Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:54:19.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Era for Private Antitrust Litigation in Germany? A Critical Appraisal of the Modernized Law against Restraints of Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Wolfgang Wurmnest

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On July 1st, 2005, the 7th Amendment to the Law against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen – GWB) became effective. The modernization of the GWB was indispensable in bringing German law in line with Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003. Regulation 1/2003 decentralized the enforcement of EC competition rules and aimed to pave the way for effective private antitrust litigation in Europe. Thus far, private parties have invoked Art. 81 and 82 EC Treaty primarily as shield by arguing that certain agreements were void. Only in very few instances were those rules used as sword to sue infringers for injunctive relief or damages. To stimulate private enforcement, Regulation 1/2003 inter alia abolished the European Commission's exclusive power to exempt practices which are prohibited pursuant to Art. 81 (1) EC Treaty and entitled national competition authorities and courts to apply Art. 81 (3) EC Treaty. Moreover, it empowered the European Commission to make written submissions in antitrust cases pending before national courts. In line with the new European approach, the German legislature has overhauled the hitherto existing rules of German competition law considerably. This article will briefly describe the general changes brought by the reform and take a closer look at the amended rules relating to private antitrust litigation before German courts.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 8 , 01 August 2005 , pp. 1173 - 1189
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Siebtes Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) 2005, Part I, 1954-1969. Note: This article uses the notions of competition and antitrust law synonymously.Google Scholar

2 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, O.J. 2003 L 1/1. On the changes brought by Regulation 1/2003, see Céline Gauer, Dorothe Dalheimer, Lars Kjolbye & Eddy de Smijter, Regulation 1/2003: A Modernised Application of EC Competition Rules, Competition Policy Newsletter, Spring 2003, 3; Silke Hossenfelder & Martin Lutz, Die neue Durchführungsverordnung zu den Artikeln 81 und 82 EG-Vertrag, 53 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb (WuW) 118 (2003); Karsten Schmidt, Privatisierung des Europakartellrechts – Aufgaben, Verantwortung und Chancen der Privatrechtspraxis nach der VO Nr. 1/2003, 12 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 881 (2004); Felix Müller, The New Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 on the Implementation of the Rules on Competition, 5 German Law Journal 722 (2004); see further Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker, The EC Commissions's Modernization of Competition Policy: A Challenge to the Community's Constitutional Order, 1 European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) 401 (2000); Wernhard Möschel, Systemwechsel im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht?, 55 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 61 (2000); Katherine Holmes, The EC White Paper on Modernisation, 23 World Competition 51 (2000); Jürgen Basedow, Who will Protect Competition in Europe? From Central Enforcement to Authority Networks and Private Litigation, 2 EBOR 443 (2001); Suzanne A. Kingston, A “New Division of Responsibilities” in the Proposed Regulation to Modernise the Rules Implementing Articles 81 and 82 EC? A Warning Call, 22 European Competition Law Review (ECLR) 340 (2001).Google Scholar

3 The increased role of private antitrust enforcement is very much disputed in Europe, see, e.g., Wouter P.J. Wils, Should Private Antitrust Enforcement Be Encouraged in Europe?, 26 World Competition 473 (2003) (arguing that public antitrust enforcement is superior to private enforcement and that there is even no need for a supplementary role for private enforcement, as the adequate level of sanctions and the adequate number and variety of prosecutions can be ensured more effectively and at lower cost through public enforcement). But see Clifford A. Jones, Private Antitrust Enforcement in Europe: A Policy Analysis and Reality Check, 27 World Competition 13 (2004) (arguing that private enforcement has great value as a supplement to public enforcement and as the primary means of compensating victims of infringements whose interests are to be protected by national courts).Google Scholar

4 The Ashurst Study, which was commissioned by the European Commission, counted only around sixty judged cases in damages actions in the last forty years (12 on the basis of EC law, around 32 on the basis of national law and 6 on the basis of both). Of these judgments, 28 have so far resulted in an award being made. The study is available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/private_enforcement/index_en.html. An analysis of the major obstacles to private antitrust law enforcement in Germany is given by Rolf Hempel, Privater Rechtsschutz im Kartellrecht – Eine rechtsvergleichende Analyse 83-87 (2002); Jürgen Basedow, Private Enforcement of Article 81 EC: A German View, in European Competition Law Annual 2001: Effective Private Enforcement of EC Antitrust Law 137, 140-145 (Claus Dieter Ehlermann & Isabela Atanasiu Eds., 2003); Wolfgang Wurmnest, Private Durchsetzung des EG-Kartellrechts nach der Reform der VO Nr. 17, in Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht im Umbruch 213, 223-232 (Peter Behrens, Ellen Braun & Carsten Nowak eds., 2004); Michael Buch, Private Antitrust Litigation in Germany, The European Antitrust Review, 145-147 (2005).Google Scholar

