ACT No. XXV of 2017 AN ACT to amend the Competition Act, Cap. 379.

I assent.

(L.S.)

MARIE-LOUISE

COLEIRO PRECA

President

13 th October, 2017

ACT No. XXV of 2017

AN ACT to amend the Competition Act, Cap. 379.

BE IT ENACTED by the President, by and with the advice and

consent of the House of Representatives, in this present Parliament

assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:-

The short title of this Act is the Competition (Amendment)

Act 2017, and this Act shall be read and construed as one with the

Competition Act, hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act".

Article 27A of the principal Act shall be substituted by the

following

(1) The action for damages in respect of

"Actions for

damages in respect

of infringements of infringements of competition law committed on or after

competition law.

the 27th December 2014 shall, notwithstanding the

provisions of any other law but subject to the provisions

of this article, be regulated in accordance with the

provisions of the Schedule.

(2) Actions for damages in respect of

infringements of competition law, committed before the

27th December 2014 shall continue to be regulated by

the provisions of this Act as then in force.

(3) Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of

extending any period of prescription applicable in

respect of infringements of competition law committed

before the 27th December 2016 according to the

provisions of this Act as then in force or of reviving any

period of prescription which has expired.

(4) The provisions of this article shall be without

prejudice to any decision which may have become res

judicata or to anything done in any action which is still

pending before a court at the time of the coming into

force of this article.".

3. Sub-article (2) of article 33 of the principal Act shall be Amendment of

article 33 of the

amended as follows

principal Act.

(a) in paragraph (c) thereof the words "fine in cartel

investigations." shall be substituted by the words "fine in cartel

investigations;"; and

(b) immediately after paragraph (c) thereof there shall be

added the following new paragraphs

"(d) prescribe any matter on competition law for the

purpose of fulfilling Malta’s international obligations or

Malta’s obligations as a Member State of the European

Union;

(e)

amend or substitute the Schedule to this Act.".

4. Immediately after article 33 of the principal Act there shall be Addition of new

Schedule to the

added the following new Schedule

principal Act.

"SCHEDULE

(Article 27A)

COMPETITION LAW INFRINGEMENTS

(ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES)

REGULATIONS

1. (1) The title of these regulations is the

Competition Law Infringements (Actions for Damages)

Regulations.

(2) Subject to the provisions of article 27A of the

Act, the provisions of these regulations shall be deemed

to have come into force on the 27th December 2014.

2. These regulations implement the provisions 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.

3. In these regulations, unless the context

otherwise requires -

"Act" means the Competition Act;

"action for damages" means an action

pursuant to these regulations by which a claim for

damages is brought before a national court by an

alleged injured party, or by someone acting on

behalf of one or more alleged injured parties, or

by a natural or legal person that succeeded in the

right of the alleged injured party, including the

person that acquired the claim;

"cartel" means an agreement or concerted

practice between two or more competitors aimed

at coordinating their competitive behaviour on the

market or influencing the relevant parameters of

competition through practices such as, but not

limited to, the fixing or coordination of purchase

or selling prices or other trading conditions,

including, in relation to intellectual property

rights, the allocation of production or sales

quotas, the sharing of markets and customers,

including bid-rigging, restrictions of imports or

exports or anti-competitive actions against other

competitors;

"claim for damages" means a claim for

compensation for harm caused by an infringement

of competition law;

"competition

authority"

means

the

European Commission or any national

competition authority, as the context may require;

"competition law" means Articles 101 and

102 TFEU and, or articles 5 and 9 of the Act or

the provisions of national law that predominantly

pursue the same objectives as Articles 101 and

102 TFEU and that are applied to the same case

and in parallel to Union competition law pursuant

to Article 3(1) of Council Regulation No. 1/2003,

excluding provisions of national law which

impose criminal penalties on natural persons,

except to the extent that such criminal penalties

are the means whereby competition rules

applying to undertakings are enforced, as may be

applicable in a particular case;

"consensual dispute resolution" means any

mechanism enabling parties to reach the out-of-

court resolution of a dispute concerning a claim

for damages;

"consensual

settlement"

means

an

agreement reached through consensual dispute

resolution;

"court" means a court of civil jurisdiction in

Malta as established under the Code of

Organization and Civil Procedure or any tribunal

having jurisdiction in competition matters

established under any special law;

