introduced into the Belgian code of economic law (“CEL”). 

The right to a full compensation

First, the Law confirms that every physical person or legal person that suffered damages due to a competition law infringement has the right to a full compensation. Claimants do not need to prove a direct contractual relationship with the infringer, and can file a claim regardless of whether the infringement was established by a competition authority. Claimants can choose to file a suit through the class action procedure (only for consumers).

Cartel infringements are presumed to cause harm, though the infringer has the right to rebut that presumption. This presumption is limited, as it does not exist for other anti-competitive conduct (for example abuse of dominance). However, the presumption is a crucial advantage for claimants as now the burden of proof is borne by the infringer.

Collecting evidence made evident?

Most claimants do not have access to the necessary evidence to base their claim upon. On the basis of the new Article XVII. 74 CEL, national courts are able to order the defendant or a third party to disclose information. A similar provision already existed under Belgian law in the Code of Civil Procedure (art. 877), but the type of evidence for which the disclosure can be ordered within the framework of the Damages Directive is broader than the general Belgian provision. 

However, the requesting party must specify the items of evidence or the relevant categories of evidence as precisely as possible.

The disclosure of evidence must in each case be proportionate, which means that courts can only order the disclosure of relevant evidence when there is a plausible assertion that the claimant suffered harm from the infringement. Courts must also give adequate protection to confidential information, such as business secrets, by limiting the use and access (only to certain people) of the disclosed evidence.

Claimants can – under certain conditions – ask to disclose evidence that is included in the file of a competition authority.

Courts can impose a penalty payment upon a party, a third party or a legal representative (including lawyers), varying from 1.000,00 EUR to 10.000.000,00 EUR in case of failure or refusal to disclose the evidence as ordered by the court, destruction of relevant evidence, failure or refusal to protect confidential information or in case limitations on the use of the disclosed evidence were not respected. These sanctions co-exist with the system of the non-compliance penalty (‘astreinte’/’dwangsom’) that already exists under Belgian law.

Courts can draw a negative conclusion from a refusal to comply and judge the dispute in the disadvantage of the non-compliant party.

Under the new rules, a defendant can invoke the fact that the claimant(s) passed on the “overcharge”, the difference between the price paid and the price that would have been paid in the absence of an infringement. The burden of proof of this passing-on remains with the defendant.

Joint and several liability

The injured party has the right to require full compensation from any of the undertakings that infringed competition law through joint behavior. There are two exceptions to this rule: 

First, under certain conditions, the SME’s (as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC) are only liable to their own direct and indirect purchasers;

Second, the immunity recipients (i.e. undertakings that have been granted immunity from fines under a leniency programme), are only liable to their direct or indirect purchasers or providers. 

The SME’s and immunity recipients are also liable to other injured parties only where full compensation cannot be obtained from the other undertakings that were involved in the same infringement of competition law. 

It should be emphasized that the Law is stricter for SME’s than the Damages Directive, as the Damages Directive does not provide explicitly that SME’s can be liable to other injured parties. Regarding the liability of SME’s, the Belgian law goes beyond the Damages Directive in order to have a more uniform law and because of the wording of the provision in the Damages Directive (“without prejudice to the right of full compensation”, art. 11.2 Damages Directive).

The infringer who paid can recover contributions from the other infringers according to their relative responsibility.

Suspension and limitation periods

Courts can suspend their proceedings for up to two years when parties are involved in consensual dispute resolution in order to reach a settlement.

The new law also states that the general limitation periods apply: ten years for contractual claims and five years for tort claims.

Conclusion

Filing an action for damages for infringements of antitrust law becomes more victim-friendly with this new law, as it tackles some of the practical issues that claimants may experience. It will be interesting to learn how the new rules will impact the practice of antitrust litigation, and to what extent it will lead to more damages claims. 

 

1 Published on 12 June 2017.

2Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 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, published on 5 December 2014.

Related : AB Legal ( Mr. Marc Picat ,  Mr. Clément Claesens )

[+ http://www.ablegal.be]

Mr. Marc Picat Mr. Marc Picat
Partner
marc.picat@ablegal.be
Mr. Clément Claesens Mr. Clément Claesens
Associate
clement.claesens@ablegal.be

Click here to see the ad(s)
All articles Competition law

Lastest articles Competition law

Reform of Belgian Competition Law
05/07/2019

On 25 April 2019, the Chamber of Representatives of the federal Parliament approved in plenary session a bill reforming Bo...

Reform of Belgian Competition Law Read more

Belgian Competition Authority publishes 2018 Annual Report
24/06/2019

On 17 June 2019, the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) published its Annual Report for 2018. This document...

Belgian Competition Authority publishes 2018 Annual Report Read more

The Belgian Competition Authority condemns the Order of Pharmacists for hindering Medi-Market's d...
18/06/2019

On 28 May 2019, the Belgian Competition Authority ruled that the Order of Pharmacists had used its influence to hinder the...

The Belgian Competition Authority condemns the Order of Pharmacists for hindering Medi-Market's development Read more

Non-concurrence : le profil Linkedin peut-il servir de preuve ?
30/05/2019

LinkedIn vous informe de la carrière de vos ex-employés. Ce site peut-il servir de preuve à une viola...

Read more

Lastest articles by Mr. Marc Picat

Tax Rulings vs State Aids : European Commission 1 – Ireland 0
11/12/2017

That title is normally used in sport games rather for than tax or competition issues. Nevertheless, it reflects the fact t...

Read more

Court of Justice opens up international jurisdiction for online sales
16/02/2017

The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a ruling on 21 December 2016 (Case C-618/15) concer...

Read more

Brexit – Implications in the field of competition law
20/07/2016

On June 23, 2016, UK took the historic resolution to leave the EU which will be implemented by triggering Article 50 of th...

Read more

EU Commission notice of notion of State Aid
25/05/2016

On 19 May 2016, the EU Commission (EC) published its final Notice on the notion of State Aid further to its State Aid Mode...

Read more

Lastest articles by Mr. Clément Claesens

Court of Justice opens up international jurisdiction for online sales
16/02/2017

The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a ruling on 21 December 2016 (Case C-618/15) concer...

Read more

LexGO Network