No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. Non-technical summaryPrivate enforcement of competition law is on the rise worldwide and a major item on the EU competition policy agenda. The relevant provisions in the EU and the US confer a right to damages to "any individual" and "any person" harmed by a cartel. However, while there is much research about actions for damages by cartel customers, the question whether and how other parties that may incur losses due to a cartel can obtain damages is usually neglected and largely open in Europe. This paper analyses the issue with respect to suppliers of a downstream cartel from a comparative law and economics perspective.First, we show that the losses such cartel suppliers incur are driven by three effects: Cartel members lower sales and correspondingly their input demand (direct quantity effect), which in turn affects the price suppliers can charge (price effect) and their production costs (costWe then analyze whether suppliers are entitled to claim these losses as damages in the two leading competition law regimes, the US and the EU. We find that, while the majority view in the US denies standing, the emerging position in the EU and important member states is to grant supplier standing. We argue that the case law in Courage v. Crehan implies that the type of loss which the competition provisions are intended to prevent is broader in the EU than in the US. In particular, pursuant to EU law, a right to damages does not require that the loss suffered occurred in the same market than the lessening of competition that makes the defendant's conduct illegal. As a consequence, both Germany and England have abandoned important traditional limitations on standing. We argue that the more generous approach to standing in the EU compared to the US can be justified in view of the different institutional context and the goals assigned to the right to damages in the EU.According to our analysis cartel suppliers in principle have a right to damages in the EU, as no general restrictions on standing ought to apply; however, the causation requirement will be an important hurdle to clear in a particular case. Sound econometric estimation techniques are of major importance to overcome that obstacle. In this respect, we finally present an econometric approach based on residual demand estimation that allows to quantify all determinants of cartel suppliers' damages.Our results therefore suggest that supplier damage claims are a viable option that can contribute to full compensation an...

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. Abstract Public and private action against cartels is an internationally recognized cornerstone of antitrust enforcement. Effective private enforcement requires that cartel victims can receive (at least) full compensation for the harm suffered. Academics and competition authorities support this goal with guidance for the calculation of cartel damages. However, they usually neglect that the prosecution of competition law infringements can be very time-consuming, so that it often takes several years until cartel victims obtain damages. Interest and inflation are thus two key drivers of adequate compensation. This paper is the first to provide a comparative law and economics perspective on this topic: We investigate how various legal systems treat interest and inflation as part of competition law actions for damages, and, using real-world data from the lysine cartel, simulate the economic differences, which turn out to be substantial. By comparing and evaluating the regulatory techniques, our paper provides important insights for regulators, litigation practitioners and the ongoing reform discussions in the EU and the US. At the same time, our approach is a first step towards a quantitative comparative law and economics analysis of the law on interest in the field of tort law. TIME IS MONEY -HOW MUCH MONEY IS TIME? INTEREST AND INFLATION IN COMPETITION LAW ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES