Consumer involvement in private EU competition law enforcement

289 Pages·2015·2.785 MB·English

by  Iōannidou, Mairē

CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT IN PRIVATE
EU COMPETITION LAW ENFORCEMENT

Consumer Involvement in
Private EU Competition
Law Enforcement
MARIA IOANNIDOU
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2015
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2015
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence
Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI
and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015948052
ISBN 978–0–19–872643–2
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Acknowledgements
This book is a revised and updated version of my DPhil thesis defended in May
2012, at the University of Oxford. It is the outcome of a long journey that has
been made possible due to the support of many people and different institutions,
both on a personal and an academic level, for which I am very grateful. In reality,
I am grateful to many more people and far more grateful than I could ever express
in this note . . .
To my supervisor Ariel Ezrachi I am immensely indebted for his continuous
support, guidance, and encouragement throughout the completion of this project
and beyond. He has allowed me ample room to develop my ideas while always
instilling an optimistic account of every perceived problem. I would also like to
express my warmest thanks to my DPhil examiners, Philip Marsden and Aidan
Robertson, for their very helpful comments and for making the viva such an
enjoyable experience. Invaluable advice and comments have been provided by
many people at different stages of the project, especially Stephen Weatherill, Barry
Rodger, and Caron-Beaton Wells.
This book would not have been made possible without the generous financial
support of IKY, the Hellenic State Scholarships Foundation, and the Leventis
Foundation. Special thanks are owed to all the staff at the Bodleian Law Library
and the Law Faculty, University of Oxford, for their continuous support, espe-
cially Geraldine Malloy, for having an answer to every question. Corpus Christi
College has provided a particularly stimulating and supportive environment
throughout my time in Oxford. Liz Fisher, Lucia Zedner, Sanja Bogojević, and
Louis Karaolis have played an important role in this regard.
Rethinking of this project took place in Brussels and I would like to thank
in particular Julian Ellison for being such a wonderful person to work with, as
well as Luiza Wojciszke, Ed McNeill, Tania Patsalia, and Elissavet Karaiskou for
being excellent colleagues and friends. Part of the re-writing of this book was
done at the University of Surrey and the Queen Mary University of London and
it was made much easier and enjoyable by many colleagues, especially Theodore
Konstadinides, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Filippo Fontanelli, Anastasia Karatzia,
Ioannis Kokkoris, Eyad Dabbah, Spyros Maniatis, and Valsamis Mitsilegas.
The help of the people at OUP in bringing this project into fruition is much
appreciated.
Many people have contributed in many different and unique ways to this
project—from my first MJur/BCL year in Oxford back in 2007. I am really happy
that I met such great people. It is the people you meet and the friends you make
that define an unforgettable journey. Thank you for all the funny, unique, and
memorable times we had. Seb Grifnee you have been a big part of this journey and
you will always be remembered.
vi Acknowledgements
I would also like to thank my closest friends from Oxford, London, Athens,
and beyond for making my life so much better and easier; Dimitrios Moraitis,
Andriani Fili, Vassia Balafa, Vanessa Tzoannou, Strati Sakellariou, Elmina
Chadio, Konstanti Ioannidou, Eugenia Bouvi, Antonios Kouroutakis, Michalis
Risvas, Eliza Kazili, Elena Siskou, Pantelis Aivaliotis, Katerina Virvidaki, Lily
Kotsana, Deni Mantzari, Christina Moutsiana, and Kalliope Vounisea.
My interest in competition law and the long library days would not have been
the same had it not been for Vasiliki Brisimi, Julian Nowag, and Pablo Marquez.
It has been a real privilege working (and living) with such great people and I still
miss it.
This book is dedicated to my family: my parents, Anna and Charalambos,
and little brother, Diomedes, for always being there for me, especially when I am
often not.
Contents
Table of Cases xi
Table of Legislation xxiii
List of Abbreviations xxix
1. Introduction 1
1. Background 1
2. Nature of the Subject Matter 2
2.1 EU competition law enforcement: A fused approach 3
2.2 The consumer’s role in EU competition law enforcement 3
