[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

[pic] | KOMISIJA EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI |

Brussels, 19.12.2005

Bruselj, 19.12.2005

COM(2005) 672 final

KOM(2005) 672 konč.

GREEN PAPER

ZELENA KNJIGA

Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules

Odškodninske tožbe zaradi kršitve protimonopolnih pravil ES

(presented by the Commission) {SEC(2005) 1732}

(predložen s strani Komisije) {SEK(2005) 1732}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KAZALO

1 Background and objectives of the Green Paper 3

1 Ozadje in cilji zelene knjige 3

1.1 Damages claims as part of the enforcement system of Community antitrust law 3

1.1 Odškodninski zahtevki kot del sistema za izvrševanje protimonopolnega prava Skupnosti 3

1.2 Outline of the problem 4

1.2 Opis problema 4

1.3 Objectives 4

1.3 Cilji 4

2 Main issues 4

2 Glavna vprašanja 4

2.1 Access to evidence 5

2.1 Dostop do dokazov 5

2.2 Fault requirement 6

2.2 Dokazovanje krivde 6

2.3 Damages 7

2.3 Odškodnine 7

2.4 The passing-on defence and indirect purchaser’s standing 7

2.4 Ugovor prenašanja naprej in procesna legitimacija posrednega kupca 7

2.5 Defending consumer interests 8

2.5 Varovanje interesov potrošnika 8

2.6 Costs of actions 9

2.6 Stroški tožb 9

2.7 Coordination of public and private enforcement 9

2.7 Usklajevanje javnega izvrševanja in zasebnega uveljavljanja konkurenčnega prava 9

2.8 Jurisdiction and applicable law 10

2.8 Pristojnost in pravo, ki se uporablja 10

2.9 Other issues 11

2.9 Druga vprašanja 11

GREEN PAPER

ZELENA KNJIGA

Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules

Odškodninske tožbe zaradi kršitve protimonopolnih pravil ES

Vigorous competition on an open internal market provides the best guarantee that European companies will increase their productivity and innovative potential. Competition law enforcement is therefore a key element of the “Lisbon strategy”, which aims at making the economy of the European Union grow and create employment for Europe’s citizens.

Živahna konkurenca na odprtem notranjem trgu pomeni najboljše zagotovilo, da bodo evropska podjetja povečala svojo produktivnost in inovacijski potencial. Zagotavljanje spoštovanja konkurenčnega prava je zato ključni del „Lizbonske strategije“, ki želi spodbuditi rast gospodarstva Evropske unije in ustvariti delovna mesta za državljane EU.

As part of an effort to improve the enforcement of competition law after the modernisation of the procedural law on the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, this Green Paper and the Commission Staff Working Paper attached to it address the conditions for bringing damages claims for infringement of EC antitrust law. They identify obstacles to a more efficient system for bringing such claims and propose options for solving these problems. Facilitating damages claims for breach of antitrust law will not only make it easier for consumers and firms who have suffered damages arising from an infringement of antitrust rules to recover their losses from the infringer but also strengthen the enforcement of antitrust law.

Kot del prizadevanj za zagotavljanje spoštovanja konkurenčnega prava po posodobitvi procesnega prava o uporabi členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe ES ta zelena knjiga in priloženi delovni dokument služb Komisije obravnavata pogoje za vložitev odškodninskih zahtevkov zaradi kršitve protimonopolnega prava ES. Prav tako opisujeta ovire, ki preprečujejo uvedbo bolj učinkovitega sistema za vložitev takšnih zahtevkov, ter predlagata možnosti za rešitev teh problemov. Lažja vložitev odškodninskih zahtevkov zaradi kršitev protimonopolnega prava ne bo samo potrošnikom in podjetjem olajšala, da od kršitelja izterjajo škodo, ki so jo utrpeli zaradi kršitve konkurenčnih pravil, ampak bo tudi okrepila spoštovanje protimonopolnega prava.

1 Background and OBJECTIVES OF THE GREEN PAPER

1 Ozadje in cilji zelene knjige

1.1 Damage s claims as part of the enforcement system of Community antitrust law

1.1 Odškodninski zahtevki kot del sistema za izvrševanje protimonopolnega prava Skupnosti

The antitrust rules in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty are enforced both by public and private enforcement. Both forms are part of a common enforcement system and serve the same aims: to deter anti-competitive practices forbidden by antitrust law and to protect firms and consumers from these practices and any damages caused by them. Private as well as public enforcement of antitrust law is an important tool to create and sustain a competitive economy.

Protimonopolne določbe iz členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe se izvršujejo z javnimi in zasebnimi ukrepi. Obe obliki sta del enotnega sistema izvrševanja protimonopolnega prava in služita istim namenom: za odvračanje protikonkurenčnih praks, ki jih protimonopolno pravo prepoveduje, ter za zaščito podjetij in potrošnikov pred temi praksami in kakršno koli škodo, ki jih te povzročajo. Zasebno uveljavljanje in javno izvrševanje protimonopolnega prava sta pomembna pripomočka za oblikovanje in vzdrževanje konkurenčnega gospodarstva.

With regard to public enforcement, both the Commission and the competition authorities of the Member States (NCAs) apply Community competition law in individual cases. Under Regulation 1/2003, the Commission and NCAs constitute a network of competition authorities responsible for public enforcement of the applicable Community antitrust rules. As part of their enforcement activities, these authorities adopt, among other things, decisions finding that an undertaking has infringed antitrust law as well as decisions imposing fines. Public enforcement is indispensable for effective protection of the rights conferred and effective enforcement of the obligations imposed by the Treaty.

V zvezi z javnim izvrševanjem Komisija in pristojni organi držav članic (nacionalni organi, pristojni za konkurenco – NOK) v posamičnih primerih uporabljajo konkurenčno pravo Skupnosti. V skladu z Uredbo št. 1/2003 Komisija in NOK sestavljajo mrežo organov, pristojnih za konkurenco, ki so odgovorni za javno izvrševanje protimonopolnih pravil Skupnosti. Kot del svojih dejavnosti izvrševanja ti organi med drugim sprejemajo odločitve o tem, ali je podjetje kršilo protimonopolno pravo, kot tudi odločitve, ki nalagajo globe. Javno izvrševanje je nepogrešljivo za uspešno zaščito dodeljenih pravic in uspešno izvajanje obveznosti, ki jih nalaga Pogodba.