"direct purchaser" means a natural or legal

person who acquired, directly from an infringer,

products or services that were the object of an

infringement of competition law;

"evidence" means all types of means of

proof admissible before the court, in particular

documents and all other objects containing

information, irrespective of the medium on which

the information is stored;

"final infringement decision" means an

infringement decision that cannot be, or that can

no longer be, appealed and which has accordingly

become a res judicata;

"infringement decision" means a decision of

a competition authority or a national court that

finds an infringement of competition law;

"infringement of competition law" means

an infringement of Article 101 or 102 TFEU and,

or of article 5 or 9 of the Act or any equivalent

provision of the national law of another Member

State;

"infringer" means an undertaking or

association of undertakings which has committed

an infringement of competition law;

"immunity recipient" means an undertaking

which, or a natural person who, has been granted

immunity from penalties by a competition

authority under a leniency programme;

"indirect purchaser" means a natural or

legal person who acquired, not directly from an

infringer, but from a direct purchaser or a

subsequent purchaser, products or services that

were the object of an infringement of competition

law, or products or services containing them or

derived therefrom;

"injured party" means a person that has

suffered harm caused by an infringement of

competition law;

"leniency programme" means a programme

concerning the application of Article 101 TFEU

or article 5 of the Act, or equivalent provisions of

another Member State, on the basis of which a

participant in a secret cartel, independently of the

other undertakings involved in the cartel,

cooperates with an investigation of the

competition authority, by voluntarily providing

presentations

regarding

that

participant’s

knowledge of, and role in, the cartel in return for

which that participant receives, by decision or by

a discontinuation of proceedings, immunity from,

or a reduction in, penalties for its involvement in

the cartel;

"leniency statement" means an oral or

written presentation voluntarily provided by, or

on behalf of, an undertaking or a natural person to

a competition authority or a record thereof,

describing the knowledge of that undertaking or

natural person of a cartel and describing its role

therein, which presentation was drawn up

specifically for submission to the competition

authority with a view to obtaining immunity or a

reduction of penalties under a leniency

programme,

not

including

pre-existing

information;

"national competition authority" means an

authority designated by a Member State pursuant

to Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, as

being responsible for the application of Articles

101 and 102 TFEU;

"national court" means a court or tribunal of

a Member State within the meaning of Article 267

TFEU;

"overcharge" means the difference between

the price actually paid and the price that would

otherwise have prevailed in the absence of an

infringement of competition law;

"pre-existing information" means evidence

that exists irrespective of the proceedings of a

competition authority, whether or not such

information is in the file of a competition

authority;

"review court" means a national court that

is empowered by ordinary means of appeal to

review decisions of a national competition

authority or to review judgements pronouncing on

those decisions, irrespective of whether that court

itself has the power to find an infringement of

competition law;

"settlement submission" means a voluntary

presentation by, or on behalf of, an undertaking to

a competition authority describing the

undertaking's acknowledgement of, or its

renunciation to a dispute, its participation in an

infringement of competition law and its

responsibility

for

that

infringement

of

competition law, which was drawn up specifically

to enable the competition authority to apply a

simplified or expedited procedure;

"TFEU" means the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union.

4. (1) Any natural or legal person who has

suffered damage caused by an infringement of

competition law shall be entitled to claim and to obtain

full compensation for that damage, which action shall

be instituted in accordance with the provisions of the

Code of Organization and Civil Procedure, or as may be

provided in any other special legislation.

(2) For the purposes of these regulations, a person

shall be deemed to have suffered damage even where

that person is not the immediate customer or provider

of the defendant.

(3) Full compensation shall place a person who

has suffered harm in the position in which that person

would have been had the infringement of competition

law not been committed. It shall therefore cover the

right to compensation for actual loss and for loss of

profit as well as the payment of interest from the time

the damage occurred until the capital sum awarded is

actually paid

Provided that full compensation under these

regulations shall not lead to over-compensation,

whether by means of punitive, multiple or other types

of damages.

5. (1) In proceedings relating to an action for

damages pursuant to regulation 4, the claimant shall

present a reasoned justification containing reasonably

available facts and evidence sufficient to support the

plausibility of the claim for damages.

