Competition Litigation 2012

The International Comparative Legal Guide to:
Competition Litigation 2012
A practical cross-border insight
into competition litigation work
Published by Global Legal Group, in association with
CDR, with contributions from:
ICLG
ACCURA Advokatpartnerselskab
Allen & Overy Luxembourg
Allende & Brea
Alston & Bird LLP
Arnold Bloch Leibler
Ashurst LLP
Beiten Burkhardt
bpv Hügel Rechtsanwälte OG
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Dittmar & Indrenius
D.N. Tzouganatos & Partners
Drew & Napier LLC
Eugene F. Collins Solicitors
Gernandt & Danielsson
Gianni, Origoni, Grippo & Partners
J. Sagar Associates
Lellos P. Demetriades Law Office, LLC
Linklaters LLP
Motieka & Audzevicius
Müggenburg, Gorches, Peñalosa y Sepúlveda, S.C.
Muscat Azzopardi & Associates
Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu
Oppenheim
Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn
Sérvulo & Associados
Shin & Kim
SJ Berwin LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
TGC Corporate Lawyers
Vasil Kisil & Partners
Walder Wyss Ltd.
The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Competition Litigation 2012
General Chapter:
1
The European Commission's White Paper on Damages Actions: The English Experience Arundel McDougall, James Levy & Lauren Bernard, Ashurst LLP
1
Country Question and Answer Chapters:
Contributing Editors
2
Argentina
Allende & Brea: Julián Peña & Federico Rossi
11
3
Australia
Arnold Bloch Leibler: Zaven Mardirossian & Matthew Lees
15
Monica Fuertes, Dror
Levy, Florjan Osmani,
Oliver Smith, Rory Smith,
Toni Wyatt
4
Austria
bpv Hügel Rechtsanwälte OG: Astrid Ablasser-Neuhuber & Florian Neumayr
21
5
Belgium
Linklaters LLP: Françoise Lefèvre & Xavier Taton
27
6
Canada
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP: Chris Hersh & Imran Ahmad
32
Sub Editors
7
Cyprus
Lellos P. Demetriades Law Office, LLC: Olga Georgiades
38
8
Denmark
ACCURA Advokatpartnerselskab: Jesper Fabricius & Christina Heiberg-Grevy 43
9
England & Wales Ashurst LLP: Arundel McDougall & James Levy
Arundel McDougall &
James Levy, Ashurst LLP
Account Managers
Suzie Kidd
Jodie Mablin
Senior Editor
Penny Smale
48
10 European Union Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP: Ingrid Vandenborre &
Managing Editor
Nikolaos M. Peristerakis
57
11 Finland
Dittmar & Indrenius: Hanna Laurila & Toni Kalliokoski
63
George Archer
12 France
SJ Berwin LLP: Marc Lévy & Natasha Tardif
69
Publisher
13 Germany
Beiten Burkhardt: Philipp Cotta & Dr. Holger Peres
75
14 Greece
D.N. Tzouganatos & Partners: Stamatis Drakakakis
80
15 Hungary
Oppenheim: Gábor Fejes & Zoltán Marosi
85
16 India
J. Sagar Associates: Amitabh Kumar & Mansoor Ali Shoket
91
17 Ireland
Eugene F. Collins Solicitors: Joanne Finn & Ronan O’Neill
96
18 Italy
Gianni, Origoni, Grippo & Partners: Piero Fattori & Michele Carpagnano
102
19 Japan
Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu: Eriko Watanabe & Koki Yanagisawa
108
F&F Studio Design
20 Korea
Shin & Kim: Hyun Ah Kim & John Hyouk Choi
114
GLG Cover Image Source
21 Lithuania
Motieka & Audzevicius: Ramūnas Audzevičius & Tomas Samulevičius
119
22 Luxembourg
Allen & Overy Luxembourg: Gabriel Bleser
125
23 Malta
Muscat Azzopardi & Associates: Dr. Clayton Fenech & Lynne Satariano
129
24 Mexico
Müggenburg, Gorches, Peñalosa y Sepúlveda, S.C.: Esteban Gorches
Alan Falach
Deputy Publisher
Richard Firth
Published by
Global Legal Group Ltd.