5 For an analysis of the new rules aimed at bolstering private antitrust law enforcement, see Wolfgang Wurmnest, supra note 4, at 224-237.Google Scholar

6 The draft was not published but only circulated among interested parties and associations. On the draft's major proposals, see Rainer Bechtold, Grundlegende Umgestaltung des Kartellrechts: Zum Referentenentwurf der 7. GWB-Novelle, 57 Der Betrieb (DB) 235 (2004); Harald Kahlenberg & Christian Haellmigk, Referentenentwurf der 7. GWB-Novelle: Tief greifende Änderungen des deutschen Kartellrechts, 59 Betriebs-Berater (BB) 389 (2004). For a critical appraisal of the draft's rules relating to private antitrust litigation, see F. Wenzel Bulst, Private Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung nach der 7. GWB-Novelle: Unbeabsichtigte Rechtsschutzbeschränkungen durch die Hintertür?, 15 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht (EWS) 62.Google Scholar

7 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.) No. 15/3640.Google Scholar

8 See, e.g., Monopolkommission, Die Pressefusionskontrolle in der Siebten GWB-Novelle 75 (2004); Wernhard Möschel, Reform des Pressekartellrechts?, 59 JZ 1060 (2004).Google Scholar

9 See Stellungnahme des Bundesrates, BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 79-80.Google Scholar

10 See Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, BT-Drs. No. 15/5049.Google Scholar

11 The Mediation Committee, comprised of members of the Bundesrat and the Bundestag, is a special mediation procedure in order to find a consensus between the two German chambers.Google Scholar

12 See BT-Drs. No. 15/5735.Google Scholar

13 For a first assessment of the new law, see Harald Kahlenberg & Christian Haellmigk, Neues Deutsches Kartellgesetz, 60 BB 1509 (2005).Google Scholar

14 For an overview of the relationship of EC Competition law and national competition law after Regulation 1/2003 became effective, see Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker & Heike Schweitzer, Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht 148-151 (2nd ed., 2004).Google Scholar

15 Case 56/65 Société Technique Minière v. Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 281, 303.Google Scholar

16 § 1 GWB (old version) which applied only to restrictions of competition between competitors became essentially identical to Art. 81 (1) EC Treaty. The existing exemption provisions (§§ 2 to 7 GWB) were almost completely replaced by a clause that is identical to Art. 81 (3) EC Treaty.Google Scholar

17 Cf. § 19 (2) GWB.Google Scholar

18 Cf. Art. 35 Regulation 1/2003.Google Scholar

19 Cf. § 32a GWB.Google Scholar

20 Cf. § 32b GWB.Google Scholar

21 Cf. § 32c GWB.Google Scholar

22 Cf. § 10 GWB (old version).Google Scholar

23 Cf. § 50a-50c GWB.Google Scholar

24 Cf. § 81 (4) GWB.Google Scholar

25 See Case 127/73 BRT v. SABAM [1974] ECR 51, 62.Google Scholar

26 See, e.g., Paul Craig & Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law – Text Cases, and Materials 230-273 (3rd ed., 2003); Richard Wish, Competition Law 298 (5th ed., 2003).Google Scholar

27 See Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker & Heike Schweitzer, supra note 14, at 512-513; Wolfgang Wurmnest, Das Gemeinschaftsdeliktsrecht in der aktuellen Rechtsprechung der Gemeinschaftsgerichte (2001-2003), 1 Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht (GPR), 129, 134-135 (2003/2004). But see Advocate General van Gerven's opinion in case C-128/92 Banks v. British Coal Corporation [1994] ECR I-1209, 1243-1260 and Carsten Nowak, Anmerkung zur Courage-Entscheidung, 12 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 717, 718 (2001) (both argue that EC law provides the basis for damages claims against EC competition law infringers).Google Scholar

28 See, e.g., Case 68/88 Kommission v. Greece [1989] ECR 2965, 2985; Case 382/92 Kommission v. United Kingdom [1994] ECR I-2435, 2475; Case C-186/98 Nunes and de Matos [1999] ECR I-4883, 4894.Google Scholar