All parts of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty are directly applicable. From the outset private enforcement has also played a role in the enforcement of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. Private enforcement in this context means application of antitrust law in civil disputes before national courts. Such application can take different forms. Article 81(2) of the Treaty states that agreements or decisions prohibited by Article 81 are void. The Treaty rules can also be used in actions for injunctive relief. Also, damages awards can be awarded to those who have suffered a loss caused by an infringement of the antitrust rules.

Vsi deli členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe se uporabljajo neposredno. Zasebno uveljavljanje protimonopolnega prava je bilo že od začetka del izvrševanja členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe. Zasebno uveljavljanje v tem primeru pomeni uporabo protimonopolnega prava v civilnih sporih na nacionalnih sodiščih. Takšna uporaba ima lahko več oblik. Člen 81(2) Pogodbe pravi, da so nični vsi sporazumi ali sklepi, ki jih prepoveduje člen 81. Določbe Pogodbe se lahko uporabljajo tudi za vloge za začasno odredbo. Prav tako so lahko odškodnine dodeljene tistim, ki so bili oškodovani zaradi kršitve protimonopolnih pravil.

This Green Paper focuses on damages actions alone. Damages actions for infringement of antitrust law serve several purposes, namely to compensate those who have suffered a loss as a consequence of anti-competitive behaviour and to ensure the full effectiveness of the antitrust rules of the Treaty by discouraging anti-competitive behaviour, thus contributing significantly to the maintenance of effective competition in the Community[1] (deterrence). By being able effectively to bring a damages claim, individual firms or consumers in Europe are brought closer to competition rules and will be more actively involved in enforcement of the rules. The Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) has ruled that effective protection of the rights granted by the Treaty requires that individuals who have suffered a loss arising from an infringement of Articles 81 or 82 have the right to claim damages.[2]

Ta zelena knjiga se osredotoča samo na odškodninske tožbe. Odškodninske tožbe zaradi kršitev protimonopolnega prava imajo več namenov, namreč nuditi nadomestilo tistim, ki so bili zaradi protikonkurenčnega obnašanja oškodovani, in zagotoviti polno uspešnost protimonopolnih pravil Pogodbe s preprečevanjem protikonkurenčnega obnašanja, s čimer bistveno prispevajo k vzdrževanju uspešne konkurence v Skupnosti[1] (odvračanje). Če lahko uspešno vložijo odškodninski zahtevek, so posamezna podjetja ali potrošniki v Evropi bližje pravilom o konkurenci in bodo zato bolj aktivno sodelovali pri njihovem izvrševanju. Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti (SES) je razsodilo, da uspešna zaščita pravic iz Pogodbe zahteva, da imajo posamezniki, ki so bili oškodovani zaradi kršitev členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe, pravico zahtevati odškodnino[2].

1.2 Outline of the problem

1.2 Opis problema

While Community law therefore demands an effective system for damages claims for infringements of antitrust rules, this area of the law in the 25 Member States presents a picture of “total underdevelopment”.[3]

Medtem ko pravo Skupnosti torej zahteva uspešen sistem za odškodninske zahtevke zaradi kršitev protimonopolnih pravil, to področje prava v 25 državah članicah kaže sliko „precejšnje nerazvitosti“[3].

The ECJ has ruled that, in the absence of Community rules on the matter, it is for the legal systems of the Member States to provide for detailed rules for bringing damages actions. As the Community courts have no jurisdiction in the matter (outside the procedure for preliminary rulings), the courts of the Member States will generally hear these cases. Significant obstacles exist in the different Member States to the effective operation of damages actions for infringement of Community antitrust law.

SES je razsodilo, da morajo ob odsotnosti pravil Skupnosti o zadevi pravni sistemi držav članic zagotoviti podrobna pravila o vložitvi odškodninske tožbe. Ker sodišča Skupnosti v tej zadevi nimajo pristojnosti (razen postopka za sprejem predhodne odločbe), te zadeve na splošno obravnavajo sodišča držav članic. V različnih državah članicah obstajajo pomembne ovire uspešnemu delovanju odškodninskih tožb zaradi kršitev protimonopolnega prava Skupnosti.

1.3 Objectives

1.3 Cilji

The purpose of this Green Paper and of the Commission Staff Working Paper is to identify the main obstacles to a more efficient system of damages claims and to set out different options for further reflection and possible action to improve damages actions both for follow-on actions (e.g. cases in which the civil action is brought after a competition authority has found an infringement) and for stand-alone actions (that is to say actions which do not follow on from a prior finding by a competition authority of an infringement of competition law).

Namen te zelene knjige in delovnega dokumenta služb Komisije je določiti glavne ovire bolj učinkovitemu sistemu odškodninskih zahtevkov ter ponuditi različne možnosti za nadaljnji razmislek in morebitno ukrepanje za izboljšanje zasebnega uveljavljanja konkurenčnega prava tako za nadaljnje tožbe (npr. primere, pri katerih je civilna tožba vložena po tem, ko je organ, pristojen za konkurenco, ugotovil kršitev) kot tudi za posamične tožbe (tj. tožbe, ki ne sledijo iz predhodne ugotovitve pristojnega organa o kršitvi konkurenčnega prava).

2 MAIN ISSUES

2 Glavna vprašanja

The main issues are summed up below and dealt with in greater detail in the Working Paper. All interested parties are invited to study the considerations put forward there. See the attached Working Paper for a more detailed account of the sources of information taken into consideration.

Glavna vprašanja so povzeta spodaj in podrobneje obdelana v delovnem dokumentu. Vse zainteresirane strani so pozvane, naj proučijo predložena vprašanja. Glej priloženi delovni dokument za bolj podroben opis upoštevanih virov informacij.

The Commission invites all interested parties to comment on the issues discussed and on the options formulated with regard to these issues, as well as on any other aspects of damages claims for infringements of antitrust law. The comments will help the Commission to decide whether measures need to be taken at Community level to improve the conditions for antitrust damages claims.

Komisija poziva vse zainteresirane strani k predložitvi pripomb o obravnavanih vprašanjih in o možnostih, pripravljenih v zvezi s temi vprašanji, kot tudi o katerem koli drugem vidiku odškodninskih zahtevkov zaradi kršitev protimonopolnega prava. Pripombe bodo Komisiji pomagale, da se odloči, ali je treba na ravni Skupnosti uvesti ukrepe za izboljšanje pogojev za odškodninske zahtevke v zvezi s kršitvijo protimonopolnih pravil.

2.1 Access to evidence

2.1 Dostop do dokazov

Actions for damages in antitrust cases regularly require the investigation of a broad set of facts. The particular difficulty with this kind of litigation is that often the relevant evidence is not easily available and is held by the party committing the anti-competitive behaviour. Access by claimants to such evidence is the key to making damages claims effective. It must therefore be considered whether obligations to turn over documents or otherwise provide access to evidence should be introduced. This is particularly important for stand-alone actions.

