DOKAZIVANJE ŠTETE OD POVREDA KONKURENCIJE U GRAĐANSKOM POSTUPKU – Usklađenost prava Srbije sa Direktivom 2014/104 –
Apstrakt
Privatnopravno sprovođenje prava konkurencije je skorašnja pojava u Evropskoj uniji. Dugo vremena pravo EU i nacionalna zakonodavstva država članica nisu imali na raspolaganju institute koji su doprineli jačanju privatnopravne zaštite u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, kao što su trostruka naknada štete ili kaznena odšteta, procesno pravo oštećene strane da zahteva otkrivanje dokaza, kolektivna tužba i dr. Interes za privatnopravno sporovođenje prava konkurencije postepeno je porastao nakon što je Uredba 1/2003 ovlastila nacionalne sudove da primenjuju članove 101 i 102 Ugovora o funkcionisanju EU, nakon što su sudovi EU utvrdili principe privatnopravne zaštite, a Direktiva 2014/104 (Direktiva o antitrustovskim štetama) propisala pravila kojima se olakšava dokazivanje povreda prava konkurencije i štete proistekle iz njih. Model Sjedinjenih Američkih Država je evidentno inspirisao zakonodavca EU. U isto vreme, Direktiva je pokušala da izbalansira privatni interes oštećenih strana i javni interes za delotvorno sprovođenje prava konkurencije. Pojedine odredbe Direktive izazvale su javnu debatu u pogledu njihovog domašaja i navodne suprotstavljenosti opštim pravnim principima. Iako su države članice preduzele sveobuhvatne mere za primenu Direktive, nacionalni sudovi još uvek treba da iznađu balans između privatnih i javnih interesa. Zbog toga, pun efekat Direktive 2014/104 tek treba da se oceni. Privatnopravno sprovođenje prava konkurencije u Srbiji je još uvek u početnoj fazi. Srpski Zakon o zaštiti konkurencije iz 2009. ustanovio je pravo oštećenih lica da podnesu tužbe za naknadu štete, iako je to pravo već postojalo po opštim pravilima građanskog prava. Zakon je propustio da propiše materijalne uslove i proceduralna pravila koji bi olakšali privatnopravno sprovođenje prava konkurencije. Srpski zakonodavac još uvek nije preduzeo korake da transponuje Direktivu 2014/104 u nacionalno zakonodavstvo. U ovom članku analiziraju se razvoj i ključne odlike modela privatnopravnog sprovođenja prava konkurencije u SAD i EU. Rad se zatim fokusira na odredbe Direktive 2014/104 koje olakšavaju prikupljanje dokaza i utvrđivanje štete. Drugi deo rada analizira pravila srpskog odštetnog prava i građanskog procesnog prava koja su relevantna za podnošenje tužbi za naknadu antitrustovskih šteta, kao i sudsku praksu u ovoj oblasti. Autorka zaključuje dajući predloge zakonodavcu Srbije za harmonizaciju nacionalnog zakonodavstva sa Direktivom 2014/104.
Reference
Bartholomew, C. P. 2022. Antitrust Class Actions in the Wake of Procedural Reform. Indiana Law Journal, 4, pp. 1315-1373.
Bukovac Puvača, M. 2021. Odgovornost na temelju krivnje i objektivna odgovornost u odštetnom pravu EU“. In: Ivančević, K. (ed.). Zaštita kolektivnih interesa potrošača. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union, pp. 13-26. https://doi.org/10.18485/union_pf_ccr.2021.ch1
Caiazzo, R. 2016. The Legislative Decree of Implementation of Directive 2014/104/EU on Antitrust Damages Actions. Rivista Italiana di Antitrust, 2, pp. 104-124.
Chapman, Y. 1978. Pre-trial Discovery in Antitrust Cases. Memphis State University Law Review, 3, pp. 615-651.
Chirita, A. 2017. The Disclosure of Evidence under the Antitrust Damages Directive 2014/104/EU. In: Tomljenović, V. et al. (eds.). EU Competition and State Aid Rules: Public and Private Enforcement. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 147-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47962-9_8
Đurđević, N. 1995. Neka pitanja uzročne veze kao pretpostavke imovinske odgovornosti u pravu SR Nemačke. Strani pravni život, 3, pp. 43-48.
European Commission, Commission staff working document on the implementation of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 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, 14. 12. 2020, SWD(2020) 338 final.
Gerber, D. 2007. Private Enforcement of Competition Law: A Comparative Perspective. In: Möllers, T. M. J., Heinemann, A. (eds.). The Enforcement of Competition Law in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 431-452. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495038.008
Hauser, P. & Otto, J. 2021, Legal Nature of Cartel Damages Claim in the EU. Global Competition Litigation Law Review, 4, pp. 147-157.
Hüschelrath, K. & Peyer, S. 2013. Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law: A Differentiated Approach. Zentrum für Europãische Wirtschaftsforschung, Discussion Paper No. 13-029. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2278839
Ivošević, Z. 1994. Adekvatna uzročnost kod odgovornosti za štetu. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 3-4, pp. 437-439.
Kersting, C. & Dworschak, S. 2012. Zur Anspruchsberechtigung indirekter Abnehmer im Kartellrecht nach dem ORWI-Urteil des BGH - Urt. v. 28.06.2011, KZR 75/10. Juristen Zeitung, 67(15-16), pp. 777-782. https://doi.org/10.1628/002268812802459436
Karanikić Mirić, M. 2011. Odmeravanje naknade štete prema vrednosti koju je stvar imala za oštećenika. Crimen, 1, pp. 67-87.