29 Case C-453/99 Courage v. Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, 6323. On this judgment see Assimakis Komninos, New Prospects for Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law: Courage v. Crehan and the Community Right to Damages, 39 Common Market Law Review (CMLRev.) 447 (2002); Tobias Lettl, Der Schadensersatzanspruch gemäß § 823 Abs. 2 BGB i.V.m. Art. 81 Abs. 1 EG, 167 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht (ZHR) 473 (2003); Wolfgang Wurmnest, Zivilrechtliche Ausgleichsansprüche von Kartellbeteiligten bei Verstößen gegen das EG-Kartellverbot, 49 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 896 (2003); Gerald Mäsch, Private Ansprüche bei Verstößen gegen das europäische Kartellverbot – „Courage“ und die Folgen, 38 Europarecht (EuR) 825 (2003); Hartmut Weyer, Schadensersatzansprüche gegen Private kraft Gemeinschaftsrecht, 11 ZEuP 318 (2003); see also Giorgio Afferni & F. Wenzel Bulst, Kartellrechtliche Schadensersatzansprüche von Verbrauchern, 13 ZEuP 143, 156-161 (2005).Google Scholar

30 Case C-453/99 Courage v. Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, 6323.Google Scholar

31 Id.Google Scholar

32 See Advocate General Mischo's opinion, id., at § 6306.Google Scholar

33 64 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen (BGHZ) 232, 237; 86 BGHZ 324, 330.Google Scholar

34 See, e.g., Thomas Lübbig, Die zivilprozessuale Durchsetzung etwaiger Schadensersatzansprüche durch die Abnehmer eines kartellbefangenen Produkts, 20 Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis (WRP) 1254, 1255-1256 (2004); Michael Buch, supra note 4, at 145. It has to be noted that the majority view rejected this restrictive interpretation and argued that direct purchasers are entitled to recover damages, see, e.g., Karsten Schmidt, in EG-Wettbewerbsrecht, Kommentar, Vol. I Art. 85 Abs. 2 no. 79 (Ulrich Immenga & Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker eds., 1997); Volker Emmerich, Kartellrecht 58 (9th ed., 2001); Wulf-Henning Roth, in Frankfurter Kommentar zum Kartellrecht § 33 GWB 1999 no. 49 (Helmut Glassen, Helmuth v. Hahn, Hans-Christian Kersten & Harald Rieger eds., loose-leaf, 2001).Google Scholar

35 See only Volker Emmerich, supra note 34, at 58-59.Google Scholar

36 See, e.g., Oberlandesgericht (OLG) (Higher Regional Court of Appeal) Stuttgart, WuW/E DE-R 161, 162 (1998).Google Scholar

37 See, e.g., OLG Düsseldorf, WuW/E DE-R 143, 146 (1998).Google Scholar

38 See, e.g., Landgericht (Regional Court) (LG) Berlin, case 102 O 155/02 Kart (not published), cf. on this ruling Silke Hossenfelder, Wilko Töllner & Konrad Ost, Kartellrechtspraxis und Kartellrechtsprechung 2003/2004, No. 101 (19th ed., 2004); LG Mannheim, 106 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) 182 (2004) with a critical case note by Köhler, Helmut, Kartellverbot und Schadensersatz, 106 GRUR 99 (2004). The OLG Karlsruhe endorsed the legal reasoning of the LG Mannheim, see OLG Karlsruhe, 57 NJW 2243 (2004) with a critical case note by F. Wenzel Bulst, Private Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung durch die Marktgegenseite – deutsche Gerichte auf Kollisionskurs zum EuGH, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2201 (2004).Google Scholar

39 The European Commission described the vitamin cartels as “the most damaging series of cartels the Commission has ever investigated.” See Press Release, European Commission, Commission Imposes Fines on Vitamin Cartels, IP/01/1625, Nov. 21, 2001, available at: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/. See also Harry First, The Vitamins Case: Cartel Prosecutions and the Coming of International Competition Law, 68 Antitrust Law Journal 711 (2001), at 712 (describing this cartel as “probably the most economically damaging cartel ever prosecuted under U.S. antitrust law”).Google Scholar

40 See LG Mannheim, 106 GRUR 182 (2004); OLG Karlsruhe, 57 NJW 2243 (2004); LG Mainz, 19 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift-Rechtsprechungsreport (NJW-RR) 478 (2004). But see LG Dortmund, 14 EWS 434 (2004) (awarding damages to direct purchasers of cartelised vitamin products). On this case, see F. Wenzel Bulst, Internationale Zuständigkeit, anwendbares Recht und Schadensberechnung im Kartelldeliktsrecht, 14 EWS 403 (2004).Google Scholar

41 § 33 (1) sentence 3 GWB.Google Scholar

42 BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 10-11 (§ 33 (1) GWB).Google Scholar

43 See on the one hand F. Wenzel Bulst, supra note 38, at 2202 (suggesting that the draft may be read as giving indirect purchasers a claim for damages); Marc Schütt, Individualrechtsschutz nach der 7. GWB-Novelle, 54 WuW 1124, 1129 (2004) (noting that the draft may be interpreted as allowing for indirect purchaser claims); but see on the other hand Thomas Lübbig, supra note 34, at 1259 (reading the draft as excluding claims for damages brought by consumers).Google Scholar

44 Cf. § 33 (3) GWB.Google Scholar

45 For an overview about major changes brought by the recent UWG reform in 2004, see Manuela Finger & Sandra Schmieder, The New Law Against Unfair Competition: An Assessment, 6 German Law Journal 201 (2004).Google Scholar

46 Cf. §§ 249-254 BGB.Google Scholar

47 Cf. § 249 BGB.Google Scholar

48 BGH, 31 Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 480 (1980); 98 BGHZ 212, 218. See also Walter van Gerven, Jeremy Lever & Pierre Larouche, Tort Law 883 (2000).Google Scholar

49 See on the complex case law Gottfried Schiemann, in J. v. Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen § 249 no. 132-177 (2005).Google Scholar

50 Hanover Shoe & Co v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, 392 US 481 (1968).Google Scholar

51 Mannheim, LG, 106 GRUR 182 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Id., at 184.Google Scholar

53 Id.Google Scholar

54 Id.Google Scholar

55 Karlsruhe, OLG, 57 NJW 2243, 2244 (2004).Google Scholar

56 See BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 54.Google Scholar

57 See, e.g., statement of Professor Hellwig, Member of the German Monopolies Commission, in BT-Drs. No. 15/5049, 44. See also Norbert Reich, The “Courage” Doctrine: Encouraging or Discouraging Compensation for Antitrust Injuries?, 42 CMLRev. 35, 44-48 (2005) (arguing to reject on the one hand the ‘passing on’ defence, but limit on the other hand indirect purchaser claims, though without excluding them completely).Google Scholar

58 This view was taken by certain authors, see Jürgen Beninca, Schadensersatzansprüche von Kunden eines Kartells?, 54 WuW 604, 607 (2004); Thomas Lübbig, supra note 34, at 1257.Google Scholar

59 The current rates can be traced online at: www.bundesbank.de.Google Scholar

60 For an overview see Rolf Hempel, Private Follow-on Klagen im Kartellrecht, 55 WuW 137 (2005).Google Scholar

61 Cf. BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 54.Google Scholar

62 Cf. Art. 16 Regulation 1/2003.Google Scholar

63 See Andreas Zuber, Die EG-Kommission als amicus curiae 94-96 (2001).Google Scholar

64 There are, however, very specific areas, in which Germany, based on EC legislation or bilateral agreements, recognizes foreign administrative acts, e.g. driving licences or university diplomas.Google Scholar

65 See, e.g., Monopolkommission, Das allgemeine Wettbewerbsrecht in der Siebten GWB-Novelle 31 (2004); Rolf Hempel, supra note 60, at 144.Google Scholar

66 Cf. Art. 103 (2) Grundgesetz.Google Scholar

67 See, e.g., Hanns-Peter Nehl, Principles of Administrative Procedure in EC Law, 70-99 (1999) with ample references.Google Scholar

68 Cf. Art. 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights.Google Scholar

69 Cf. Sec. 5 of the Clayton Act.Google Scholar

70 Cf. §§ 194-213 BGB.Google Scholar

71 Cf. § 214 (1) BGB.Google Scholar

72 Cf. § 199 (1) No. 1 BGB.Google Scholar

73 Cf. §§ 33 (5) GWB in conjunction with 204 (2) BGB.Google Scholar

74 Cf. BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 11 (§ 33 (2) GWB).Google Scholar

75 Cf. BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 11-12 (§ 34a (1) GWB).Google Scholar

76 Id.Google Scholar

77 Cf. Donncadh Woods, Ailsa Sinclair & David Ashton, Private Enforcement of Community Competition Law: Modernization and the Road Ahead, Competition Policy Newsletter, Summer 2004, 31, 37.Google Scholar

78 Some authors argue that private plaintiffs will only take the risk of commencing a private action when there is a promising incentive such as the expectation of multiple damages, cf. Jürgen Basedow, supra note 4, at 145 (showing sympathy for treble damages); Rolf Hempel, Privater Rechtsschutz im deutschen Kartellrecht nach der 7. GWB-Novelle, 54 WuW 362, 371 (2004) (advocating the introduction of treble damages); Monopolkommission, Das allgemeine Wettbewerbsrecht in der Siebten GWB-Novelle 67 (2004) (recommending the introduction of double damages as a remedy under German law for breaches of EC competition law).Google Scholar

79 See Christian v. Bar, Common European Law of Torts, Vol. I no. 605-612 (1998); Walter van Gerven, Jeremy Lever & Pierre Larouche, supra note 48, at 871-874; Wolfgang Wurmnest, Grundzüge eines europäischen Haftungsrechts – Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung des Gemeinschaftsrechts 101-106 (2003).Google Scholar