Odškodninske tožbe v zadevah v zvezi s protimonopolnim pravom redno zahtevajo preiskavo širokega niza dejstev. Posebna težava te vrste pravd je, da bistveni dokazi niso lahko dostopni in so v lasti strani, ki se je obnašala protikonkurenčno. Dostop vlagateljev do takšnih dokazov je ključ do uspešnosti odškodninskih zahtevkov. Zato je treba premisliti o morebitni uvedbi obveznosti, ki bi nalagala predati listine ali kako drugače omogočiti dostop do dokazov. To je še zlasti pomembno za posamične tožbe.

In a similar vein, consideration could be given to placing an obligation on the defendant to disclose documents submitted to a competition authority. In cases in which the Commission or an NCA has undertaken an investigation, it is likely to hold relevant evidence which could be important for a claimant in follow-on cases. Use of those materials in subsequent civil actions could be helpful in proving the damages claim. In order to limit the administrative burden on competition authorities, access to those documents should be arranged between the parties.

Podobno bi bilo treba premisliti o uvedbi obveznosti za toženca, ki ga zavezuje k razkritju listin, predloženih organu, pristojnemu za konkurenco. V zadevah, v katerih sta Komisija ali NOK izvedla preiskavo, je verjetno, da bosta imela bistvene dokaze, ki bi lahko bili v nadaljnjih zadevah pomembni za tožnika. Uporaba tega gradiva v nadaljnjih civilnih postopkih lahko pomaga pri dokazovanju odškodninskega zahtevka. Za omejitev upravnega bremena organov, pristojnih za konkurenco, je treba dostop do takih listin urediti med strankami.

Rules on burden and standard of proof can also help the claimant in this respect. The question of the evidentiary value of NCA decisions is of particular importance.

Prav tako lahko v zvezi s tem tožniku pomagajo pravila o dokaznem bremenu in dokaznem standardu. Še zlasti pomembno je vprašanje o dokazni vrednosti odločitev NOK.

Question A: | Should there be special rules on disclosure of documentary evidence in civil proceedings for damages under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty? If so, which form should such disclosure take? |

Vprašanje A: | Ali so potrebna posebna pravila o razkritju dokumentarnih dokazov v civilnih postopkih za odškodnine iz členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe ES? Če da, kakšne oblike naj bo to razkritje? |

Option 1: | Disclosure should be available once a party has set out in detail the relevant facts of the case and has presented reasonably available evidence in support of its allegations (fact pleading). Disclosure should be limited to relevant and reasonably identified individual documents and should be ordered by a court. |

1. možnost: | Razkritje naj bo na voljo, ko je ena od strank natančno razložila relevantna dejstva zadeve in predstavila razumno razpoložljive dokaze v podporo svojim trditvam (tožnikova navedba zadostnih dejstev za začetek sodnega postopka). Razkritje je treba omejiti na relevantne in razumno določene posamične listine ter ga mora odrediti sodišče. |

Option 2: | Subject to fact pleading, mandatory disclosure of classes of documents between the parties, ordered by a court, should be possible. |

2. možnost: | Pod pogojem tožnikove navedbe zadostnih dejstev za začetek sodnega postopka je treba omogočiti obvezno razkritje kategorij listin med strankami, ki ga odredi sodišče. |

Option 3: | Subject to fact pleading, there should be an obligation on each party to provide the other parties to the litigation with a list of relevant documents in its possession, which are accessible to them. |

3. možnost: | Pod pogojem tožnikove navedbe zadostnih dejstev za začetek sodnega postopka je treba uvesti obveznost vsake stranke, da drugim strankam v sporu zagotovi seznam relevantnih listin, ki jih ima v lasti in ki so na voljo drugim strankam. |

Option 4: | Introduction of sanctions for the destruction of evidence to allow the disclosure described in options 1 to 3. |

4. možnost: | Uvedba kazni za uničenje dokazov, da se omogoči razkritje iz prve do tretje možnosti. |

Option 5: | Obligation to preserve relevant evidence. Under this rule, before a civil action actually begins, a court could order that evidence which is relevant for that subsequent action be preserved. The party asking for such an order should, however, present reasonably available evidence to support a prima facie infringement case. |

5. možnost: | Obveznost varovanja bistvenih dokazov. V skladu s tem pravilom bi lahko sodišče pred dejanskim začetkom civilnega spora odredilo varovanje dokazov, ki so bistveni za to nadaljnjo tožbo. Vendar pa bi morala stranka, ki zahteva tako odredbo, predstaviti razumno razpoložljive dokaze v podporo na prvi pogled očitnega (prima facie) primera kršitve. |

Question B: | Are special rules regarding access to documents held by a competition authority helpful for antitrust damages claims? How could such access be organised? |

Vprašanje B: | Ali bi bila pri odškodninskih zahtevkih v zadevah zaradi kršitev protimonopolnega prava v pomoč posebna pravila glede dostopa do listin, ki so v lasti organa, pristojnega za konkurenco? Kako naj bo organiziran tak dostop? |

Option 6: | Obligation on any party to proceedings before a competition authority to turn over to a litigant in civil proceedings all documents which have been submitted to the authority, with the exception of leniency applications. Issues relating to disclosure of business secrets and other confidential information as well as rights of the defence would be addressed under the law of the forum (i.e. the law of the court having jurisdiction). |

6. možnost: | Obveznost za vsako stranko v postopku pred organom, pristojnim za konkurenco, da mora predati tožniku v civilnem postopku vse listine, ki so bile predložene organu, razen prošnje za imuniteto pred kaznijo ali zmanjšanje kazni (v nadaljevanju „prošnja za prizanesljivost“). Vprašanja, povezana z razkritjem poslovnih skrivnosti in drugih zaupnih podatkov kot tudi s pravicami do obrambe se obravnavajo v skladu s pravom sodišča (tj. pravom sodišča, ki je pristojno). |

Option 7: | Access for national courts to documents held by the Commission. In this context, the Commission would welcome feedback on (a) how national courts consider they are able to guarantee the confidentiality of business secrets or other confidential information, and (b) on the situations in which national courts would ask the Commission for information that parties could also provide. |

7. možnost: | Dostop nacionalnih sodišč do listin v lasti Komisije. V tem oziru Komisija želi izvedeti mnenja o (a) tem, kako nacionalna sodišča menijo, da so sposobna varovati zaupnost poslovnih skrivnosti ali drugih zaupnih podatkov, in (b) primerih, v katerih bi nacionalna sodišča Komisijo zaprosila za podatke, ki bi jih lahko zagotovile tudi stranke. |

