卡特尔效应与零部件制造商的损害赔偿权

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW World Competition Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.54648/woco2020011
J. Franck, M. Peitz
{"title":"卡特尔效应与零部件制造商的损害赔偿权","authors":"J. Franck, M. Peitz","doi":"10.54648/woco2020011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The focus of the law on competition damages is on the recovery of overcharges appropriated by the cartels. Parties other than purchasers are often neglected, not only as a matter of judicial practice but also due to legal restrictions. We argue that a narrow concept of standing – which excludes parties that supply either the cartels or the firms that purchase from them with complementary product components – falls short of the normative objectives associated with actions for competition damages: effective deterrence of competition infringements and pursuit of corrective justice. We propose a simple economic framework with two complementary products and show that under neither competition nor cartelization do the allocation and distribution of surpluses depend on whether producers of complements purchase from a cartel or supply a cartel or its customers. This indicates that producers of complements should be treated alike, regardless of their position in the supply chain. Based on various factors that determine the enforcement effect of actions oncompetition damages and their role as an instrument to restore corrective justice, we conclude that a broad concept of standing is preferable.\ncompetition damages, pass-on, suppliers, complementary goods, causality, antitrust standing, cartel overcharge, effective deterrence, corrective justice, Directive 2014/104/EU, principle of effectiveness","PeriodicalId":43861,"journal":{"name":"World Competition","volume":"162 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cartel Effects and Component Makers’ Right to Damages\",\"authors\":\"J. Franck, M. Peitz\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/woco2020011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The focus of the law on competition damages is on the recovery of overcharges appropriated by the cartels. Parties other than purchasers are often neglected, not only as a matter of judicial practice but also due to legal restrictions. We argue that a narrow concept of standing – which excludes parties that supply either the cartels or the firms that purchase from them with complementary product components – falls short of the normative objectives associated with actions for competition damages: effective deterrence of competition infringements and pursuit of corrective justice. We propose a simple economic framework with two complementary products and show that under neither competition nor cartelization do the allocation and distribution of surpluses depend on whether producers of complements purchase from a cartel or supply a cartel or its customers. This indicates that producers of complements should be treated alike, regardless of their position in the supply chain. Based on various factors that determine the enforcement effect of actions oncompetition damages and their role as an instrument to restore corrective justice, we conclude that a broad concept of standing is preferable.\\ncompetition damages, pass-on, suppliers, complementary goods, causality, antitrust standing, cartel overcharge, effective deterrence, corrective justice, Directive 2014/104/EU, principle of effectiveness\",\"PeriodicalId\":43861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Competition\",\"volume\":\"162 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Competition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2020011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Competition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2020011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

竞争损害赔偿法的重点是追回垄断企业挪用的超额费用。买方以外的各方往往被忽视,这不仅是司法实践的问题,而且也是由于法律的限制。我们认为,狭义的地位概念——排除向卡特尔或从卡特尔购买互补产品组件的公司提供的各方——没有达到与竞争损害赔偿行动相关的规范目标:有效遏制竞争侵权行为和追求纠正性正义。我们提出了一个具有两个互补产品的简单经济框架,并表明在竞争和卡特尔化的情况下,盈余的分配和分配都不取决于互补产品的生产者是从卡特尔购买还是向卡特尔或其客户供应。这表明,补体的生产者应该受到同等对待,无论其在供应链中的位置如何。基于决定竞争损害赔偿诉讼的执行效果的各种因素及其作为恢复纠正正义的工具的作用,我们得出结论,一个广泛的地位概念是更好的:竞争损害赔偿、传递、供应商、互补商品、因果关系、反垄断地位、卡特尔过度收费、有效威慑、纠正正义、2014/104/EU指令、有效性原则
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cartel Effects and Component Makers’ Right to Damages
The focus of the law on competition damages is on the recovery of overcharges appropriated by the cartels. Parties other than purchasers are often neglected, not only as a matter of judicial practice but also due to legal restrictions. We argue that a narrow concept of standing – which excludes parties that supply either the cartels or the firms that purchase from them with complementary product components – falls short of the normative objectives associated with actions for competition damages: effective deterrence of competition infringements and pursuit of corrective justice. We propose a simple economic framework with two complementary products and show that under neither competition nor cartelization do the allocation and distribution of surpluses depend on whether producers of complements purchase from a cartel or supply a cartel or its customers. This indicates that producers of complements should be treated alike, regardless of their position in the supply chain. Based on various factors that determine the enforcement effect of actions oncompetition damages and their role as an instrument to restore corrective justice, we conclude that a broad concept of standing is preferable. competition damages, pass-on, suppliers, complementary goods, causality, antitrust standing, cartel overcharge, effective deterrence, corrective justice, Directive 2014/104/EU, principle of effectiveness
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
The Decriminalization of Cartel Activity in Kuwait: A Regulatory Framework Collective or Collusive Agreements? World Competition Book Review: Regulation 1/2003 and EU Antitrust Enforcement: A Systematic Guide Kris Dekeyser, Céline Gauer, Johannes Laitenberger, Nils Wahl, Wouter Wils & Luca Prete (Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer 2023) Big Data Requests: The Commission’s Powers to Collect Documents in Investigations Under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1