59 Tanner Street
London SE1 3PL, UK
Tel: +44 20 7367 0720
Fax: +44 20 7407 5255
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.glgroup.co.uk
GLG Cover Design
iStockphoto
Printed by
Ashford Colour Press Ltd
September 2011
Copyright © 2011
Global Legal Group Ltd.
All rights reserved
No photocopying
ISBN 978-1-908070-07-4
ISSN 1757-2819
& Alfonso Sepúlveda
25 Netherlands
133
Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn: Berend Jan Drijber &
Willem Heemskerk
139
26 Poland
TGC Corporate Lawyers: Beata Ordowska & Adam Dękierowski
144
27 Portugal
Sérvulo & Associados: Miguel Gorjão-Henriques & Miguel Sousa Ferro
149
28 Singapore
Drew & Napier LLC: Cavinder Bull S.C. & Scott Clements
155
29 Slovakia
TGC Corporate Lawyers: Christian Fielding & Kristína Sýkorová
161
30 Spain
SJ Berwin LLP: Ramón García Gallardo & Manuel Bermúdez Caballero
165
31 Sweden
Gernandt & Danielsson: Ola Wiklund & Rolf Larsson
173
32 Switzerland
Walder Wyss Ltd.: Reto Jacobs & Gion Giger
177
33 Ukraine
Vasil Kisil & Partners: Oleksiy Filatov & Oleksandr Mamunya
182
34 USA
Alston & Bird LLP: Adam J. Biegel & Donald M. Houser
187
Further copies of this book and others in the series can be ordered from the publisher. Please call +44 20 7367 0720
Disclaimer
This publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehensive full legal or other advice.
Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication.
This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified
professional when dealing with specific situations.
www.ICLG.co.uk
Chapter 13
Germany
Philipp Cotta
Beiten Burkhardt
1 General
1.1
Dr. Holger Peres
1.5
Please identify the scope of claims that may be brought in
Germany for breach of competition law.
The following claims may be brought for breach of competition law
in Germany:
1.
damage claims;
2.
claims for supply (of certain goods);
3.
claims for remediation; and
4.
claim to cease and desist.
1.2
What is the legal basis for bringing an action for breach of
competition law?
As far as German law is applicable, actions for breach of
competition law are generally brought on the basis of Sec. 33 of the
Act against Restraints of Competition (ARC). Sec. 33 ARC sets out
specific tort rules for antitrust infringements, in particular the
obligation to remediate and, in case of recurrence, to refrain from
infringements of competition law, as well as the obligation to
compensate damages resulting from such infringements.
In order to bring an action for breach of competition law, the
relevant person (plaintiff) has to be affected by the infringement
(Sec. 33 (1) ARC). In this context, a “person” can be a natural or
legal person. As a result, actions can be brought by competitors and
other market participants affected by the infringement, such as
customers, including consumers, or suppliers.
Furthermore, claims may also be asserted by associations with legal
capacity for the promotion of commercial or independent
professional interests. However, Sec. 33 (2) ARC contains some
restrictions: the relevant association must have a significant number
of members selling goods and services of a similar or related type
on the same market, the interests of its members must be affected
by the infringement and it must have the human, material and
financial resources to pursue commercial or independent
professional interests.
Class actions or similar means of collective redress are generally
not available in Germany. There are some exceptions however:
In addition, the general rules of tort law set out in the German Civil
Code (CC) are applicable.
1.3
A collective claim to get injunctive relief
(Unterlassungsanspruch) is available to associations as
described above.
It is possible to bring an action in one’s own name but on
another person’s behalf (Prozessstandschaft), in case there is
a legitimate interest for such a proceeding or a person is
entitled to it by law.
Is the legal basis for competition law claims derived from
international, national or regional law?
The legal basis for competition law claims is primarily derived from
the national law provisions of the ARC and CC. However, claims
under Sec. 33 ARC expressly also cover infringements of the
European law provisions of Art. 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
1.4
Are there specialist courts in Germany to which
competition law cases are assigned?
