Good legalities for better competitiveness
In the legal world of competitiveness, coordination between private law and competition law in the EU may be lacking. Generally speaking, the bloc of nations today strives to enforce competition law and punitive actions with the help of specialised lawyers. At the same time it is elaborating a common European private law on the issue with the support of private lawyers. The EU-funded project 'Improving coherence between private law and competition law' (Copricomp) highlighted this divergence in liability and aimed to enhance coherence between both sides. It compared the competition law approach to damages for infringements of competition rules vs. non-contractual liability rules developed by private lawyers. These differences include the duration of the limitation period, basic structure of non-contractual liability and the need to compensate dispersed losses. Copricomp called for more consensus on the functions and methodological framework for an EU system of non-contractual liability. It hailed the EU's decision to open a new public consultation on collective redress and on the quantification of loss as a positive step in this direction. In addition, the project highlighted how competition law focuses too much on pecuniary damages for infringements. It also found that rules of liability for infringements of competition law could deviate from general rules on non-contractual liability, particularly in leniency programmes used for detecting and punishing cartels. In this light, Copricomp called for improving the procedural position of leniency applicants in civil proceedings for damages in order to increase the successful co-existence of leniency programmes and damages actions. The initiative challenges certain decisions of the European Court of Justice to address cartelised conditions. These recommendations and others are destined to help bring coherence to competition law, leading to an improvement of competitiveness and legal recourse within the EU.