Malinauskaite, J. & Cauffman, C. 2018. The Transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in the Small Member States of the EU – A Comparative Perspective.Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 8, pp. 496-512. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpy048
Marcos, F. 2018. Transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive into Spanish Law, Working Paper IE Law School, AJ18-241-1, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3133372
Marković-Bajalović, D. 2022. The EU Institutional Model of Competition Law Enforcement Revisited: How Much Rule of Law Suffices? Pravni zapisi, 2, pp. 500-535. https://scindeks.ceon.rs/Article.aspx?artid=2217-28152202500M. https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-40075
Migani, C. 2014. Directive 2014/104/EU: In Search of a Balance between a Protection of Corporate Leniency Statements and an Effective Private Competition Law Enforcement. Global Competition Review, pp. 81-111.
Nagy, C. I. 2022. What Role for Private Enforcement in EU Competition Law? A Religion in Quest of a Founder. In: Tóth T. (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Competition Law Sanctions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218-229. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918015.014
Pecotić-Kaufman, J. 2012. How to Facilitate Damage Claims? Private Enforcement of Competition Rules in Croatia – Domestic and EU Law Perspective. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 5, pp. 13-54. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2296666
Poznić, B. & Rakić-Vodinelić, V. 2015. Građansko procesno pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union.
Radišić, J. 1988. Obligaciono pravo. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
Rodger, B. & Ferro, M., Marcos, F. 2019. A Panacea for Competition Law Damages Action in the EU? A Comparative View of the Implementation of the EU Antitrust Damages Directive in sixteen Member States. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 4, pp. 480-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X19861032
Salma, J. 1997. Uzročnost u deliktnom pravu.Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine, 6, pp. 215-232. https://doi.org/10.5937/gakv9706215S
Ullrich, H. 2021. Private Enforcement of the EU Rules on Competition – Nullity Neglected. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 5, pp. 606–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01054-w
Whish, R. & Bailey, D. 2023. Private Enforcement of Competition Law: Its Role and Development in the EU. In: Rodger, B., Ferry, M., Marcos, F. (eds.), Research Handbook of Private Enforcement of Competition Law in the EU. Cheltenham - Northampton: Edward Elgar. pp. 2-27, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800377523.00007
Legal Sources
European Union
Commission's Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003, OJ C 210, 1. 9. 2006.
Commission's Guidelines for national courts on how to estimate the share of overcharge which was passed on to the indirect purchaser, OJ C 267, 9. 8. 2019.
Commission Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases, OJ C 167.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1.
Directive 2014/104/EU 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, OJ L 349.
First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, OJ 13, 21. 2.1962.
Practical Guide on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Article 101 or 102 TFEU, 11.06.2013, SWD(2013) 205.
Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents of the European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145.
Croatia
Zakon o postupcima naknade štete zbog povrede prava tržišnog natjecanja [Law on Proceedings for Compensation of Damages from Competition Law Infringements], Narodne novine Republike Hrvatske, [Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia], No. 69/2017.
Italy
Law No. 114 of July 9, 2015.
Legislative Decree No. 3 of January 19, 2017.
Serbia
Zakon o obligacionim odnosima [Law on Obligations], Službeni list SFRJ, [Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia], Nos. 29/78, 39/85, 45/89, 57/89, Službeni list SRJ, [Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia], No. 31/1993, Službeni list SCG, [Official Gazette of Serbia and Montenegro], No. 1/2003, Službeni glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia], No. 18/2020.
Zakon o parničnom postupku [Civil Procedure Act], Službeni glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia], Nos. 72/2011, 49/2013, 74/2013, 55/2014, 87/2018, 18/2020, 10/2023.
Zakon o zaštiti konkurencije [Competition Protection Act], Službeni glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia], No. 79/2005.
Zakon o zaštiti konkurencije [Competition Protection Act], Službeni glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia], Nos. 51/2009, 95/2013.
Case Law
CJEU
AXA Versicherung AG v. European Commission, case T-677/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:473.
Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v. Donau Chemie AG and Others, C-536/11, 6.06.2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:366.
Courage Ltd. v. Bernard Crehan and Bernard Crehan v. Courage Ltd and Others, C-453/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:465.
Hoffmann-La Roche & Co v. Commission, Case 85/76, 13.02.1979, ECLI:EU:C:1979:36.
Hydrogene Peroxide v. Commission, Case T-437-08, 15.12.2011, ECLI:EU:T:2011:752.
Kone AG and Others v. ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG, C-557/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:1317.
Pfleiderer AG v. Bundeskartellamt, C-360/09, 14.06.2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:389.
Pilkington Group Ltd v. European Commission, Case T-462/12, ECLI:EU:T:2015:508.
Vantaan kaupunki v. Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy,
Case C-724/17, EU:C:2019:204.
ECHR
Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. v. Italy, No. 43509/08, 27 July 2011.
The Cassation Court of France
Gouessant, Decision No 540, Appeal No. 11-18495.
The Cassation Court of Italy
Acea-Suez, Decision No. 2013/2014.
The Supreme Cassation Court of Serbia
The City of Novi Sad, Prev. 58/2013, Pzz 1/2013, 9 May2013.
The Supreme Court of Serbia
Gž 2736/66
Rev. II 619/05, 20 October.2005.
The Supreme Court of Germany
KZR 75/10 (F.R.G.) No 46, 28 June 2011.
KZR 25/14, 12 July 2016.