Www.ccp.uea.ac.uk. To draw a picture… Coordination of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law (Work in progress) Sebastian.

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

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 PeyerESRC Centre for Competition Policy

and Norwich Law SchoolUniversity of East Anglia

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

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

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

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?

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

I will address these questions comparing similar provisions in the UK

and GermanyReasons 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)

www.ccp.uea.ac.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 documentsCourts can be asked to transmit relevant documents to NCA

Submission of written and oral observationslatter requires permission of the court

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

Notification duty provides useful data…

Number of private enforcement cases in Germany:

Year Notified cases thereof damages

2004 215 412005 235 342006 328 1062007 279 123Total 1057 304

3 damages cases were so-called “shield cases” were damages were used as defence (Source: Bundeskartellamt)

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

… 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?

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

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 plaintiff’s 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

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

…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!

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

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

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

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

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

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

www.ccp.uea.ac.uk

… 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?