按發(fā)言順序排列21日14點30分-1530by panels

CompetitionDamagesActions:CausationandQuantificationofLoss

涉及競爭的損害賠償訴訟：

損失的因果關系及量化WilliamRobinsonJustinCoombsJohnCooke法官2014年2月21日1OverviewofthisPanel議題概覽WilliamRobinsonTheEUandUKlawoncausationandquantification歐盟和英國關于因果關系和量化的法律TheEUCommission’sJune2013initiatives歐盟委員會2013年6月采取的措施JustinCoombsQuantification量化ThemainapproachesintheEUPracticalGuide歐盟實務指引中的主要處理方式JudgeJohnCookeJohnCooke法官KeyissuesforaJudge法官面臨的關鍵問題Evaluatingfactualandexpertevidence評估事實和專家證據(jù)Standardslide2EULawPosition(1)歐盟法律的立場(1)“anyindividualcanclaimcompensationfortheharmsufferedwherethereisacausalrelationshipbetweenthatharmandanagreementorpracticeprohibitedunder[thecompetitionrules].”

“在下述情況下，任何人均可就遭受的損害申索賠償：當該損害與一份協(xié)議或根據(jù)[競爭規(guī)則]被禁止的行為之間存在因果關系?！?/p>

JoinedCasesC-295/04toC-298/04,Manfredi,paragraph61

合并案C-295/04至C-298/04號，Manfredi,第61段Standardslide3EULawPosition(2)歐盟法律的立場(2)IntheabsenceofCommunityrulesgoverningthematter,itisforthedomesticlegalsystemofeachMemberState:

如并無規(guī)管相關事宜的歐共體規(guī)則，則應依據(jù)各成員國的本國法律制度：(i)toprescribetheconceptof‘causalrelationship’;and 界定“因果關系”的概念；及(ii)tosetthecriteriafordeterminingtheextentofthedamages.設立確定損害程度的標準。providedthattheprinciplesofequivalenceandeffectivenessareobserved但前提是，須遵守等同及有效性原則。Manfredi,paragraphs64and92Manfredi,第64和92段Standardslide4Whattypeofremedy？什么類型的補救措施？Compensatorydamages.Puttingtheplaintiffinthesamesituationashewouldhavebeenin“butfor”thebreach.補償性損害賠償。令原告恢復到“若非”違約其本應所處的狀況。Restitutionarydamages,includingan“accountofprofits”.Suchdamagesarecalculatedbyreferencetothedefendant’sgain(ratherthantheplaintiff’sloss).返還性損害賠償，包括“交出利潤”。該等損害賠償參考被告所得（而不是原告損失）計算。Exemplary(punitive)damages.懲戒性（懲罰性）損失賠償。Standardslide5Compensatorydamages補償性損害賠償Theinjuredpersonsmustbeabletoseekfullcompensationfor:受害者一定可以就以下各項尋求充分賠償：actualloss(damnumemergens)實際損失；lossofprofit(lucrumcessans)利潤損失；

andinterest和利息。Manfredi,paragraph95Manfredi,第95段Standardslide6Causation因果關系The“butfor”test“askswhetherthelossallegedbytheclaimantwouldhaveoccurredbutfortheunlawfulconductofthedefendant.”EnronvEWS[2009]CAT36,paragraph88“若非”測試關注的是：“若非被告的違法行為，索賠人主張的損失是否會發(fā)生。”安然訴英威蘇鐵路，[2009年]英國競爭上訴委員會第36號案，第88條Wheremultiplecausesofdamage,whichisto“betreatedasthereal,substantial,directoreffective”cause.如果損害涉及多種原因，哪一種“被視為是真正、實質性、直接或有效”的原因。Causationmustbeestablishedonthefacts.因果關系的成立必須基于事實。Standardslide7Distinguishingbetweendifferentcategoriesofclaim

區(qū)分不同種類索賠Overchargeclaims:a(down-stream)purchaserclaimsforthe“overcharge”fromasupplierwho(i)waspartofacartelor(ii:

)wasdominantandchargedandunfairorexcessiveprice涉及收費過高的索賠：一名（下游）買家就下述供應商“收費過高”提出索賠：該供應商(i)為一家卡特爾成員，或(ii)占市場支配地位并索要不公平或過高價格：Differencebetweenthepricechargedandthe“butfor”competitiveprice索要的價格與不存在違反競爭規(guī)則情況下的價格之間的差額Exclusionaryclaims:acompanyclaimsforthedamageinflictedbyunlawfulpredatorypricing,refusalstodeal,vexatiouslitigation,resalepricemaintenance,etc.Victim’slostopportunities.涉及排斥的索賠：一家公司就因為非法的掠奪性定價、拒絕交易、濫訴、鎖定轉賣價等所遭受的損害提出索賠。受害人喪失了商機。Victimcouldnotenterthemarket受害人不能進入市場Victimwasdrivenoutofthemarket受害人被趕出市場Victimwaslesssuccessfulinthemarketduetothebreach受害人由于上述違規(guī)行為而未能在市場獲得預期成功8Causation:two“abuseofdominance”examples

