Showing papers by "Francisco Marcos published in 2021"
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors define the transition from the violation of the cartel prohibition (declared by the competition authorities) to the compensation of damages caused by the infringers' conduct.
Abstract: Spanish abstract:Las acciones consecutivas para la compensacion del dano causado por carteles representan el transito de la infraccion de la prohibicion de carteles (declarada por las autoridades de competencia) a la indemnizacion de los perjuicios provocados por la conducta de los infractores. Corresponde al perjudicado que interpone la accion indemnizatoria la prueba del dano y su conexion causal con la conducta antijuridica declarada por la autoridad de competencia. Frecuentemente, la constatacion e identificacion del dano sufrido se subsumira en la cuantificacion del mismo que figure en las pruebas aportadas por el demandante. Aun asi, puede ocurrir que esa prueba no resulte convincente al tribunal, con lo que cualquier decision debera ir precedida de la identificacion del posible dano provocado por el cartel.
La decision previa de la autoridad de competencia no suele declarar ni acreditar los efectos del cartel en el mercado, aunque en la misma pueden contenerse pruebas o indicios de la produccion de danos. En todo caso, la eventual presuncion (judicial o legal) del dano es una presuncion que el demandado puede rebatir. Aunque los carteles que no provocan dano sean excepcionales, son una posibilidad, y debe reconocerse a las empresas participes en los carteles el derecho a probar el sobrecoste cero. De modo que, cuando la existencia del dano no se extraiga de la decision de la autoridad de competencia (como ocurria, por ejemplo, en el cartel del azucar o en el cartel de los sobres de papel), la salvaguarda del derecho de defensa exige permitir al demandado la prueba de la ausencia de sobrecoste, basandose en datos objetivos y de mercado (que no esten afectados por la infraccion).
English abstract: Follow-on actions for cartel damages compensation represent the transition from the infringement of the cartel prohibition (declared by the competition authorities) to the compensation of damages caused by the infringers' conduct. It is up to the injured party bringing the damages claim to prove the harm and its causal connection with the unlawful conduct declared by the competition authority. Frequently, the ascertainment and identification of the harm suffered will be subsumed in the quantification of the damage that appears in the evidence provided by the plaintiff. Even so, as such evidence may not be convincing to the court, its decision will have to be preceded by the identification of the possible harm caused by the cartel. The competition authority's prior decision does not usually state or prove the cartel effects on the market, although it may contain evidence or indicia of harm. In any case, the (judicial or legal) presumption of harm can be rebutted by the defendant. Although cartels that do not cause harm are exceptional, they exist, and cartelized firms have the right to prove zero overcharge. So, where the existence of harm is not drawn from the competition authority's decision (as it was the case, for example, in the sugar cartel or the paper envelopes cartel), safeguarding the defense rights of cartelized firms requires that they are allowed to prove the absence of overcharge, based on objective and market data (not affected by the infringement).