(2) The court shall have the power, upon request

of the claimant, to order the disclosure of relevant

evidence by the defendant or a third party, where such

evidence lies in their control, in accordance with the

provisions of the Code of Organization and Civil

Procedure, or as may be provided in any other special

legislation, subject to the conditions set out in these

regulations. It shall also have the power, upon request

of the defendant, to order the claimant or a third party

to disclose relevant evidence. This sub-regulation is

without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the

court under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001

Provided that the court may, where it so deems

appropriate in the circumstances, order the disclosure of

specified items of evidence or relevant categories of

evidence circumscribed as precisely and as narrowly as

possible on the basis of reasonably available facts in the

reasoned justification presented by the claimant.

(3) The court shall limit the disclosure of evidence

to that which is proportionate. In determining whether

any disclosure requested by a party is proportionate, the

court shall consider the legitimate interests of all parties

and third parties concerned and it shall, in particular,

consider

(a) the extent to which the claim or

defence is supported by available facts and

evidence justifying the request to disclose

evidence;

(b) the scope and cost of disclosure,

especially for any third parties concerned,

including preventing non-specific searches for

information which is unlikely to be of relevance

for the parties in the procedure;

(c) whether the evidence the disclosure of

which

is

sought

contains

confidential

information, especially concerning any third

parties, and what arrangements are in place for

protecting such confidential information.

(4) The court shall have the power to order the

disclosure of evidence containing confidential

information where it considers it relevant to the action

for damages. When ordering the disclosure of such

information the court shall adopt any effective

measures, pursuant to the provisions of the Code of

Organization and Civil Procedure, or to the provisions

of any other special legislation, which it deems

necessary or appropriate in the circumstances to protect

such information in accordance with the applicable

legislation

Provided that this sub-regulation shall be

without prejudice to the applicability of the duty of

professional secrecy pursuant to the provisions of the

Professional Secrecy Act, the Data Protection Act, the

Official Secrets Act and any other professional secret as

classified under the law of any Member State or of the

European Union.

(5) The interest of undertakings to avoid actions

for damages following an infringement of competition

l a w s h a l l n o t co n s t i t u t e a n i n t e r e s t c a p a b l e o f

protection.

(6) Prior to ordering the disclosure of any

evidence the court shall give that person the

opportunity to present any submissions or objections

concerning such disclosure.

(7) Without prejudice to sub-regulations (4) and

(6) and to regulation 6, this regulation shall not

prejudice the applicability of any provision of the Code

of Organization and Civil Procedure, or of any other

applicable legislation, which would lead to wider

disclosure of evidence.

6. (1) For the purpose of actions for damages

pursuant to these regulations, the court shall have the

power to order the disclosure of evidence included in

the file of a competition authority, as the case may be,

subject to the conditions set forth hereunder. In such

cases, the provisions of regulation 5 shall apply in

addition to this regulation.

(2) This regulation is without prejudice to the rules

and practices on public access to documents pursuant to

Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001, and to the rules and

practices under the laws of Malta or the European

Union on the protection of internal documents of

national competition authorities and of correspondence

between competition authorities.

(3) When assessing, in accordance with regulation

5(3), the proportionality of an order to disclose

information, the court shall, in addition, consider the

following

(a) whether the request has been

formulated specifically with regard to the nature,

subject matter or contents of documents

submitted to a competition authority or held in the

file thereof, rather than by a non-specific

application concerning documents submitted to a

competition authority;

(b) whether

the

party

requesting

disclosure is doing so in relation to an action for

damages pending before it; and

(c) in relation to sub-regulations (4) and

(9), or upon request of a competition authority

pursuant to sub-regulation (10), the need to

safeguard the effectiveness of the public

enforcement of competition law.

(4) The court may order the disclosure of the

following categories of evidence only after a

competition authority, by adopting a decision or

otherwise, has closed its proceedings

(a) information that was prepared by a

natural or legal person specifically for the

proceedings of that competition authority;

(b) information that the competition

authority has drawn up and sent to the parties in

the course of its proceedings; and

(c) settlement submissions that have been

withdrawn.

(5) The following categories of evidence cannot,

in an action for damages, at any time, be the subject of

an order for disclosure

(a) leniency statements; and

(b) settlement submissions.

(6) A claimant may present a reasoned request that

the court access the evidence referred to in paragraphs

(a) or (b) of sub-regulation (5) for the sole purpose of

ensuring that their contents correspond to the

definitions of "leniency statement" or "settlement

submission", as the case may be, in regulation 3. In

making that assessment, the court may request

assistance exclusively from the competent competition

authority

Provided that, in cases referred to in this sub-

regulation, the authors of the evidence in question shall

also have the possibility to be heard

Provided further that in no case shall the court

permit other parties or third parties to access the

evidence in question.

(7) If only parts of the evidence requested are

covered by sub-regulation (5), the remaining parts

thereof shall, depending on the category under which

they fall, be released in accordance with the relevant

provisions of this regulation.

(8) The disclosure of evidence in the file of a

competition authority that does not fall into any of the

categories listed in this regulation may be ordered in

actions for damages at any time, without prejudice to

the provisions of this regulation.

(9) The court shall only request the disclosure of

evidence included in the file of a competition authority

where no party or third party is reasonably able to

provide that evidence.

(10) To the extent that a competition authority is

willing to state its views on the proportionality of a

request for disclosure, it may, acting on its own

initiative, submit observations to the court before which

that disclosure order is sought.

7. (1) Any evidence in the categories listed in

regulation 6(5), which is obtained by a natural or legal

person solely through access to the file of a competition

authority, shall be deemed inadmissible in actions for

damages pursuant to these regulations.

(2) Until the competent competition authority has

closed its proceedings by adopting a decision or

otherwise, evidence in the c ategories listed in

regulation 6(4), which is obtained by a natural or legal

person solely through access to the file of that

c o m p e t i t i o n a u t h o r i t y, s h a l l a l s o b e d e e m e d

inadmissible in actions for damages pursuant to these

regulations.

(3) Any evidence which is obtained by a natural or

legal person solely through access to the file of a

competition authority, and which does not fall under

sub-regulation (1) or (2), can be used in an action for

damages only by that person or by a natural or legal

person that succeeded to that person’s rights, including

a person that acquired that person’s litigious right

arising from the claim.

8. (1) A court seized of an action for damages

pursuant to these regulations shall have the power to

impose penalties on any party, third party and, or their

legal representatives in the event of any of the

following

(a) their failure or refusal to comply with

a disclosure order of the court;

(b) their destruction of relevant evidence;

(c) their failure or refusal to comply with

the obligations imposed by an order of the court

protecting confidential information;

(d) their breach of the limits on the use of

evidence provided for in these regulations

Provided that for the purposes of this sub-regulation,

the court may impose any measure envisaged in the

Code of Organization and Civil Procedure, or in any

other special legislation, which it deems appropriate in

the circumstances. The court shall ensure that any

penalty so imposed is effective, proportionate and

dissuasive, having regard to the seriousness of the

offence.

(2) The penalties imposed pursuant to this

regulation may also, at the discretion of the court,

include the following with regard to the behaviour of a

party to the proceedings

(a) the possibility to draw adverse

inferences, such as presuming the relevant issue

to be proven or dismissing claims and defences in

whole or in part; and

(b) the possibility to order the payment of

costs.

(3) Penalties imposed by a Court in pursuance of

the powers conferred by this regulation shall, without

prejudice to any other liability under the Act or any

other law, not exceed one hundred thousand euro

(€100,000) for every breach or default provided in this

regulation and a daily fine of ten thousand euro

(€10,000) in respect of each day during which the

breach or default continues.

9. (1)

An infringement of competition law

Effect of decisions.

found by a final decision of the national competition

authority, the Appeals Tribunal or any Court of Appeal

in terms of the Act and, or of the European

Commission, shall be deemed to be irrefutably

established for the purposes of an action for damages

brought pursuant to these regulations.

(2) Where a final decision is taken by a national

competition authority of another Member State, that

final decision may be presented before the court seized

of an action for damages pursuant to these regulations

as prima facie evidence that an infringement of

competition law has occurred, a nd may, at the

discretion of the court, be assessed along with any other

evidence adduced by the parties.

(3) This regulation is without prejudice to the

rights and obligations of the court under Article 267

TFEU.

10. (1)

Notwithstanding the provisions of the

Civil Code or of any other law, an action for damages

pursuant to these regulations is prescribed by the lapse

of five years.

(2) The period of prescription referred to in sub-

regulation (1) shall begin to run from the date when the

infringement of competition law has ceased and the

claimant became aware, or can reasonably be expected

to have become aware

(a) of the behaviour and the fact that it

constitutes an infringement of competition law;

(b) of the fact that the infringement of

competition law caused harm to it; and

(c) the identity of the infringer.

(3) The period of prescription referred to in sub-

regulation (1) shall be suspended where a competition

authority takes action for the purpose of the

investigation or its proceedings in respect of an

infringement of competition law to which the action for

damages relates. The suspension shall end one year

after the infringement decision has become res judicata

or after the proceedings are otherwise terminated.

11. (1)

Undertakings which are found to have

infringed competition law through joint behaviour shall

be jointly and severally liable for the harm caused by

the infringement, with the effect that each of those

undertakings is bound to compensate for the harm

caused in full, and the injured party has the right to

require full compensation from any of them until he has

been fully compensated.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-

regulation (1) but without prejudice to the right of full

compensation as laid down in regulation 4, where the

infringer is a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)

as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/

EC, the infringer is liable only to its own direct and

indirect purchasers or providers where

(a) its market share in the relevant market

was below 5% at any time during the

infringement of competition law; and

(b) the application of the normal rules of

joint and several liability would irretrievably

jeopardise its economic viability and cause its

assets to lose all their value.

(3) The exception laid down in sub-regulation (2)

shall not apply where

(a) the SME has led the infringement of

competition law or has coerced other

undertakings to participate therein; or

(b) the SME has previously been found to

have infringed competition law.

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-

regulation (1), an immunity recipient shall be jointly

and severally liable as follows

(a) to its direct or indirect purchasers or

providers; and

(b) to other injured parties only where full

compensation cannot be obtained from the other

undertakings that were involved in the same

infringement of competition law.

(5) Actions under this regulation shall be

prescribed by the same period as in regulation 10.

(6) An infringer in terms of these regulations may,

by a separate action, recover a contribution from any

o t h e r i n f r i n g e r, t h e a m o u n t o f w h i c h s h a l l b e

determined in the light of their relative responsibility

for the harm caused by the infringement of competition

law. The amount of contribution of an infringer which

has been granted immunity from penalties under a

leniency programme shall not exceed the amount of the

harm it caused to its own direct or indirect purchasers

or providers.

(7) To the extent that an infringement of

competition law is found to have caused harm to

injured parties other than the direct or indirect

purchasers or providers of the infringers, the amount of

any contribution from an immunity recipient to other

infringers shall be determined in the light of its relative

responsibility for that harm.

12. (1) In accordance with the provisions of

overcharges and the

these regulations, any person who has suffered harm

caused by an infringement of competition law may

claim compensation therefor, irrespective of whether

such claimant is a direct or indirect purchaser from the

infringer

Provided, however, that the compensation for

actual loss caused by the infringement of competition

law to the claimant which may be recovered in

accordance with these regulations shall not in any case

exceed the overcharge harm suffered at the level of the

supply chain in which the claimant operates.

(2) These regulations shall be without prejudice to

the right of an injured party to claim and obtain

compensation for loss of profits due to a full or partial

passing-on of the overcharge.

(3) In estimating the amount of harm suffered by

the claimant or the share of any overcharge that was

passed on to the claimant, the court may, without

prejudice to the right of the parties to produce ex parte

expert witnesses, appoint one or more referees to assist

it in accordance with the provisions of the Code of

Organization and Civil Procedure, or as may be

provided in any other special legislation. It shall take

due account of any guidelines issued by the European

Commission in this regard.

(4) These regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis

where the infringement of competition law relates to a

supply to the infringer.

13. (1) The defendant in an action for damages

pursuant to these regulations may raise as a defence the

fact that the claimant passed on the whole or part of the

ove rc ha rge re sul ting fr om the i nf ri nge ment of

competition law.

(2) The burden of proving that the overcharge was

passed on shall be o n the defendant, who may

reasonably require disclosure from the claimant or from

third parties.

14. (1) Where in an action for damages the

existence of a claim for damages or the amount of

compensation to be awarded depends on whether, or to

what degree, an overcharge was passed on to the

claimant, taking into account the commercial practice

that price increases are passed on down the supply

chain, the burden of proving the existence and scope of

such a passing-on shall rest with the claimant, who may

reasonably require disclosure from the defendant or

from third parties.

(2) In the situation referred to in sub-regulation

(1), the indirect purchaser shall be deemed to have

proven that a passing-on to that indirect purchaser

occurred where that indirect purchaser has shown that

(a) the defendant has committed an

infringement of competition law;

(b) the infringement of competition law

has resulted in an overcharge for the direct

purchaser of the defendant; and

(c) the indirect purchaser has purchased

the goods or services that were the object of the

infringement of competition law, or has purchased

goods or services derived from or containing

them.

(3) The provisions of sub-regulation (2) shall not

apply where the defendant can demonstrate credibly to

the satisfaction of the court that the overcharge was not,

or was not entirely, passed on to the indirect purchaser.

15. (1) With a view to avoiding that actions for

damages by claimants from different levels in the

supply chain lead to a multiple liability or to an absence

of liability of the infringer, in assessing whether the

burden of proof resulting from the application of

regulations 13 and 14 is satisfied, the court may take

due account of any of the following

(a) actions for damages that are related to

the same infringement of competition law, but

that are brought by claimants from other levels in

the supply chain;

(b) judgements resulting from actions for

damages as referred to in paragraph (a);

(c) relevant information in the public

domain resulting from the public enforcement of

competition law.

(2) This regulation shall be without prejudice to

the rights and obligations of the court pursuant to

Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012.

16. (1) The burden of proving claims regarding

the extent of the harm suffered shall rest on the

claimant

Provided that where it is established that the

claimant suffered harm, but it is impossible or

excessively difficult to quantify precisely the harm

suffered on the basis of the evidence available, the court

may estimate the amount of harm including, in

particular, on the basis of arbitrio boni viri.

(2) It shall in any case be presumed that cartel

infringements cause harm

Provided that the infringer shall have the right

to bring forward evidence to rebut that presumption.

(3) A competition authority may, at the request of

a court seized of an action for damages pursuant to

these regulations, assist that court with respect to the

determination of the quantum of damages where the

competition authority considers such assistance to be

appropriate.

(4) In establishing the quantum of damages the

court shall take into account the factual scenario that

would have prevailed had the infringement not taken

place.

17. (1)

The prescriptive period referred to in

consensual dispute regulation 10 shall be suspended for the duration of any

consensual dispute resolution process, exclusively with

regard to those parties that are or that were involved or

represented in the consensual dispute resolution.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of the

Arbitration Act, the court seized of an action for

damages pursuant to these regulations may, as it deems

fit in the circumstances, suspend its proceedings for a

period of no longer than two years where the parties

thereto are involved in consensual dispute resolution

concerning the claim covered by that action for

damages.

(3) The national competition authority may

consider compensation paid as a result of a consensual

settlement, and prior to its decision imposing a penalty,

to be a mitigating factor.

18. (1)

Following a consensual settlement, the

claim of the settling injured party shall be reduced by

subsequent actions

the settling co-infringer’s share of the harm that the

infringement inflicted upon the injured party.

(2) Any remaining claim of the settling injured

party shall be exercised only against non-settling co-

infringers, who shall not be permitted to recover

contribution for the remaining claim from the settling

co-infringer

Provided, however, that where the non-settling

co-infringers cannot pay the damages that correspond to

the remaining claim of the settling injured party, the

settling injured party may exercise the remaining claim

against the settling co-infringer, unless such an option

has been expressly excluded under the terms of the

consensual settlement.

(3) When determining the amount of contribution

that a co-infringer may recover from any other co-

infringer in accordance with their relative responsibility

for the harm caused by the infringement of competition

law, the court shall take due account of any damages

paid pursuant to a prior consensual settlement involving

the relevant co-infringer.".

5. The Competition Law Infringements (Action for Damages)

Regulations, implemented by Legal Notice 117 of 2017, are hereby

Passed by the House of Representatives at Sitting No. 22 of the 3rd

October, 2017.

ANĠLU FARRUGIA

Speaker

RAYMOND SCICLUNA

Clerk of the House of Representatives

€1.80