因果關系：“濫用支配地位”的兩宗案例Enron(CAT):EnronallegedalossofachancetowinacoalhaulagecontractfromEdisonbecauseoftheunfairpricingofEWS.TheCATasked:安然案（英國競爭上訴委員會）：安然稱由于英威蘇鐵路的不公平定價，使其喪失獲得Edison運煤合同的機會。競爭上訴委員會查問：Whatwouldtheclaimanthavedone?Wouldtheclaimanthavesubmittedabidandwouldithavenegotiated?索賠人本可能做哪些事情？索賠人是否本可能提交標書并且就此進行洽商？WhatwouldtheEdisonhavedone?Wastherearealandsubstantialchancethattheclaimantwouldhavebeenawardedthecontract?Edison本可能做哪些事情？是否實際存在真實及重大機會使索賠人本可能獲授予合同？IfEnronhadlostthechance,whatvaluehaditlost,i.e.havingregardtoarealisticassessmentoftheprospectsofarealistice.如果安然喪失了這個機會，其蒙受了哪些損失，即：在考慮對可能實際發(fā)生的結果作出的切合實際的評估后作出的估算 TheCATfoundthat“inthebutforworld”theclaimantwouldnotnecessarilyhavemadeabidforthecontestedcontractandwouldnothavebeenawardedthecontractinanyevent.英國競爭上訴委員會裁定，“以若非原則衡量”，索賠人不一定會參與競標，而且在任何情況下均不會被授予合同。Arkin(HighCourt):Theclaimant’sfailuretoleavethemarketanditspricecuttingwassounreasonableand“prehensible”thattheclaimant’sactions–notthebreachofcompetitionlaw–werethepredominantcauseofitslossesArkin案（高等法院）：索賠人不撤離市場及其割價極不合理及“令人費解”，因而是索賠人自身的行為（而不是被索賠人違反競爭法）是其蒙受損失的主要原因。9BurdenandStandardofProof舉證責任和標準TheburdenofproofliesontheClaimanttoprovecausation,i.e.that:

索賠人承擔存在因果關系的舉證責任，包括：ithassufferedlossasaresultofthebreachofcompetitionlaw;andtheamountofthatdamage索賠人因他人違反競爭法而蒙受損失；和該損害的金額howprecisemusttheclaimbe?索賠額需要多精確？TheburdenofproofliesontheDefendanttoprovetheexistenceandextentofanypass-onofanoverchargebytheClaimanttoathirdparty(the“passingon”defence)

被告承擔舉證責任，證明索賠人已將過高收費轉嫁給第三方及轉嫁程度（“轉嫁”抗辯）Thestandardofproofisthecivilstandard:onthebalanceofprobabilities

舉證標準為民事標準：衡量蓋然性TheEUhasfocusedontheburden,standardanduseofpresumptionsinitsreformstostimulatedamagesactions歐盟在推行其改革時，著重于舉證責任、證明標準和推定，以鼓勵進行損害賠償訴訟10EUReforms歐盟改革After10yearsofpreparatorywork,theCommissionadoptedon11June2013:經(jīng)過十年的籌備工作后，歐盟委員會于2013年6月11日通過以下各項：ProposalforaDirectiveoncertainrulesgoverningactionsfordamagesundernationallawforinfringementsofthecompetitionlaw(COM(2013)404)指令建議，涉及就損害賠償提出訴訟（根據(jù)關于違反競爭法的全國性法律提起）的若干規(guī)管規(guī)則（COM(2013年)第404號）CommunicationfromtheCommissiononquantifyingharminactionsfordamagesbasedonbreachesofArticle101or102(C(2013)3440):non-bindingguidancetomakeiteasierforcourtstoquantifyharm歐盟委員會關于量化損害的資訊，涉及因違反第101或102條規(guī)定提起的損害賠償訴訟（C(2013年)第3440號）：為不具約束力的指引，便于法院量化損害CommissionStaffWorkingDocument–PracticalGuideonQuantifyingHarminActionsfordamagesbasedonbreachesofArticle101or102(SWD(2013)205):explainsthestrengthsandweaknessesofvariousmethodsandtechniques歐盟委員會員工工作文件–量化損害實務指南，涉及因違反第101或102條規(guī)定提起的損害賠償訴訟（SWD(2013年)第205號）：解釋各種方法和技術的利弊CommissionmendationoncommonprinciplesforinjunctiveandcompensatorycollectiveredressmechanismsintheMemberStatesconcerningviolationsofrightsgrantedunderUnionLaw(OJL201,26.7.13,p60)歐盟委員會的推薦意見，涉及對違反歐盟法律項下授予的權利而適用于成員國的禁制性和賠償性集體補救機制的通用原則（OJL201，2013年7月26日，第60頁）11RelevantIssuesintheDraftDirective

歐共體指令稿中的相關問題Accessto,anduseof,documents查閱和使用文件Courtscanorderproportionatedisclosureofdocuments(Article5)法院可命令適度地披露文件(第5條)Leniencystatementsandsettlementsubmissionscannotbedisclosedorusedinevidence–toprotecttheregulatoryprocess(Article6)減責陳述及和解意見不可披露或用作證據(jù)–為保障監(jiān)管程序(第6條)Liability責任Infringingundertakingsarejointlyandseverallyliable;butundertakingsgrantedimmunityfromfinesareonlyseverallyliable(Article11)對于違反承諾應負連帶責任；但對于被授予罰款豁免的承諾僅應負個