There are no specialist courts in Germany to which private
competition cases are assigned. However, many civil courts have
specialised chambers to handle competition law cases. This is
usually the case with chambers for commercial law at the Regional
Courts (Landgerichte).
For appeals against decisions of the Federal Cartel Office (FCO), a
special jurisdiction of the cartel senates of the Düsseldorf Court of
Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) applies.
Who has standing to bring an action for breach of
competition law and what are the available mechanisms
for multiple claimants? For instance, is there a possibility
of collective claims, class actions, actions by
representative bodies or any other form of public interest
litigation?
According to recent case law, it is possible for potential
claimants to bundle their damage claims by assigning them
to one person who then brings forward the claim in his own
name, with the intention to distribute a portion of the
proceeds of a successful action to the assignors.
1.6
What jurisdictional factors will determine whether a court
is entitled to take on a competition law claim?
In Germany the Regional Courts have exclusive jurisdiction for any
civil litigation, based on an infringement of the ARC or Art. 101,
102 TFEU (Sec. 87 ARC). In addition, Sec. 89 ARC entitles the
Federal States (Bundesländer) to concentrate the jurisdiction for
civil litigation arising from competition law infringements within a
small number of their Regional Courts. Most Federal States have
made use of this provision.
Other jurisdictional factors are that a claim must have some tie with
ICLG TO: COMPETITION LITIGATION 2012
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London
WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
75
Germany
Beiten Burkhardt
the region of the respective Regional Court. This may be for
example the defendant’s principle place of business or the territory
in which the infringement occurred. If a cartel infringement has an
effect throughout the German territory, civil claims may be brought
at any Regional Court in Germany within the limits of
concentration according Sec. 89 ARC (see above).
1.7
In general, civil proceedings are adversarial in Germany, but certain
rights are granted to the judges by the Code of Civil Procedure
(CCP). In Regional Courts civil claims are usually heard and
decided by a panel of three judges. The panel may transfer simple
cases to a single judge. The court leads the proceedings and plays
a very active role; witnesses are interrogated mainly by the judges
(the parties and their attorneys may ask additional questions after
the witnesses have been questioned by the court). The court decides
– although normally with the consent of the parties – which experts
will be heard and assesses the evidence they have taken during the
hearing.
2.1
Are interim remedies available in competition law cases?
On a limited basis interim remedies are available in German
competition law cases.
2.2
What interim remedies are available and under what
conditions will a court grant them?
As an interim remedy, prohibitory orders (prohibition of certain
anticompetitive behaviour) and orders to provide services or goods
(so far mainly granted in the energy sector) are possible.
A German court will grant an interim remedy provided that the
plaintiff is able to: (i) present prima facie evidence showing that he
is entitled to a certain claim or right; (ii) show the urgency of the
case; and (iii) demonstrate that he would suffer severe or even
irreversible disadvantages in case the remedy is not granted. If the
application is successful, the court will issue an interim injunction
(einstweilige Verfügung) according to its discretion, Sec. 935, 940
CCP.
3 Final Remedies
3.1
that this violation is causal for the plaintiff’s loss.
In order to demand restitution of a contract, the plaintiff only
has to show the anticompetitive behaviour of the defendant.
Since normally the goods exchanged can not be refunded, the
defendant then has to show that the payment he has received
in execution of the contract is free of any anticompetitive
effects. In some cases, however, it may be possible to
rescind the contract for deceit.
Is the judicial process adversarial or inquisitorial?
2 Interim Remedies
Please identify the final remedies which may be available
and describe in each case the tests which a court will
apply in deciding whether to grant such a remedy.
The remedies available are prohibitory orders, orders to provide
services and/or goods, damages and restitution.
In order to obtain a prohibitory order the plaintiff has to show
that he is - or is about to be - affected by an ongoing
infringement of competition law by the defendant. If the
defendant has already ceased his anticompetitive behaviour,
only declaratory judgments, damages or restitution are
available.
Orders to supply services or goods are awarded if the
defendant’s refusal to deal with the plaintiff is to be
considered an abuse of a strong or dominant market position.
