¹ Siebtes Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) 2005, Part I, 1954-1969. Note: This article uses the notions of competition and antitrust law synonymously.Google Scholar

² 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, O.J. 2003 L 1/1. On the changes brought by Regulation 1/2003, see Céline Gauer, Dorothe Dalheimer, Lars Kjolbye & Eddy de Smijter, Regulation 1/2003: A Modernised Application of EC Competition Rules, Competition Policy Newsletter, Spring 2003, 3; Silke Hossenfelder & Martin Lutz, Die neue Durchführungsverordnung zu den Artikeln 81 und 82 EG-Vertrag, 53 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb (WuW) 118 (2003); Karsten Schmidt, Privatisierung des Europakartellrechts – Aufgaben, Verantwortung und Chancen der Privatrechtspraxis nach der VO Nr. 1/2003, 12 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 881 (2004); Felix Müller, The New Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 on the Implementation of the Rules on Competition, 5 German Law Journal 722 (2004); see further Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker, The EC Commissions's Modernization of Competition Policy: A Challenge to the Community's Constitutional Order, 1 European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) 401 (2000); Wernhard Möschel, Systemwechsel im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht?, 55 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 61 (2000); Katherine Holmes, The EC White Paper on Modernisation, 23 World Competition 51 (2000); Jürgen Basedow, Who will Protect Competition in Europe? From Central Enforcement to Authority Networks and Private Litigation, 2 EBOR 443 (2001); Suzanne A. Kingston, A “New Division of Responsibilities” in the Proposed Regulation to Modernise the Rules Implementing Articles 81 and 82 EC? A Warning Call, 22 European Competition Law Review (ECLR) 340 (2001).Google Scholar

³ The increased role of private antitrust enforcement is very much disputed in Europe, see, e.g., Wouter P.J. Wils, Should Private Antitrust Enforcement Be Encouraged in Europe?, 26 World Competition 473 (2003) (arguing that public antitrust enforcement is superior to private enforcement and that there is even no need for a supplementary role for private enforcement, as the adequate level of sanctions and the adequate number and variety of prosecutions can be ensured more effectively and at lower cost through public enforcement). But see Clifford A. Jones, Private Antitrust Enforcement in Europe: A Policy Analysis and Reality Check, 27 World Competition 13 (2004) (arguing that private enforcement has great value as a supplement to public enforcement and as the primary means of compensating victims of infringements whose interests are to be protected by national courts).Google Scholar

⁴ The Ashurst Study, which was commissioned by the European Commission, counted only around sixty judged cases in damages actions in the last forty years (12 on the basis of EC law, around 32 on the basis of national law and 6 on the basis of both). Of these judgments, 28 have so far resulted in an award being made. The study is available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/private_enforcement/index_en.html. An analysis of the major obstacles to private antitrust law enforcement in Germany is given by Rolf Hempel, Privater Rechtsschutz im Kartellrecht – Eine rechtsvergleichende Analyse 83-87 (2002); Jürgen Basedow, Private Enforcement of Article 81 EC: A German View, in European Competition Law Annual 2001: Effective Private Enforcement of EC Antitrust Law 137, 140-145 (Claus Dieter Ehlermann & Isabela Atanasiu Eds., 2003); Wolfgang Wurmnest, Private Durchsetzung des EG-Kartellrechts nach der Reform der VO Nr. 17, in Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht im Umbruch 213, 223-232 (Peter Behrens, Ellen Braun & Carsten Nowak eds., 2004); Michael Buch, Private Antitrust Litigation in Germany, The European Antitrust Review, 145-147 (2005).Google Scholar

⁵ For an analysis of the new rules aimed at bolstering private antitrust law enforcement, see Wolfgang Wurmnest, supra note 4, at 224-237.Google Scholar

⁶ The draft was not published but only circulated among interested parties and associations. On the draft's major proposals, see Rainer Bechtold, Grundlegende Umgestaltung des Kartellrechts: Zum Referentenentwurf der 7. GWB-Novelle, 57 Der Betrieb (DB) 235 (2004); Harald Kahlenberg & Christian Haellmigk, Referentenentwurf der 7. GWB-Novelle: Tief greifende Änderungen des deutschen Kartellrechts, 59 Betriebs-Berater (BB) 389 (2004). For a critical appraisal of the draft's rules relating to private antitrust litigation, see F. Wenzel Bulst, Private Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung nach der 7. GWB-Novelle: Unbeabsichtigte Rechtsschutzbeschränkungen durch die Hintertür?, 15 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht (EWS) 62.Google Scholar