Question C: | Should the claimant’s burden of proving the antitrust infringement in damages actions be alleviated and, if so, how? |

Vprašanje C: | Ali bi moralo biti dokazno breme glede protimonopolne kršitve tožnika v odškodninskih tožbah zmanjšano, in če da, kako? |

Option 8: | Infringement decisions by competition authorities of the EU Member States to be made binding on civil courts or, alternatively, reversal of the burden of proof where such an infringement decision exists. |

8. možnost: | Odločbe nacionalnih EU organov, pristojnih za konkurenco, o kršitvi naj postanejo zavezujoče za civilna sodišča ali pa naj se dokazno breme obrne, kadar obstaja takšna odločba o kršitvi. |

Option 9: | Shifting or lowering the burden of proof in cases of information asymmetry between the claimant and defendant with the aim of redressing that asymmetry. Such rules could, to a certain extent, make up for the non-existent or weak disclosure rules available to the claimant. |

9. možnost: | Premik ali znižanje dokaznega bremena v primerih nesorazmernosti informacij med tožnikom in obtožencem, da bi se ta nesorazmernost popravila. Takšna pravila bi do določene mere lahko nadomestila neobstoječa ali šibka pravila o razkritju, ki so na voljo vlagatelju. |

Option 10: | Unjustified refusal by a party to turn over evidence could have an influence on the burden of proof, varying between a rebuttable presumption or an irrebuttable presumption of proof and the mere possibility for the court to take that refusal into account when assessing whether the relevant fact has been proven. |

10. možnost: | Neutemeljena zavrnitev stranke, naj preda dokaze, bi lahko vplivala na dokazno breme, pri čemer bi nihala med ovrgljivo domnevo ali neovrgljivo domnevo dokaza in samo možnostjo sodišča, da to zavrnitev upošteva pri presoji, ali je bilo relevantno dejstvo dokazano. |

2.2 Fault requirement

2.2 Dokazovanje krivde

As a tortious action, damages claims in many Member States require fault to be proven. In some of these Member States, fault is presumed if an action is illegal under antitrust law. In others, however, no such presumption exists. Consideration should therefore be given to the standard of fault required for damages claims.

Kot tožba za nepogodbeno škodo je treba za dokazovanje odškodninskega zahtevka v številnih državah članicah dokazati krivdo. V nekaterih od teh držav članic se domneva krivda, če je dejanje po protimonopolnem pravu nezakonito. Vendar pa v drugih državah članicah takšna domneva ne obstaja. Treba je torej premisliti o obliki krivde, ki se zahteva za odškodninske zahtevke.

Question D: | Should there be a fault requirement for antitrust-related damages actions? |

Vprašanje D: | Ali bi morala obstajati zahteva po dokazovanju krivde za odškodninske tožbe v zvezi s protimonopolnim pravom? |

Option 11: | Proof of the infringement should be sufficient (analogous to strict liability). |

11. možnost: | Dokaz kršitve naj zadostuje (kot pri objektivni odgovornosti). |

Option 12: | Proof of the infringement should be sufficient only in relation to the most serious antitrust law infringements. |

12. možnost: | Dokaz kršitve naj zadostuje samo v povezavi z najbolj resnimi kršitvami protimonopolnega prava. |

Option 13: | There should be a possibility for the defendant to show that he excusably erred in law or in fact. In those circumstances, the infringement would not lead to liability for damages (defence of excusable error). |

13. možnost: | Obtoženec bi moral imeti možnost, da izkaže, da je zakon kršil v opravičljivi pravni ali dejanski zmoti. V takšnih primerih kršitev ne bi vodila k odgovornosti za škodo (ugovor opravičljive zmote). |

2.3 Damages

2.3 Odškodnine

Several issues concern the actual scope of the damages claim. Firstly, the amount of the award has to be defined. Several definitions are possible, notably founded on the idea of compensation or recovery of illegal gain. It has also to be considered whether any damages award should include interest on it, as well as the amount of interest to be paid and how it is calculated. Furthermore, doubling of damages at the discretion of the court, automatic or conditional, could be considered for horizontal cartel infringements.

Dejanski obseg odškodninskih zahtevkov je povezan z več vprašanji. Najprej je treba določiti znesek dodeljene odškodnine. Možnih je več opredelitev, najpogosteje osnovanih na ideji nadomestila ali povračila nezakonitega dobička. Prav tako se je treba premisliti, ali naj dodelitev odškodnine vključuje tudi obresti nanjo, kot tudi znesek obresti, ki ga je treba izplačati, in metodo izračuna zneska. Nadalje bi lahko premislili o podvojitvi odškodnine po presoji sodišča (avtomatsko ali pogojno) za najhujše horizontalne kartelne kršitve.

Beside the legal definition of the damages to be awarded, the quantification of damages is a key issue. Several economic models have been developed for calculating damages in complex situations. Use of these models in claims litigation should be considered.

Poleg pravne opredelitve odškodnine, ki se dodeli, je ključno vprašanje tudi količinska opredelitev odškodnine. Za izračun odškodnine v kompleksnih primerih je bilo razvitih več ekonomskih modelov. Treba je premisliti o uporabi teh modelov v odškodninskih sporih.

Question E: | How should damages be defined? |

Vprašanje E: | Kako naj se opredelijo odškodnine? |

Option 14: | Definition of damages to be awarded with reference to the loss suffered by the claimant as a result of the infringing behaviour of the defendant (compensatory damages). |

14. možnost: | Opredelitev odškodnine, ki se jo dodeli, glede na izgubo, ki jo je imel tožnik kršitvenega dejanja toženca (odškodnina kot nadomestilo). |

Option 15: | Definition of damages to be awarded with reference to the illegal gain made by the infringer (recovery of illegal gain). |

15. možnost: | Opredelitev odškodnine, ki se jo dodeli, glede na nezakonit dobiček, ki ga je pridobil kršitelj (povračilo nezakonitega dobička). |

Option 16: | Double damages for horizontal cartels. Such awards could be automatic, conditional or at the discretion of the court. |

16. možnost: | Dvojna odškodnina za horizontalne kartele. Takšna dodelitev bi lahko bila avtomatska, pogojna ali v presoji sodišča. |

Option 17: | Prejudgment interest from the date of the infringement or date of the injury. |

17. možnost: | Predsodbene obresti od datuma kršitve ali datuma povzročitve škode. |

