Slovenian National Assembly

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (Text with EEA relevance)

Scrutiny details

Subsidiarity deadline: 12/09/2013
 
Scrutiny Information

Scrutiny date: 13/09/2013

Subsidiarity Concern:

No Important information to exchange

No Veto

Information on parliamentary scrutiny

Passed on to the Committee on the Economy. The document has been discussed at its 10th meeting of 3 September 2013.

 

And at it's 71st meeting of 13 September 2013 the Committee on EU Affairs of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia adopted the following Position:

 

The Republic of Slovenia in principle supports the efforts made by the Commission to improve the interaction between the public and private implementation of competition law, as well as to ensure an effective enforcement of rights to compensation for harm incurred as a result of the infringement of competition law provisions. The Commission's approach in the form of Proposal for a Directive is, according to Slovenia, an adequate attempt to establish uniform rules concerning the disclosure of evidence, the effect of national decisions, the rules on limitation periods and joint and several liability, the passing-on of overcharges, and the rules on the quantification of harm and consensual dispute resolution.

 

The Republic of Slovenia agrees with the Commission's approach concerning the rules on disclosure of evidence that, upon the entry into force of the Directive, will be equally regulated in all Member States (Article 5). Slovenia already now allows the courts to require documents from the counterparty as well as sanctions in the sense of facts being considered proven in case of failure to submit the required documents. Slovenia also welcomes the provisions concerning the protection of specific documents from disclosure (Article 6/1) although such is required by the court. This could increase the popularity of leniency programmes before the national Competition Protection Agency. It needs to be examined whether such protection is to be extended also to procedures conducted pursuant to the Access to Public Information Act. In such regard, Slovenia welcomes the limits on the use of evidence obtained in a manner other than requested by the court (Article 7). Also reasonable is the possibility to withhold the disclosure of documents from the file (Article 6/2) pending a final procedure before the Competition Protection Agency. Attention is to be drawn to the issue of protection of confidential data from the file when such are at disposal of a civil court which is not subject to the same strict rules as those applying to a file of the Competition Protection Agency pursuant to Article 18 of the Prevention of Restriction of Competition Act. Moreover, in relation to section 2, it needs to be examined how to handle a matter upon the disclosure of proposed covenants that have not been accepted by the Competition Protection Agency. Disclosure to claimants could affect the companies' willingness to propose covenants that in Slovenian practice have proven to be an effective means to regulate the market.

 

The Republic of Slovenia welcomes the Commission's approach concerning the regulation of the effect of national decisions, the rules on limitation periods, and joint and several liability. In Slovenia, such provisions are already partly regulated. In accordance with the Prevention of Restriction of Competition Act, the court is bound by the final decision of the body competent for competition, while limitation is suspended during the procedure before the body competent for competition. Joint and several liability is regulated by the Code of Obligations but will have to be adjusted if the proposed Directive is adopted. Slovenia has not yet taken a stand in relation to the rules on joint and several liability.

 

The Republic of Slovenia does not oppose the provisions concerning the passing-on of overcharges which occurs when an injured party reduces his actual loss by passing it on, partly or entirely, to his own purchasers. Uniform rules on passing-on of overcharges will ensure greater legal certainty and predictability.

 

The provisions on the quantification of harm represent a considerable deviation from national law. The Commission proposed the introduction of rebuttable presumption with regard to the existence and scope of harm resulting from non-competitive action of undertakings. Slovenia is aware that the main reason for which private enforcement has not become popular in Slovenia yet lies in the complexity of proving the scope of harm. Such presumption would be considerably useful to the injured parties in claiming damages. Since this is a major deviation from the basic rule of the law of obligations, Slovenia has not yet taken a stand on the introduction of the above presumption. Also, it is unclear – in relation to Article 16/2 – when do the burden and the level of proof actually render the exercise of the injured party’s right to damages impossible or excessively difficult.

 

The Republic of Slovenia in principle supports the provisions on consensual dispute resolution.


Contact points for EU matters

IPEX Correspondents:
Phone: 00 386 478 9482  Email Mrs. Aleksandra-Saša Lavrič Phone: 00 386 478 9664  Email Ms. Polona Klemenčič
Top
Contact | Legal Notice | v2.3