In order to obtain damages the plaintiff has to demonstrate
that the defendant has infringed competition law by fault and
76
Germany
WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
3.2
If damages are an available remedy, on what bases can a
court determine the amount of the award? Are exemplary
damages available?
Damages are awarded in the form of restitution in kind
(Naturalrestitution) or as monetary compensation. The amount to
be awarded is calculated on the basis of a comparison between the
actual situation of the plaintiff taking into account the infringement
of competition law by the defendant and the hypothetical situation
without the infringing action of the defendant. Thereby the loss of
the plaintiff may also include loss of profit, reduction in assets, loss
of chance (if there is evidence for probable success) and even moral
damages (in case they have an economic value). The defendant also
has to pay interests from the date of the occurrence of the loss.
The courts are entitled to estimate the actual amount to be awarded
on the basis of suitable market information supplied by the plaintiff.
Such information can e.g. be a comparison between the market data
during, before and after the infringement but also expert
econometric analysis. Furthermore, according to Sec. 33 (3) ARC
the court can take into account the proportion of the profit which the
defendant has derived from the infringement.
Exemplary and punitive damages are not available in Germany.
3.3
Are fines imposed by competition authorities taken into
account by the court when calculating the award?
No, fines imposed by competition authorities are not taken into
account. Only the awarded damages are taken into account if the
FCO has skimmed off the economic benefit prior to the damage
action. In that case the FCO will reimburse the respective amounts
to the defendant in order to avoid a duplication of compensation
payments by the defendant.
4 Evidence
4.1
What is the standard of proof?
The court must be convinced of all facts necessary for the particular
claim. Conviction thereby means a high level of plausibility or
practical certainty (a degree of certainty useable for practical life)
which prevails over remaining doubts. The conviction may also be
based on circumstantial evidence.
As already pointed out above, the amount of damages may be
estimated, if the plaintiff has established that loss has actually been
suffered as a result of the infringement.
4.2
Who bears the evidential burden of proof?
As a general rule of German civil proceedings the burden of proof
for all facts justifying the claim is on the side of the claimant.
However, there are several exceptions in the context of civil cartel
actions. If, for example, an infringement of competition law has
been established by a final decision of the FCO, the EU
ICLG TO: COMPETITION LITIGATION 2012
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London
Beiten Burkhardt
Furthermore, the plaintiff does not have the burden of proof for
certain facts in case a legal presumption is provided by substantive
law. German antitrust law provides several of these presumptions,
e.g. regarding the abuse of a dominant position: there is a statutory
presumption that e.g. a single undertaking with a market share of at
least one third commands a dominant market position. In this case,
the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant. He may prove the
absence of dominance, e.g. that substantial competition is
maintained in the market or its market position is not dominant in
relation to competitors.
In certain cases of price fixing and quota cartels, case law suggests
that if a cartel was practiced intensely over a longer time period,
there is some prima facie evidence of an economic damage for
purchasers which may be rebutted by the defendant.
4.3
parties in cartel cases. Following a recent decision of the European
Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Pfleiderer case, it is for the national
courts to determine the conditions under which third party access to
leniency documents should be allowed or refused. To date no
authoritative decision of a German court exists on this point.
4.5
Witnesses can be forced to appear. Sec. 380 CCP provides the
necessary legal basis for such a court order. If the witness
repeatedly refuses to appear, the court can order him to be brought
in by the police.
Cross-examination is not practiced in civil proceedings in Germany.
This is due to the fact that the witness has the right to make a
coherent statement and is examined by the judge first. The parties
can only bring forward supplementary questions after the judge has
finished his examination.
4.6
Are there limitations on the forms of evidence which may
be put forward by either side? Is expert evidence
accepted by the courts?
Yes, in civil court proceedings only the following evidence is
admissible: experts; witnesses; documents; inspection by the court;
and interrogation of the parties. The interrogation of the parties is
considered to be a subsidiary form of evidence only permissible in
special cases, e.g. if other evidence is not available.
Can witnesses be forced to appear? To what extent, if
any, is cross-examination of witnesses possible?
Does an infringement decision by a national or
international competition authority, or an authority from
another country, have probative value as to liability and
enable claimants to pursue follow-on claims for damages
in the courts?