Question F: | Which method should be used for calculating the quantum of damages? |

Vprašanje F: | Katera metoda naj se uporabi za izračun količinskega zneska odškodnine? |

Option 18: | What is the added value for damages actions of use of complex economic models for the quantification of damages over simpler methods? Should the court have the power to assess quantum on the basis of an equitable approach? |

18. možnost: | Kakšno dodano vrednost za odškodninske tožbe predstavlja uporaba kompleksnih ekonomskih modelov za količinsko opredelitev odškodnine v primerjavi s preprostejšimi metodami? Ali naj bi imelo sodišče pravico presojati o znesku po pravičnosti? |

Option 19: | Should the Commission publish guidelines on the quantification of damages? |

19. možnost: | Ali naj Komisija objavi smernice za količinsko opredelitev odškodnine? |

Option 20: | Introduction of split proceedings - between the liability of the infringer and the quantum of damages to be awarded - to simplify litigation. |

20. možnost: | Uvedba deljenih postopkov – za odgovornost kršitelja in za količino odškodnine, ki se dodeli – s čimer bi poenostavili pravni spor. |

2.4 The passing-on defence and indirect purchaser’s standing

2.4 Ugovor prenašanja naprej in procesna legitimacija posrednega kupca

The “passing-on defence” concerns the legal treatment of the fact that an undertaking which purchases from a supplier engaged in anti-competitive behaviour could be in a position to mitigate its economic loss by passing the overcharge on to its own customers. The damages caused by anti-competitive behaviour could therefore be passed down the supply chain or even suffered in entirety by the ultimate purchaser, the final consumer. As a matter of law, it has to be considered whether the infringer should be allowed to raise such a pass-on as a defence. Similarly, the standing of indirect purchasers – to whom the overcharge may or may not have been passed on – has to be considered.

„Ugovor prenašanja naprej“ se nanaša na pravno presojo dejstva, da lahko podjetje, ki je kupovalo od dobavitelja, ki se je obnašal protikonkurenčno, svojo finančno izgubo ublaži s prenosom povečanih stroškov na svoje lastne stranke. Škoda zaradi protikonkurenčnega dejanja bi se tako lahko prenesla po dobavni verigi naprej ali pa bi jih celo v celoti prevzeli končni kupci oz. končni porabniki. Kot pravno vprašanje je treba premisliti, ali se kršitelju lahko dovoli, da uveljavi takšen prenos kot obrambo. Podobno je treba premisliti o položaju posrednih kupcev, na katere so morda bili preneseni povečani stroški.

The “passing-on defence” substantially increases the complexity of damages claims as the exact distribution of damages along the supply chain could be exceedingly difficult to prove. Evidentiary problems also burden actions of indirect purchasers, as they might be unable to prove the extent of their damages and the causative link with the infringing behaviour.

„Ugovor prenašanja naprej“ bistveno poveča kompleksnost odškodninskih zahtevkov, saj je lahko izjemno težko dokazati natančno porazdelitev škode po dobavni verigi. Dokazni problemi prav tako otežujejo spore posrednih kupcev, saj morda ne morejo dokazati obsega svoje škode in vzročne povezave s kršitvenim dejanjem.

Question G: | Should there be rules on the admissibility and operation of the passing-on defence? If so, which form should such rules take? Should the indirect purchaser have standing? |

Vprašanje G: | Ali bi morala obstajati pravila o sprejemljivosti in delovanju „ugovora prenašanja naprej“? Če da, kakšne oblike naj bodo ta pravila? Ali mora posredni kupec izkazati procesno legitimacijo? |

Option 21: | The passing-on defence is allowed and both direct and indirect purchasers can sue the infringer. This option would entail the risk that the direct purchaser will be unsuccessful in claiming damages as the infringer will be able to use the passing-on defence and that indirect purchasers will not be successful either because they will be unable to show if and to what extent the damages are passed on along the supply chain. Special consideration should be given in this respect to the burden of proof. |

21. možnost: | Ugovor prenašanja naprej je dovoljen ter neposredni in posredni kupec lahko oba tožita kršitelja. Ta možnost vsebuje tveganje, da neposredni kupec ne bi bil uspešen pri dokazovanju škode, saj bi kršitelj lahko uporabil ugovor prenašanja naprej, ter da niti posredni kupec ne bi bil uspešen, saj ne bi mogel dokazati, ali sploh in do kakšne mere je bila škoda prenesena po dobavni verigi naprej. V tem primeru je treba še posebej premisliti dokazno breme. |

Option 22: | The passing-on defence is excluded and only direct purchasers can sue the infringer. Under this option direct purchasers will be in a better position as the difficulties associated with the passing-on defence will not burden the proceedings. |

22. možnost: | Ugovor prenašanja naprej je izključen in samo neposredni kupec lahko toži kršitelja. Pri tej možnosti so neposredni kupci v boljšem položaju, saj težave, povezane z ugovorom prenašanja naprej, ne bodo obremenjevale postopka. |

Option 23: | The passing-on defence is excluded and both direct and indirect purchasers can sue the infringer. While the exclusion of the passing-on defence renders these actions less burdensome for the claimants, this option entails the possibility of the defendant being ordered to pay multiple damages as both the indirect and direct purchasers can claim. |

23. možnost: | Ugovor prenašanja naprej je izključen ter neposredni in posredni kupec lahko oba tožita kršitelja. Medtem ko izključitev ugovora prenašanja naprej olajša te tožbe za tožnike, ta možnost lahko pomeni, da bo obtožencu naloženo, naj plača večkratne odškodnine, saj jih lahko zahtevata tako posredni kot neposredni kupec. |

Option 24: | A two-step procedure, in which the passing-on defence is excluded, the infringer can be sued by any victim and, in a second step, the overcharge is distributed between all the parties who have suffered a loss. This option is technically difficult but has the advantage of providing fair compensation for all victims. |

24. možnost: | Dvostopenjski postopek, pri katerem je ugovor prenašanja naprej izključen, kršitelja lahko toži vsak oškodovanec, na drugi stopnji pa so povečani stroški porazdeljeni med vse stranke, ki so imele izgubo. Ta možnost je tehnično zahtevna, vendar pa je njena prednost ta, da nudi pravično nadomestilo za vse žrtve. |

2.5 Defending consumer interests

2.5 Varovanje interesov potrošnika

It will be very unlikely for practical reasons, if not impossible, that consumers and purchasers with small claims will bring an action for damages for breach of antitrust law. Consideration should therefore be given to ways in which these interests can be better protected by collective actions. Beyond the specific protection of consumer interests, collective actions can serve to consolidate a large number of smaller claims into one action, thereby saving time and money.

