Short Reads

European Commission publishes study on the passing-on of overcharges

European Commission publishes study on the passing-on of overcharges

European Commission publishes study on the passing-on of overcharges

05.12.2016 NL law

On 25 October 2016, the European Commission published a long-awaited study on the passing-on of overcharges (the "Study"). The Commission commissioned law firm Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira and economic consultancy firm RBB Economics to conduct the Study. The initiative is part of implementing Article 16 of the Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions (the "Directive"), which requires the Commission to provide national courts with guidelines on "how to estimate the share of the overcharge which was passed on to the indirect purchaser". 

In many antitrust damages cases, pass-on plays a crucial role, either as a "defence" or as substantiation of a claim. According to economic theory, if a purchaser pays an inflated price (an "overcharge"), it will often respond by raising its own prices. The initial 'overcharge' is then 'passed-on' to the next level of the supply chain, which reduces (in part) the (direct) purchaser's initial loss. To quote the Study: "the overcharge effect at one level in the supply chain and the passing-on effect at the previous level are two sides of the same coin. Hence in terms of overall, aggregated damage, these components cancel each other out."   
 
The Study features contemporary views on the issue of pass-on, reviews national and EU case law, as well as insights from the US, and a fairly detailed analysis of relevant economic theory. It also goes into alternative approaches to quantifying the relevant loss (components). In addition, the Study provides a 39 step checklist with practical advice to national courts on issues such as the managing of expert evidence and use of quantification methods, avoidance of inconsistent decisions and application of the disclosure provisions of the Directive, which are to be implemented in national laws of the EU-Member States by 26 December 2016.
 
The Study is intended to assist judges in better understanding the crucial role of pass-on in private antitrust litigation, and to promote economic or factual analysis with an adequate focus from the outset. As an example of such inadequate initial focus, the authors mention a perceived lack of attention for "volume-effects" (i.e. loss incurred as consequence of a decrease in sales volumes, due to the overcharge leading to higher production costs).
 
The Study provides many useful insights from both legal and economic perspectives. For example, one may intuitively assume that a buyer's bargaining power will automatically counter suppliers' attempts to pass-on an overcharge to them. However, whether this (intuitive) restraint on passing-on effectively occurs, depends on several circumstances. Therefore, "a detailed analysis of the characteristics of specific negotiations and the context in which they take place is required to establish pass-on implications."  
 
Further, the Study aims to assist judges in evaluating whether economic experts have followed the (prevailing) opinions regarding the applicable legal and economic principles, i.e. whether the experts' evidence is fit to base a proper judgment on. For example, the Study explains that estimates resulting from any economic quantification exercise should be tested for their sensitivity against the very assumptions they are based on. The Study suggests that "[f]or instance, the expert may evaluate how results vary if plausible adjustments to key assumptions are made". 
 
In future private antitrust litigation, it is expected that parties and judges will seek guidance on the extensive framework provided by the Study.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of December 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Legislative Proposal introducing class actions in the Netherlands before House of Representatives 
2. Belgian Competition Authority closes investigation into Most Favoured Nation clauses in Immoweb contracts 

Team

Related news

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring