Transposition of the Damages Directive in Portugal

 

commandment_thou_shalt_not_law_rule_tablet_ten-612901 (1)

 by Maria Barros Silva, Trainee Lawyer at SRS Advogados

Directive 2014/104/EU was finally transposed into the Portuguese legal system by Law No. 23/2018 of 5 June, which regulates the right to compensation for victims of infringements to competition law. The Damages Directive was published on 26 November 2014, having a deadline for transposition on 27 December 2016. Portugal was the last Member State to transpose the Directive, almost a year and a half after the deadline, following a call from the Commission to take the necessary steps to ensure its full implementation. Hopefully, this will avoid an infringement procedure from the Commission and any possible fines.

In essence, the content of the Law corresponds to the text of the Directive, although it does go beyond it in certain aspects, with some innovative solutions.

Firstly, the scope of the Law. It applies not only to actions for damages for infringements of European Union competition law (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, with or without parallel application of equivalent national rules), as laid down in the Directive; but also to actions for damages based on purely national infringements, with no cross-border effects (Articles 9, 11 and 12 of the Competition Law – Law no. 19/2012, of 8 May) or corresponding legal norms in other Member States. Secondly, the law applies not only to actions for damages, but also to other claims based on infringements of competition law.
Continue reading “Transposition of the Damages Directive in Portugal”

Advertisements

Competition authorities have a new “top model”

2830515989_1f56a53755_o

by Joana Whyte, Associate Lawyer at SRS Advogados and member of CEDU

Until recently, the fashion industry had never been an obvious sector of focus for competition authorities. However, in the past few months, national competition authorities from Italy, the United Kingdom and France have been particularly attentive to this industry, initiating investigations for competition law infringements which culminated in the imposition of fines on several entities, reminding us all that competition law applies to all sectors of the economy.

In November 2016, the Italian Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato concluded that eight major modelling agencies, representing 80% of Italy’s market share, including Elite Model Management, Major Model Management and the association of the fashion industry – Assem, had participated in a cartel during the relevant period from May 2007 to March 2015. The activity occurred in the context of negotiations with customers, including fashion houses, luxury car dealers, consumer goods brands and advertising companies on services ranging from runway shows to photoshoots for catalogues and promotional events.

The investigation was triggered by a leniency application put forward by IMG Italy, S.r.L on 18th September 2014. Following a thorough investigation, the Italian Competition Authority applied a total fine of €4.5 million on the investigated entities[i]. The evidence provided by IMG was considered to be decisive for the investigation. In particular, IMG provided useful elements for understanding the nature of the cartel, the purposes it pursued, and the ways in which it was achieved, and therefore was granted total immunity by the Autorità.
Continue reading “Competition authorities have a new “top model””

Editorial of October 2016

8630266615_336d5056ec_o

by Sophie Perez Fernandes, Junior Editor

Engaging EU liability within the European Stability Mechanism framework

Last September 20th, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered two judgments regarding the role of the European Commission and, to a lesser extent, the European Central Bank, in the negotiation and signing of the Memorandum of Understanding concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) during the 2012-2013 financial crisis, and, in particular, in the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus imposed as a condition for the grant of financial assistance.

In Mallis and Malli (Joined Cases C-105/15 P to C-109/15 P), actions were brought against the European Commission and the European Central Bank for the annulment of the Eurogroup’s statement of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus. In turn, in Ledra Advertising (Joined Cases C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P), depositors of two large Cypriot banks brought actions against the European Commission and the European Central Bank for the partial annulment of the Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 adopted jointly by the ESM and the Republic of Cyprus and also for compensation for damages allegedly suffered following the request for financial assistance and the ensuing restructuring of the two banks in question.

The ECJ had already been called upon to rule on judicial protection questions raised by the ESM framework. Created in order to provide, where needed, financial assistance to the Member States whose currency is the euro, the ESM was instituted through an international agreement between euro area Member States – the Treaty establishing the ESM, concluded in Brussels the 2th February 2012, in force since the 27th September 2012. Thus, the ESM Treaty is not part of the EU legal order, as confirmed by the ECJ in the famous Pringle judgment (C-370/12). As a consequence, when creating the ESM, or acting within its framework, Member States do not act within the scope of application of EU law for the purposes, in particular, of Article 51(1) CFREU. Individuals seeking to challenge Member States’ measures adopted pursuant the conditions laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding would not, therefore, find in the preliminary ruling mechanism an indirect means of access to the ECJ in order to assess their compliance with EU law and, in particular, the CFREU as the former was not in question and the latter was hence out of reach.

What the above mentioned judgments, and especially Ledra Advertising, emphasize is the link nonetheless existing between the ESM framework and the EU legal order. Quoting Alicia Hinarejos (EU Law Analysis), in order to carry out its functions, the ESM “borrows” two EU institutions, the European Commission and the European Central Bank, two thirds of the infamously known Troika. The question is whether (and, if so, when) EU institutions’ actions within the ESM framework might be reviewed and, when harmful, give rise to compensation under EU law and, in particular, in light of the CFREU.

Continue reading “Editorial of October 2016”