Zaradi praktičnih razlogov bo zelo neverjetno, če ne celo nemogoče, da potrošniki in kupci z malimi tožbenimi zahtevki vložijo odškodninsko tožbo zaradi kršitve protimonopolnega prava. Zato je treba premisliti o načinih, na katere se lahko njihove interese bolje zaščiti s skupinskimi tožbami. Poleg posebne zaščite potrošniških interesov lahko skupinske tožbe pomagajo tudi pri združevanju velikega števila malih zahtevkov v eno tožbo, s čimer se prihrani čas in denar.

Question H: | Should special procedures be available for bringing collective actions and protecting consumer interests? If so, how could such procedures be framed? |

Vprašanje H: | Ali naj bodo na voljo posebni postopki za vložitev skupinskih tožb in zaščito potrošniških interesov? Če da, kako naj bodo takšni postopki urejeni? |

Option 25: | A cause of action for consumer associations without depriving individual consumers of bringing an action. Consideration should be given to issues such as standing (a possible registration or authorisation system), the distribution of damages (whether damages go to the association itself or to its members), and the quantification of damages (damages awarded to the association could be calculated on the basis of the illegal gain of the defendant, whereas damages awarded to the members are calculated on the basis of the individual damage suffered). |

25. možnost: | Podlaga za tožbo potrošniških združenj, ne da bi s tem posameznim potrošnikom onemogočili vložiti tožbo. Treba je proučiti vprašanja, kot so procesna legitimacija (morebiten sistem registracije ali odobritve), porazdelitev odškodnine (ali odškodnino prejme samo združenje ali njegovi člani) in količinska določitev odškodnine (odškodnine, dodeljene združenju, bi se lahko izračunale na podlagi nezakonitega dobička toženca, medtem ko so odškodnine, dodeljene članom, izračunane na podlagi posamične utrpljene škode). |

Option 26: | A special provision for collective action by groups of purchasers other than final consumers. |

26. možnost: | Posebno določilo za skupinsko tožbo skupin kupcev, ki niso končni potrošniki. |

2.6 Costs of actions

2.6 Stroški tožb

Rules on cost recovery play an important role as incentives or disincentives for bringing an action. In view of the fact that Community law as well as the European Convention on Human Rights demand effective access to courts for civil claims, consideration should be given to how cost rules can facilitate such access.

Pravila o povračilu sodnih stroškov imajo pomembno vlogo kot spodbuda ali ovira za vložitve tožbe. Glede na dejstvo, da zakonodaja Skupnosti in tudi Evropska konvencija o človekovih pravicah zahtevata uspešen dostop do sodišč za civilne tožbe, je treba premisliti o tem, kako bi lahko pravila o sodnih stroških ta dostop olajšala.

Question I: | Should special rules be introduced to reduce the cost risk for the claimant? If so, what kind of rules? |

Vprašanje I: | Ali bi bilo treba uvesti posebna pravila za zmanjšanje tveganja, povezanega s stroški, za tožnika? Če da, kakšne vrste pravil? |

Option 27: | Establish a rule that unsuccessful claimants will have to pay costs only if they acted in a manifestly unreasonable manner by bringing the case. Consideration could also be given to giving the court the discretionary power to order at the beginning of a trial that the claimant not be exposed to any cost recovery even if the action were to be unsuccessful. |

27. možnost: | Vzpostaviti pravilo, da morajo neuspešni tožniki plačati sodne stroške samo, če so z vložitvijo tožbe ravnali očitno nerazumno. Prav tako bi lahko premislili o pooblastitvi sodišč, da sama ob začetku sodnega postopka naložijo, da se od tožnika ne more zahtevati povrnitve stroškov, tudi če je tožba neuspešna. |

2.7 Coordination of public and private enforcement

2.7 Usklajevanje javnega izvrševanja in zasebnega uveljavljanja konkurenčnega prava

Public and private enforcement complement each other and therefore should be coordinated in an optimum way. Decisions by competition authorities can have a significant impact on the actual possibility of claimants to prove their case (see Section 2.1, Question C, Option 8). Optimum coordination between private and public enforcement is especially important for coordination between leniency applications in public enforcement and damage claims. Both leniency programmes and civil liability contribute by their effects to the same aim: more effective deterrence from entering into cartels. Consideration should be given to the impact of damages claims on the operation of leniency programmes so as to preserve the effectiveness of the programmes. In this respect it should be taken into account that operation of leniency programmes is generally helpful for private litigants in damages actions, as leniency programmes uncover secret cartels.

Javno izvrševanje in zasebno uveljavljanje se med seboj dopolnjujeta, zato ju je treba uskladiti na najbolj optimalen način. Odločitve organov, pristojnih za konkurenco, imajo lahko pomemben vpliv na dejansko priložnost tožnikov, da dokažejo svojo tožbo (glej točko 2.1, vprašanje C, 8. možnost). Optimalno usklajevanje med zasebnim uveljavljanjem in javnim izvrševanjem je še zlasti pomembno za usklajevanje med prošnjami za prizanesljivost pri javnem izvrševanju in odškodninskimi zahtevki. S svojimi učinki programi prizanesljivosti in civilna odgovornost služijo enakemu namenu: več uspešnega odvračanja od združevanja v kartele. Treba je premisliti o vplivu odškodninskih zahtevkov na delovanje programov prizanesljivosti, da se ohrani uspešnost teh programov. Glede na to je treba upoštevati, da je delovanje programov prizanesljivosti na splošno koristno za zasebne tožnike v odškodninskih tožbah, saj programi prizanesljivosti razkrivajo skrivne kartele.

Question J: | How can optimum coordination of private and public enforcement be achieved? |

Vprašanje J: | Kako se lahko doseže optimalno usklajevanje zasebnega uveljavljanja in javnega izvrševanja konkurenčnega prava? |

Option 28: | Exclusion of discoverability of the leniency application, thus protecting the confidentiality of submissions made to the competition authority as part of leniency applications. |

28. možnost: | Izključitev razkrivanja prošenj za prizanesljivost, s čimer se zaščiti zaupnost podatkov, ki so bili kot del prošnje za prizanesljivost predloženi organu, pristojnemu za konkurenco. |

Option 29: | Conditional rebate on any damages claim against the leniency applicant; the claims against other infringers – who are jointly and severally liable for the entire damage - remain unchanged |

29. možnost: | Pogojno znižanje na vsak odškodninski zahtevek proti vlagatelju prošnje za prizanesljivost; medtem ko zahtevki proti drugim kršiteljem – ki so solidarno odgovorni za celotno škodo – ostanejo nespremenjeni. |

Option 30: | Removal of joint liability from the leniency applicant, thus limiting the applicant’s exposure to damages. One possible solution would be to limit the liability of the leniency applicant to the share of the damages corresponding to the applicant’s share in the cartelised market. |

30. možnost: | Izvzetje vlagatelja prošnje za prizanesljivost iz solidarne odgovornosti, s čimer se zmanjša izpostavljenost vlagatelja plačilu odškodnin. Ena od možnih rešitev bi bila, da se odgovornost vlagatelja prošnje za prizanesljivost omeji na delež odškodnine, ki ustreza deležu vlagatelja na kartelnemu trgu. |

2.8 Jurisdiction and applicable law

2.8 Pristojnost in pravo, ki se uporablja

Jurisdiction of courts to hear cases brought against defendants domiciled in Member Statesis governed by Regulation 44/2001.[4] Such defendants can either be sued in the courts of the state where they are domiciled or – at the choice of the claimant – in the courts of the state where the harmful event occurred. The place where the harmful event occurred can be either (a) the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurred or (b) the place where the damage itself occurred (at the choice of the claimant). Articles 6, 27 and 28 of the Regulation allow coordination of different, but linked, actions.

Pristojnost sodišč za obravnavo primerov proti tožencem, ki imajo stalna prebivališča v državah članicah, ureja Uredba št. 44/2001[4]. Takšne tožence se lahko toži ali na sodiščih države, v kateri bivajo oziroma imajo sedež, ali – po želji tožnika – na sodiščih države, kjer se je škodni dogodek zgodil. Kraj, kjer se je škodni dogodek zgodil, je lahko (a) kraj, kjer se je zgodilo dejanje, ki je povzročilo škodo, ali (b) kraj, kjer je nastala sama škoda (po izbiri tožnika). Členi 6, 27 in 28 Uredbe dovoljujejo usklajevanje različnih, vendar povezanih, tožb.

With regard to the issue of applicable law, reference should be made to the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (the “Rome II Regulation”).[5] As damages claims are generally torts, they fall under the scope of this proposal. In this respect consideration must be given to whether the general rule contained in Article 5 of the proposal is appropriate for antitrust cases or whether a clarifying special rule is necessary. Such a clarifying rule could make clear that an effects-based approach should be followed. Alternatively, the law of the forum could be the applicable law in all cases. Special consideration should be given to cases in which the territory of more than one state is affected by the anti-competitive behaviour.

V zvezi z vprašanjem prava, ki se uporablja, je treba upoštevati predlog Komisije za uredbo o pravu, ki se uporablja za nepogodbene obveznosti („Uredba Rim II“)[5]. Ker so odškodninski zahtevki ponavadi zahtevki za nepogodbeno škodo, spadajo pod področje uporabe tega predloga. V zvezi s tem je treba premisliti, ali je splošno pravilo iz člena 5 predloga ustrezno za protimonopolne zadeve ali pa je morda potrebno posebno pojasnjevalno pravilo. Takšno pojasnjevalno pravilo bi lahko pojasnilo, da je treba uporabiti pristop na kriteriju učinkov. Lahko pa je pravo, ki se uporablja, v vseh zadevah pravo sodišča ( lex fori ). Zlasti je treba premisliti o primerih, v katerih protikonkurenčno obnašanje zadeva ozemlje več kot ene države.

Question K: | Which substantive law should be applicable to antitrust damages claims? |

Vprašanje K: | Katero materialno pravo naj se uporablja za odškodninske zahtevke v primerih kršitve protimonopolnega prava? |

Option 31: | The applicable law should be determined by the general rule in Article 5 of the proposed Rome II Regulation, that is to say with reference to the place where the damage occurs. |

31. možnost: | Pravo, ki se uporablja, je treba določiti s splošnim pravilom iz člena 5 predlagane Uredbe Rim II, torej ob upoštevanju kraja, kjer je škoda nastala. |

Option 32: | There should be a specific rule for damages claims based on an infringement of antitrust law. This rule should clarify that for this type of claims, the general rule of Article 5 shall mean that the laws of the states on whose market the victim is affected by the anti-competitive practice could govern the claim. |

32. možnost: | Obstajati bi moralo posebno pravilo za odškodninske zahtevke zaradi kršitve protimonopolnega prava. To pravilo naj bi pojasnilo, da za to vrsto zahtevkov splošno pravilo iz člena 5 pomeni, da zahtevek lahko ureja pravo držav, na katerih trgih je bil oškodovanec žrtev protikonkurenčnega obnašanja. |

Option 33: | The specific rule could be that the applicable law is always the law of the forum. |

33. možnost: | Posebno pravilo bi lahko določalo, da je pravo, ki se uporablja, vedno pravo sodišča. |

Option 34: | In cases in which the territory of more than one state is affected by the anti-competitive behaviour on which the claim is based and where the court has jurisdiction to rule on the entirety of the loss suffered by the claimant, it could be considered whether the claimant should be given the choice to determine the law applicable to the dispute. This choice could be limited to choose one single applicable law from those laws designated by the application of the principle of affected market. The choice could also be widened so as to allow for the choice of one single law, or of the law applicable to each loss separately or of the law of the forum. |

34. možnost: | V primerih, ko protikonkurenčno obnašanje, ki je podlaga zahtevka, zadeva ozemlje več kot ene države in ko ima sodišče pristojnost za odločanje o celotni škodi, ki jo je utrpel tožnik, se lahko premisli, ali naj ima tožnik možnost izbirati pravo, ki naj velja za spor. Ta izbira je lahko omejena na izbor enega samega prava, ki se uporablja, iz prav, ki so določeni z uporabo načela zadevnega trga. Izbiro se lahko tudi razširi in se omogoči izbiro enega samega prava ali prava, ki se uporablja za vsako škodo ločeno, ali prava sodišča. |

2.9 Other issues

2.9 Druga vprašanja

Given the complexity of damages actions for infringement of antitrust law, use of expertise in court is particularly important to ensure efficient proceedings. If experts were appointed by the court, cost savings might result since fewer experts would be required. This would also reduce the multitude of experts giving conflicting evidence, depending on their client’s standpoint.

Glede na zapletenost odškodninskih tožb zaradi kršitve protimonopolnega prava je sodelovanje strokovnjakov na sodišču že zlasti pomembno za zagotavljanje učinkovitega postopka. Če bi strokovnjake imenovalo sodišče, bi s tem prihranili denar, saj bi potrebovali manj strokovnjakov. To bi zmanjšalo množico strokovnjakov, ki podajajo nasprotujoča izvedenska mnenja, pač glede na stališče svoje stranke.

