Cecilia Carli

Of Elevators and Financing, and Damages «Outside the Umbrella», I Sing

  • Abstract

Informations and abstract

Keywords: Competition law damages; Reasonable foreseeability.

For the first time ever, the Eu Court of Justice dealt with a case of (alleged) antitrust damages where the claimant was not an undertaking who had purchased goods affected by the anticompetitive agreement, rather a body granting subsidies related to the goods covered by the cartel. The scope of one of private enforcement’s milestones since the Manfredi case – namely that «any person» shall be entitled to seek compensation for damages caused by an infringement of competition law – has been generously extended through the removal of the necessary link between those companies participating in an illicit agreement and their direct or indirect purchasers: in the Otis case, the Court clarified that the «chain» of entities entitled to seek compensation also extends to those subjects who played a role in creating demand in the relevant market. And it is not necessary that the loss suffered by the interested party – in this case an alleged damage for loss of investment chance – has a specific connection with the «objective of protection» pursued by Article 101 Tfeu. The ruling marks a renewed tension between the compensatory function of antitrust damages and a sort of market protection that seems to yearn towards a greater deterrent effect through the extension of subjects entitled to seek compensation. But there it still remains the need to demonstrate the existence of a sufficient causal link between the alleged damage and the relevant conduct, which seems to remain an uphill road. Much ado about nothing?

Trova nel catalogo di Worldcat

Article first page

Article first page