Regulations, 2017
Table of Provisions (20)
Statutory Text (20 Articles)
L.N. 117 of 2017
COMPETITION ACT
(CAP. 379)
Competition Law Infringements (Actions for Damages)
Regulations, 2017
IN exercise of the powers conferred upon him by article 32 of
the Competition Act, the Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer
Affairs and Civil Liberties has made the following regulations:-
(1)
The title of these regulations is the Competition
Law Infringements (Actions for Damages) Regulations, 2017.
(2) The provisions of these regulations shall be deemed to
have come into force on the 27th December, 2014, except article 10
which shall come into force on such date as the Minister may, by
notice in the Gazette, establish.
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.
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 Cap. 12.
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 judgments 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.
(1)
Any natural or legal person who has suffered Right to full
damage caused by an infringement of competition law shall be compensation.
entitled to claim and to obtain full compensation for that damage,
which action shall be instituted in accordance with the provisions the
Code of Organization and Civil Procedure, or as may be provided in Cap. 12.
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.
(1)
In proceedings relating to an action for damages Disclosure of
pursuant to regulation 4, the claimant shall present a reasoned evidence.
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, Cap. 377.
the Official Secrets Act and any other professional secret as classified Cap. 50.
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 law shall not constitute an
interest capable of 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 Cap. 12.
any other applicable legislation, which would lead to wider disclosure
of evidence.
(1)
For the purpose of actions for damages pursuant to Disclosure of
these regulations, the court shall have the power to order the evidence
included in the
disclosure of evidence included in the file of a competition authority, file
competition
as the case may be, subject to the conditions set forth hereunder. In authority.
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.
(1)
Any evidence in the categories listed in regulation Limits on the
6(5), which is obtained by a natural or legal person solely through use
obtained solely
access to the file of a competition authority, shall be deemed through
to the file of a
inadmissible in actions for damages pursuant to these regulations.
competition
authority.
(2) Until the competent competition authority has closed its
proceedings by adopting a decision or otherwise, evidence in the
categories listed in regulation 6(4), which is obtained by a natural or
legal person solely through access to the file of that competition
authority, shall also be deemed 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 claim.
(1)
A court seized of an action for damages pursuant to Penalties.
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.
(1)
An infringement of competition law 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, and 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.
(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.
(4) The provisions of this regulation shall come into force on
such date as the Minister may provide by Notice in the Government
Gazette.
(1)
Undertakings which are found to have infringed Joint and
competition law through joint behaviour shall be jointly and severally several liability.
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 other infringer, the
amount of which shall be 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.
(1)
In accordance with the provisions of 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.
(1)
The defendant in an action for damages pursuant to Passing-on
these regulations may raise as a defence the fact that the claimant defence.
passed on the whole or part of the overcharge resulting from the
infringement of competition law.
(2) The burden of proving that the overcharge was passed on
shall be on the defendant, who may reasonably require disclosure
from the claimant or from third parties.
(1)
Where in an action for damages the existence of a Indirect
claim for damages or the amount of compensation to be awarded purchasers.
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.
(1)
With a view to avoiding that actions for damages Actions for
by claimants from different levels in the supply chain lead to a damages
claimants from
multiple liability or to an absence of liability of the infringer, in different
in the supply
assessing whether the burden of proof resulting from the application chain.
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)
judgments 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.
(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.
(1)
The prescriptive period referred to in 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.
(1)
Following a consensual settlement, the claim of the Effect of
settling injured party shall be reduced by the settling co-infringer’s consensual
settlements on
share of the harm that the infringement inflicted upon the injured subsequent
actions for
party.
damages.
(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.
In these regulations, if there is any conflict between the Conflict
between texts.
English and Maltese texts, the English text shall prevail.
B
€1.35