A final infringement decision by the FCO, the EU Commission, the
competition authority of another EU Member State or a court acting
as such, has a binding effect on the civil court handling a follow-on
damage claim (Sec. 33 (4) ARC). The same applies to findings in
final judgments resulting from an appeal of the aforementioned
decisions.
Expert evidence is admissible and often used in competition cases
to assess overcharges. Experts may also assist the parties in proving
their claims before and during the trial. The court is free to consider
expert opinions submitted by the parties and may also appoint an
independent expert to assist on specific factual questions which are
beyond the knowledge and experience of the judges.
In case remedies other than damages are sought, the courts will
usually take into account these findings, although they are not
legally bound to do so.
4.4
In Germany all information brought before court is disclosed to the
other party at least. Due to the constitutional right to be heard
(rechtliches Gehör), which also includes the right to comment on all
facts, documents and information presented to the court by the other
party, business secrets are not protected against disclosure to the
other party. However, witnesses are allowed to refuse to answer
questions in case the answer would lead to a direct economic
damage (Sec. 384 CCP).
What are the rules on disclosure? What, if any,
documents can be obtained: (i) before proceedings have
begun; (ii) during proceedings from the other party; and
(iii) from third parties (including competition authorities)?
German civil procedural law does not provide for pre-trial or other
discovery procedures. The power of the court to enforce the
submission of evidence or take evidence not previously offered by
a party is limited in Germany. Although the court can issue an order
to submit documents or other objects according to Sec. 142 and 144
CCP vis-à-vis parties and third persons, this is limited to documents
to which one of the parties has made a reference. Furthermore, if a
party - other than a third person - refuses to present these
documents, it can not be forced to do so. The only consequence is
that the court can preclude the party from relying on connected
allegations. A party can only be forced to present documents where
an obligation under substantive law exists (Sec. 422 CCP).
However, the German ARC does not provide for such an obligation.
On the basis of criminal procedural law (Sec. 406 e Code of
Criminal Procedure), the parties, however, can claim access to the
files of the FCO. Also the court may request the submission of
documents and other information from the FCO files. As a national
authority, the FCO is generally obliged to provide administrative
assistance to German courts. It is currently unclear whether this
obligation also applies to leniency applications submitted by the
Germany
Commission, the competition authority of another EU Member
State or a court acting as such, the civil court handling the damage
claim is bound by that decision and the plaintiff does not have to
present any further evidence in this regard (Sec. 33 (4) ARC).
However, the binding effect only applies to the fact that an
infringement has taken place and does not relate to the question of
whether a damage has been caused by the infringement.
Germany
4.7
How would courts deal with issues of commercial
confidentiality that may arise in competition proceedings?
With regard to the general public, however, business secrets are
well protected against disclosure by Sec. 172, 174 Constitution of
Courts Act. According to these provisions, the general public can
be excluded from the hearing in case of business secrets being
presented and discussed. The general public has to be excluded
during the interrogation of witnesses upon the request of one of the
parties.
5 Justification / Defences
5.1
Is a defence of justification/public interest available?
A defence of justification is available, e.g. in cases of abuse of a
dominant market position and other discriminatory behaviour. In
cases of restrictive practices (Art. 101 TFEU para. 1 and Sec. 1
ARC), the defendant may argue that the restriction of competition
ICLG TO: COMPETITION LITIGATION 2012
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London
WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
77
Beiten Burkhardt
Germany
is exempt under Art. 101 TFEU para. 3 or Sec. 2 ARC.
A defence of public interest is extremely unlikely in a competition
case. Furthermore, the provisions of the ARC, giving the minister
of economic affairs the right to exclude certain agreements and
decisions from the application of the antitrust provisions, have been
eliminated.
5.2
Is the “passing on defence” available and do indirect
purchasers have legal standing to sue?
The passing-on defence is generally available under German law.
In the course of the draft of the latest amendment to the ARC, the
German government considered to exclude it by law but left it to the
courts to find an applicable solution. In a recent decision, the
Federal Court of Justice has now clarified this point and held that
the passing-on defence is available in particular to avoid unjust
enrichment of the direct purchaser who has not suffered any
damage.
