LoginSubscribe Now
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
  • Home
  • Business Sectors
  • Areas of Law
  • Editorial Board
  • Write a Paper
  • Subscribe
  • Books
  • Reports
  • Back Issues
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • PLS LogoCopyright & permissions
© 2026 International In-house Counsel Journal Ltd. | ISSN 1754-0607 | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Back to library search

Antitrust Damages Actions in Europe Pitfalls and Opportunities From a Corporation's Point of View

February 2012CompetitionIT

Abstract

In recent years, the volume of private damages actions has increased substantially in the national courts of EU Member States. In England and Wales, for example, the number of private damages claims has risen from a handful of lawsuits five years ago to, at present, over 30 active cases based on around 20 different antitrust infringements. The same upward trend in the past five or six years has been reported in Germany, France and the Netherlands, amongst others. The growth in claims is driven in part by an initiative by the European Commission to facilitate antitrust damages actions and to raise awareness among potential claimants. This has included constant reminders of the availability of private damages actions in the Commission’s press releases announcing cartel decisions. The Commission has also published or commissioned a number of studies on the subject in the past six years. Most recently, the Commission has initiated consultations on some of the key obstacles facing claimants and has published a note on quantification of antitrust damages. More importantly to claimants, the level of Commission enforcement activity, particularly in the cartels sector, has increased substantially. In the years between 1990 and 1999, the Commission fined companies in 21 cartel cases. Between 2000 and 2009, this number had increased to 63. Commission infringement decisions are binding on national courts and contribute to the increase in litigation by removing the burden on claimants of proving violation of antitrust law by the defendants.

Subscribe to reador
PLS Logo Copyright & permissions

Author

Peter Bergson

General Counsel, Fingerprints, Sweden

Related Papers

E-Commerce. Nearly a year with the EU Geo-blocking Regulation
Read more
Portrait image of Ivan Lebedev
Ivan Lebedev
Legal Counsel EMEA, Acer European Holdings SA, Switzerland
Meeting the Challenges of European Union Anti-trust Compliance with Technical Innovation
To paraphrase an old adage – “God could not be everywhere all the time, that’s why he invented regulators”! However, as most legislators and regulation draftsmen would have it, their...Read more
Portrait image of David Kemp
David Kemp
xecutive Director of Legal Policy, HP Autonomy, UK
Antitrust Compliance in the Age of the New Whistleblower Incentive Program
Antitrust compliance has been, and should continue to be, near the top of any company’s global compliance program checklist. With the potentially massive private civil awards in the United States...Read more
Portrait image of Mark McCareins
Mark McCareins
General Counsel, Metals Service Center Institute, USA
Fixing the Legal-Procurement Disconnect to Speed Up Contract Review
It’s a familiar scenario: a critical vendor deal lands in procurement’s lap. Commercial terms need to be negotiated, and it heads off to legal. Six weeks pass. The business is...Read more
Portrait image of Marty Gomez
Marty Gomez
Head of Procurement, iManage, USA