Autore
Carli, Cecilia

Titolo
Di ascensori, finanziamenti e risarcimento dei danni "fuori dall'ombrello"
Periodico
Mercato concorrenza regole
Anno: 2020 - Volume: 22 - Fascicolo: 1 - Pagina iniziale: 207 - Pagina finale: 223

For the first time ever, the Eu Court of Justice dealt with a case of (alleged) antitrustdamages where the claimant was not an undertaking who had purchased goodsaffected by the anticompetitive agreement, rather a body granting subsidies relatedto the goods covered by the cartel. The scope of one of private enforcement’s milestonessince the Manfredi case – namely that «any person» shall be entitled to seekcompensation for damages caused by an infringement of competition law – hasbeen generously extended through the removal of the necessary link between thosecompanies participating in an illicit agreement and their direct or indirect purchasers:in the Otis case, the Court clarified that the «chain» of entities entitled to seekcompensation also extends to those subjects who played a role in creating demandin the relevant market. And it is not necessary that the loss suffered by the interestedparty – in this case an alleged damage for loss of investment chance – has a specificconnection with the «objective of protection» pursued by Article 101 Tfeu. The rulingmarks a renewed tension between the compensatory function of antitrust damagesand a sort of market protection that seems to yearn towards a greater deterrent effectthrough the extension of subjects entitled to seek compensation. But there it stillremains the need to demonstrate the existence of a sufficient causal link between the alleged damage and the relevant conduct, which seems to remain an uphill road.Much ado about nothing?



SICI: 1590-5128(2020)22:1<207:DAFERD>2.0.ZU;2-7
Testo completo: https://www.rivisteweb.it/download/article/10.1434/97769
Testo completo alternativo: https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.1434/97769

Esportazione dati in Refworks (solo per utenti abilitati)

Biblioteche ACNP che possiedono il periodico