Question L: | Should an expert, whenever needed, be appointed by the court ? |

Vprašanje L: | Ali naj strokovnjaka, kadar je ta potreben, imenuje sodišče? |

Option 35: | Require the parties to agree on an expert to be appointed by the court rather than by themselves. |

35. možnost: | Zahtevati, da se stranke strinjajo o strokovnjaku, ki ga imenuje sodišče in ne one same. |

Suspension of or longer limitation periods play an important role in guaranteeing that damages claims can effectively be brought, especially in the case of follow-on actions.

Prekinitev zastaralnih rokov ali daljši zastaralni roki igrajo pomembno vlogo pri zagotavljanju uspešne vložitve odškodninskega zahtevka, zlasti pri primeru nadaljnjih tožb.

Question M: | Should limitation periods be suspended ? If so, from when onwards ? |

Vprašanje M: | Ali naj se zastaralni roki prekinejo? Če da, od kdaj dalje? |

Option 36: | Suspension of the limitation period for damages claims from the date proceedings are instituted by the Commission or any of the national competition authorities. Alternatively, the limitation period could start running after a court of last instance has decided on the issue of infringement. |

36. možnost: | Prekinitev zastaralnega roka za odškodninske zahtevke od datuma, ko Komisija ali kateri koli nacionalni organ, pristojen za konkurenco, sproži postopek. Lahko pa bi zastaralni rok začel spet teči po tem, ko sodišče najvišje stopnje razsodi o vprašanju kršitve. |

Causation is a necessary requirement of any damages claim. While proof of a causal link between the infringement and a loss may be particularly difficult to achieve due to the economic complexity of the issues involved, the legal notions of causation in itself, as developed by the case law in the Member States, arguably do not pose a significant obstacle for claimants. However, application of the causation requirement should not lead to exclusion of those who have suffered losses arising from an antitrust infringement from recovering those losses.

Vzročna zveza je nujen pogoj vsakega odškodninskega zahtevka. Čeprav je morda izjemno težko pridobiti dokaz vzročne zveze med kršitvijo in škodo zaradi ekonomske kompleksnosti vpletenih vprašanj, pravni pojem vzročne zveze sam po sebi, kot ga je razvila sodna praksa držav članic, ne predstavlja bistvene ovire za tožnike. Vendar pa uporaba zahteve po vzročni zvezi ne sme voditi k izključitvi tistih, ki so utrpeli škodo kot posledico protimonopolne kršitve, iz izterjave nadomestila za to škodo.

Question N: | Is clarification of the legal requirement of causation necessary to facilitate damages actions? |

Vprašanje N: | Ali je potrebna pojasnitev pravne zahteve po vzročni zvezi, da se olajšajo odškodninske tožbe? |

Question O: | Are there any further issues on which stakeholders might wish to comment ? |

Vprašanje O: | Ali so še kakšna vprašanja, v zvezi s katerimi želijo zainteresirane strani izraziti pripombe? |

The Commission invites comments on this Green Paper, in particular on the questions and the options listed above, in order to consider whether it is necessary and appropriate to take action at Community level to improve the conditions for stand-alone and follow-on actions.

Komisija poziva k predložitvi pripomb k tej zeleni knjigi, zlasti o vprašanjih in možnostih, naštetih zgoraj, da bi premislila, ali je potrebno in ustrezno uvesti ukrepe na ravni Skupnosti za izboljšanje pogojev za posamične in nadaljnje tožbe.

To facilitate an exchange of views, a Green Paper website is open at:

Za lažjo izmenjavo mnenj je na voljo spletna stran zelene knjige:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/actions_for_damages/gp.html

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/actions_for_damages/gp.html

Until 21 April 2006, comments may be sent either by e-mail to:

Do 21. aprila 2006 se lahko pripombe pošljejo z elektronsko pošto na:

comp-damages-actions@cec.eu.int

comp-damages-actions@cec.eu.int

or by post to:

ali z navadno pošto na naslov:

European CommissionDirectorate-General for CompetitionUnit A 1 – Antitrust policy and strategic supportReview of damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rulesB-1049 Brussels.

European CommissionDirectorate-General for CompetitionUnit COMP/A-1 – Antitrust policy and strategic supportReview of damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rulesB-1049 Bruxelles

It is standard practice of DG Competition to publish the submissions received in response to a public consultation. However, it is possible to request that submissions or parts thereof remain confidential. Should this be the case, please indicate clearly on the front page of the submission that it should not be made publicly available and also forward a non-confidential version of the submission to DG Competition for publication.

V skladu s svojo stalno prakso GD za konkurenco objavi vse predloge, ki jih je prejel kot odgovor na javno posvetovanje. Vendar pa je mogoče zaprositi, da predlogi ali deli predlogov ostanejo zaupni. Če to želite, prosimo, da na prvi strani predloga jasno označite, da se ga ne sme javno objaviti, in GD za konkurenco pošljete tudi nezaupno različico predloga, ki je primerna za objavo.

[1] See Courage v. Crehan , Case C-453/99, judgment of the Court of 20 September 2001, paragraphs 26 and 27.

[1] Glej Courage v. Crehan, zadeva C-453/99, sodba Sodišča z dne 20. septembra 2001, odstavka 26 in 27.

[2] See Courage judgment in footnote 1.

[2] Glej sodbo v zadevi Courage v opombi 1.

[3] See study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC antitrust rules, available on the Commission’s website at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/private_enforcement/index_en.html.

[3] Glej raziskavo o stanju odškodninskih zahtevkov v primerih kršitev protimonopolnih pravil ES, na voljo na spletni strani Komisije na:http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/private_enforcement/index_en.html.

[4] Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001, L 12, p.1. In Denmark, jurisdiction is governed by the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [OJ 1990, C 189, p. 2] as amended, which is substantially equal to Regulation 44/2001.

[4] Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, UL L 12, 16.1.2001, str. 1. Na Danskem pristojnost ureja Bruseljska konvencija o pristojnosti in izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah [UL 1990, C 189, str. 2], kot spremenjena, ki je po vsebini večinoma enaka Uredbi št. 44/2001.

[5] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”), COM(2003) 427 final as amended by the modified proposal (Reference not available).

[5] Predlog Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o pravu, ki se uporablja za nepogodbene obveznosti („Rim II“), COM(2003) 427 konč. kot je bil dopolnjen s spremenjenim predlogom (referenca ni na voljo).