In the same decision, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed that
indirect purchasers are entitled to claim damages from the cartel
infringer. This is in line with the majority interpretation of the
wording of Sec. 33 ARC, which proclaims remedies for every
person affected.
6 Timing
6.1
Is there a limitation period for bringing a claim for breach
of competition law, and if so how long is it and when does
it start to run?
Yes, there is a limitation period. According to Sec. 195, 199 Civil
Code, it starts at the moment the damaged party becomes aware –
or should reasonably become aware – of the damage and the
identity of the infringer, and lasts for three years.
In case the damaged party has no knowledge of the damage and/or
the infringer, Sec. 199 (3) CC rules that the limitation period is the
shorter of either 10 years from the date the damage occurred or 30
years from the date of the infringement.
However, the limitation period for a claim is suspended in case
proceedings are initiated by the FCO or the European Commission
or any other cartel authority of any Member State regarding a
violation of the ARC or Art. 101, 102 TFEU.
6.2
Broadly speaking, how long does a typical breach of
competition law claim take to bring to trial and final
judgment? Is it possible to expedite proceedings?
The duration of a breach of competition law claim will mainly
depend upon the workload of the court, the complexity of the
matter, the number of briefs exchanged, the number of experts
introduced by the parties or the court and last but not least the
willingness of the parties to swiftly proceed. Nevertheless, a term
of one year should at least be calculated for each court instance in
cases of average complexity.
It is impossible to expedite court proceedings, since it is to the
court’s discretion to manage and organise the proceedings. It is
possible, however, to expedite proceedings by settlement or by
trying to obtain interim relief (see above section 2).
Germany
7 Settlement
7.1
Do parties require the permission of the court to
discontinue breach of competition law claims (for example
if a settlement is reached)?
No. Only the plaintiff requires consent of the defendant to
withdraw a claim once the matter has been heard before court (Sec.
269 (1) CCP).
8 Costs
8.1
Can the claimant/defendant recover its legal costs from
the unsuccessful party?
In general, the losing party has to bear the court fees. The
successful party can generally recover its legal costs. However,
“necessary” attorneys’ fees can only be recovered within the limits
of the German Attorneys’ Fee Act (AFA). The AFA determines the
attorney’s fee in relation to the amount in dispute. If attorneys’ fees
are charged on an hourly basis, the recoverable costs under the AFA
often do not compensate the actual attorney fees.
8.2
Are lawyers permitted to act on a contingency fee basis?
Contingency fees have traditionally been prohibited for German
attorneys. Only since 2008, following a decision of the Federal
Constitutional Court, contingency fees have been allowed in certain
exceptional cases where the plaintiff otherwise would not have
brought forward his claim in court at all. Examples are lack of
financial resources on the plaintiff’s side or reasonable
unwillingness to bear the cost risk. In all other cases, contingency
fees remain prohibited by law.
8.3
Is third party funding of competition law claims permitted?
Yes it is. In the context of the current cement cartel case, companies
have emerged which offer financing for antitrust actions in return
for a share of the damage granted.
9 Appeal
9.1
Can decisions of the court be appealed?
Yes. Decisions of the court of first instance can be appealed
especially if the amount in dispute is in excess of EUR 600
(Berufung).
The decisions of the Court of Appeals can be reviewed by the
Federal Court of Justice in case the Court of Appeals or the Federal
Court of Justice allows it (Revision).
10
Leniency
10.1 Is leniency offered by a national competition authority in
Germany? If so, is (a) a successful and (b) an
unsuccessful applicant for leniency given immunity from
civil claims?
The FCO offers a leniency regime. Further information regarding
the leniency programme of the FCO can be obtained from the
78
WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
ICLG TO: COMPETITION LITIGATION 2012
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London
Germany
FCO’s website in English (www.bundeskartellamt.de).
However, the leniency programme has no effect on civil damage
actions. Neither a successful nor an unsuccessful applicant is given
immunity from civil damage claims.
