The new issue of Der Betrieb is published today with a specialist article by Prof. Dr. Ulrich Schnelle and Julian Munder from Haver & Mailänder's antitrust team.
The topic is a recent ECJ ruling that goes far beyond the specific case (round timber). The key question is: What options does German law offer to represent companies that have suffered cartel damage in a bundled manner - e.g. through a so-called litigation vehicle or a specialized service provider?
Many of these providers are cheaper, more efficient and rely on digital processes. However, they come up against legal limits, particularly in the area of cartel damages - for example, because they have to instruct lawyers at regional courts and the classic debt collection authorization is not sufficient for this.
The article sheds light on how the ECJ assesses the role of such models and what practical consequences this has for injured companies - especially when it comes to defending themselves against cartel infringements in a structured and resource-saving manner rather than alone.
For companies with potential cartel damages, the question is now more important than ever: How do I effectively enforce my claims - and with whom? Click here for the technical article on our website: [0503_HuM_The_Operation_Private_enforcement%20in%20Antitrust%20US_JM.pdf]
M&A TRANSACTIONS AND “KILLER ACQUISITIONS”: New uncertainties for mergers in the innovation sector
As a rule, merger control in the EU and Germany is based on turnover thresholds, which creates legal certainty regarding notification requirements. However, new developments are causing uncertainty.
The authors Dr. Ulrich Schnelle and Julian Munder of our antitrust team emphasize that in certain cases competition policy and innovation policy aspects go beyond the turnover thresholds.
The Illumina/Grail precedent showed that the EU Commission also scrutinized transactions below the usual turnover thresholds and prohibited them in case of a threat to competition in an important innovation area such as cancer research and medical products.
The ECJ has put an end to this practice. This does not put an end to the actual issue that so-called “killer acquisitions”, in which innovative competitors are taken over that can have a major impact on market conditions, must be subject to stricter scrutiny. The ECJ and some countries are taking other approaches to achieve their goal, at least in part.
What does this mean for companies planning M&A transactions? We advise you on risk assessment and regulatory acceptance of your merger plans in various countries.
ECJ-JUDGMENT: BIG DATA COMPANIES PUT IN THEIR PLACE - AFTER FAVORING THEIR OWN PRICE COMPARISON SERVICE
In an important ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has reminded Google that fair play also applies to search engines.
By favoring its own price comparison service in the search results, Google has exploited its dominant market position - a clear violation of Art. 102 TFEU.
The EU Commission then imposed a large fine, which was confirmed by the ECJ.
This ruling sets an important benchmark for dealing with big data companies such as Google and has already resulted in numerous claims for damages from disadvantaged price comparison services.
A recent article by PROF. DR. ULRICH SCHNELLE from the antitrust law department in the specialist journal GRUR-Prax (issue 20/2024) sheds light on the impact this judgment could have on big data companies and how it will reorganize the market.
PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVENESS IN ANTITRUST LAW: KEY FINDINGS FOR GERMAN COMPANIES
The principle of effectiveness in EU law requires that the full effectiveness and practical implementation of EU regulations must be guaranteed.
For the assertion of antitrust damages claims in civil proceedings, this means that national regulations and procedures must not make it practically impossible or excessively difficult to enforce EU rights.
An interesting example: In Austria, Section 39 (2) KartG 2005 only allows access to procedural files with the consent of the parties - a provision that the ECJ has classified as incompatible with the principle of effectiveness.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT FOR GERMAN COMPANIES? In implementing the Cartel Damages Directive, the German ARC also offers information rights that go far beyond the previous German rules (DISCOVERY LIGHT). The civil courts have not yet found a uniform interpretation of this right. The handling of access to files in Austria could point the way forward for similar cases in Germany.
In our article, you will find out how Austrian courts currently deal with access to documents and the principle of effectiveness and what lessons German companies can learn from this. A must-read for anyone working in international competition law.
🔗 Read more from author PROF. DR. ULRICH SCHNELLE https://beck-online.beck.de/ GRUR-Prax 2024, 403