2.3 Function of tort law 4
2.4 Harmonization: Unity or diversity? 4
3. Methodology and Terminological Clarifications 5
4. Structure 7
PART A: NORMATIVE APPROACH
TO CONSUMER PARTICIPATION
2. ‘Consumer Interest’ and the Aims of EU Competition Law 11
1. Introduction 11
2. The Interplay between Competition Law and Consumer Law 12
3. Multiple Aims and the ‘Consumer Interest’ 15
3.1 Multiplicity of aims 15
3.2 ‘Consumer welfare’ in EU competition law 22
3.3 ‘Consumer interest’ in EU competition law 24
4. The Role of the ‘Consumer Interest’ 25
4.1 ‘Consumer welfare’: Commission ‘rhetoric’ 26
4.2 ‘Consumer interest’: Insights from EU jurisprudence 28
5. Embracing ‘Consumer Interest’ in EU Competition Law 42
6. Conclusion 44
3. Normative Justifications for Increased Consumer Involvement 47
1. Introduction 47
2. Endemic/Functional Aims of Private Competition Law Enforcement 48
2.1 Private enforcement of EU law 48
2.2 Private enforcement of EU competition law: EU institutions’ approach 52
2.3 Scepticism as to the deterrent function of (follow-on) damages actions 62
2.4 Ranking the endemic aims 66
viii Contents
3. Ancillary Institutional Benefits 67
3.1 Proliferation of information—contributing to consumer education
and empowerment 67
3.2 Legitimization of EU policies 68
4. Conclusion 72
PART B: PRACTICAL APPROACH
TO CONSUMER PARTICIPATION
4. Improving Consumers’ Role: ‘Standing’ and ‘Access to Evidence’ 75
1. Introduction 75
2. Characteristics of Consumer Claims: Justifying a More
‘Enabling’ Approach 75
3. Consumer Standing and Passing-on 79
3.1 A theoretical account: SCOTUS approach 80
3.2 The European Court’s approach 83
3.3 Legislative solution 86
4. Access to Evidence 90
4.1 Disclosure of evidence: Promoting stand-alone consumer claims 90
4.2 Promoting follow-on consumer claims—preserving the effectiveness
of public enforcement 94
5. Conclusion 104
5. Improving Consumers’ Role: Collective Actions 107
1. Introduction 107
2. EU Developments on Collective Redress: A Historical Account 108
3. Demarcating Collective Action Mechanisms in the Field
of Competition Law 111
3.1 Individual v collective consumer interest 111
3.2 ‘Access to justice’ for consumer claims in competition law 115
4. Structural Characteristics of a Model Collective Action 117
4.1 Structuring the group: Opt in v opt-out 118
4.2 Standing to bring claims: Consumer representatives 120
4.3 Funding of actions 124
4.4 Distribution of the damages award 125
4.5 Synopsis 126
5. Structural Characteristics of Member States’ Collective
Action Mechanisms 126
5.1 Furthering individual consumers’ interests 127
5.2 Furthering the collective consumer interest 132
5.3 Synopsis 136
6. Structuring the Appropriate EU Collective Action Mechanism 137
6.1 Standing: Lead plaintiff, public body, or consumer organization 138
6.2 Forming the group: Opt-in v opt-out 141
6.3 Distribution of the damages award 142
6.4 Costs and funding of collective actions 144
7. Conclusion 147
Contents ix
6. Consumer Involvement in Public Competition Law Enforcement:
Towards Acceptable Alternatives 151
1. Introduction 151
2. Fused Approach to Enforcement: The Benefits 152
2.1 Rethinking the deterrence—Compensation dichotomy 152
2.2 Ancillary institutional benefits 155
3. Current Avenues for Consumer Participation: Public Enforcement
Stricto Sensu 156
3.1 Complaints to the Commission 156
3.2 Making complaints to the Commission more effective 162
3.3 Sector inquiries 163
3.4 Improvements to sector inquiries: Priorities, structure, and outcome 165
3.5 ‘Super-complaints’: The European way 166
3.6 Other participation avenues: Intervention 170
4. Public Enforcement Lato Sensu: Towards a Mixed Approach
to Competition Law Enforcement 171
4.1 Instances of ‘public compensation’ 172
4.2 Categorization of cases 175
4.3 Institutionalizing a public compensation approach 176
4.4 Serving the collective consumer interest 179
5. Conclusion 180
7. Overcoming Institutional and Political Limitations: Appropriate
Instruments for the Introduction of European-Wide Measures 181
1. Introduction 181
2. Enhancing Consumer Participation: Political Obstacles and
the Proposed Measures 182
2.1 Political obstacles and the Directive on Damages Actions 182
2.2 Content of the proposals 184
3. Implementing the Proposals 186
3.1 Justifying a competition-specific harmonization of procedural rules
for consumer claims 186
3.2 In search of an adequate legal base 189
3.3 In search of the most appropriate legislative instrument 199
4. Implementing Remaining Public Enforcement Proposals 200
5. Conclusion 202
8. Concluding Remarks 205
Selected Bibliography 209
Index 245