10.2 Is (a) a successful and (b) an unsuccessful applicant for
leniency permitted to withhold evidence disclosed by it
when obtaining leniency in any subsequent court
proceedings?
permitted to withhold evidence in a court proceeding because of his
leniency application. However, the FCO has withheld leniency
applications vis-à-vis third parties pending a judicial decision. In
the Pfleiderer case the Local Court of Bonn (Amtsgericht) has
referred a matter focusing on these questions to the European Court
of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ has recently decided that it is up to the
national courts to determine the scope of protection of leniency
applications in national cartel proceedings. The outcome of this
question for Germany is still open.
Germany
Beiten Burkhardt
Neither a successful nor an unsuccessful applicant for leniency is
Philipp Cotta, LL.M.
Prof. Dr. Holger Peres
Beiten Burkhardt
Ganghoferstrasse 33
80339 München
Germany
Beiten Burkhardt
Ganghoferstrasse 33
80339 München
Germany
Tel:
Fax:
Email:
URL:
Tel:
Fax:
Email:
URL:
+49 89 35065 1342
+49 89 35065 2132
[email protected]
www.beitenburkhardt.com
Philipp Cotta is a partner in the Munich office of Beiten Burkhardt.
He heads the German antitrust practice and advises clients on
German and EU merger control, cartels and other competition
matters. His antitrust experience covers a wide range of
industries and sectors. Recently his work focussed on the
representation of clients in the LPG and the fire engine cartel
cases. Philipp Cotta studied law at LMU Munich and obtained an
LL.M.-degree from London School of Economics and Political
Science (London University). He is a member of the German
Antitrust Lawyers Society (Studienvereinigung Kartellrecht) and
the International Bar Association.
+49 89 35065 1332
+49 89 35065 2150
[email protected]
www.beitenburkhardt.com
Holger Peres is a partner in the Munich office of Beiten Burkhardt.
He heads the national and international Litigation, Arbitration &
Mediation practice. Holger Peres advises clients on litigation,
national and international arbitration and ADR procedures. He
has extensive experience in M&A transactions, (re-)structuring
matters and the representations of claimants in the meeting of
creditors (insolvency proceedings). Holger Peres’ recent work
focussed on national and international arbitration and mediation.
He studied law at LMU Munich and obtained a doctorate in the
law of evidence. Holger Peres teaches law at the University of
Munich and as a Professor at the European University Viadrina in
Frankfurt (Oder). He is a member of the German Institution of
Arbitration (DIS) and the International Bar Association.
BEITEN BURKHARDT is an independent international commercial law firm with a focused range of services and some 320
attorneys working in 12 locations. Through our long-established offices in Germany, Brussels, China and Eastern Europe we
advise clients from a wide range of industries, financial institutions as well as the public sector on transactions, disputes and all
other aspects of business and public law.
Our international Competition Group with over 20 specialists covers all aspects of competition and antitrust law, including the
representation of clients in cartel proceedings and follow-on actions. In competition litigation cases our Competition Group is
complemented by our international Litigation, Arbitration & Mediation practice with over 30 attorneys and extensive expertise in
complex commercial and civil litigation and arbitration.
Further information is available at www.beitenburkhardt.com
ICLG TO: COMPETITION LITIGATION 2012
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London
WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
79
The International Comparative Legal Guide to:
Competition Litigation 2012
Other titles in the ICLG series include:
Business Crime
Cartels & Leniency
Class & Group Actions
Commodities and Trade Law
Corporate Governance
Corporate Recovery & Insolvency
Corporate Tax
Dominance
Employment & Labour Law
Enforcement of Competition Law
Environment & Climate Change Law
Gas Regulation
Insurance & Reinsurance
International Arbitration
Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Merger Control
Mergers & Acquisitions
Patents
PFI / PPP Projects
Pharmaceutical Advertising
Private Client Law
Product Liability
Project Finance
Public Procurement
Real Estate
Securitisation
Telecommunication Laws and Regulations
Trademarks
To order a copy of a publication, please contact:
Global Legal Group
59 Tanner Street
London SE1 3PL
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7367 0720
Fax: +44 20 7407 5255
Email: [email protected]
www.ICLG.co.uk