⁷ Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.) No. 15/3640.Google Scholar

⁸ See, e.g., Monopolkommission, Die Pressefusionskontrolle in der Siebten GWB-Novelle 75 (2004); Wernhard Möschel, Reform des Pressekartellrechts?, 59 JZ 1060 (2004).Google Scholar

⁹ See Stellungnahme des Bundesrates, BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 79-80.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, BT-Drs. No. 15/5049.Google Scholar

¹¹ The Mediation Committee, comprised of members of the Bundesrat and the Bundestag, is a special mediation procedure in order to find a consensus between the two German chambers.Google Scholar

¹² See BT-Drs. No. 15/5735.Google Scholar

¹³ For a first assessment of the new law, see Harald Kahlenberg & Christian Haellmigk, Neues Deutsches Kartellgesetz, 60 BB 1509 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁴ For an overview of the relationship of EC Competition law and national competition law after Regulation 1/2003 became effective, see Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker & Heike Schweitzer, Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht 148-151 (2nd ed., 2004).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Case 56/65 Société Technique Minière v. Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 281, 303.Google Scholar

¹⁶ § 1 GWB (old version) which applied only to restrictions of competition between competitors became essentially identical to Art. 81 (1) EC Treaty. The existing exemption provisions (§§ 2 to 7 GWB) were almost completely replaced by a clause that is identical to Art. 81 (3) EC Treaty.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. § 19 (2) GWB.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Art. 35 Regulation 1/2003.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. § 32a GWB.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. § 32b GWB.Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. § 32c GWB.Google Scholar

²² Cf. § 10 GWB (old version).Google Scholar

²³ Cf. § 50a-50c GWB.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. § 81 (4) GWB.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Case 127/73 BRT v. SABAM [1974] ECR 51, 62.Google Scholar

²⁶ See, e.g., Paul Craig & Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law – Text Cases, and Materials 230-273 (3rd ed., 2003); Richard Wish, Competition Law 298 (5th ed., 2003).Google Scholar

²⁷ See Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker & Heike Schweitzer, supra note 14, at 512-513; Wolfgang Wurmnest, Das Gemeinschaftsdeliktsrecht in der aktuellen Rechtsprechung der Gemeinschaftsgerichte (2001-2003), 1 Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht (GPR), 129, 134-135 (2003/2004). But see Advocate General van Gerven's opinion in case C-128/92 Banks v. British Coal Corporation [1994] ECR I-1209, 1243-1260 and Carsten Nowak, Anmerkung zur Courage-Entscheidung, 12 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 717, 718 (2001) (both argue that EC law provides the basis for damages claims against EC competition law infringers).Google Scholar

²⁸ See, e.g., Case 68/88 Kommission v. Greece [1989] ECR 2965, 2985; Case 382/92 Kommission v. United Kingdom [1994] ECR I-2435, 2475; Case C-186/98 Nunes and de Matos [1999] ECR I-4883, 4894.Google Scholar

²⁹ Case C-453/99 Courage v. Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, 6323. On this judgment see Assimakis Komninos, New Prospects for Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law: Courage v. Crehan and the Community Right to Damages, 39 Common Market Law Review (CMLRev.) 447 (2002); Tobias Lettl, Der Schadensersatzanspruch gemäß § 823 Abs. 2 BGB i.V.m. Art. 81 Abs. 1 EG, 167 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht (ZHR) 473 (2003); Wolfgang Wurmnest, Zivilrechtliche Ausgleichsansprüche von Kartellbeteiligten bei Verstößen gegen das EG-Kartellverbot, 49 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 896 (2003); Gerald Mäsch, Private Ansprüche bei Verstößen gegen das europäische Kartellverbot – „Courage“ und die Folgen, 38 Europarecht (EuR) 825 (2003); Hartmut Weyer, Schadensersatzansprüche gegen Private kraft Gemeinschaftsrecht, 11 ZEuP 318 (2003); see also Giorgio Afferni & F. Wenzel Bulst, Kartellrechtliche Schadensersatzansprüche von Verbrauchern, 13 ZEuP 143, 156-161 (2005).Google Scholar

³⁰ Case C-453/99 Courage v. Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, 6323.Google Scholar

³¹ Id.Google Scholar

³² See Advocate General Mischo's opinion, id., at § 6306.Google Scholar

³³ 64 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen (BGHZ) 232, 237; 86 BGHZ 324, 330.Google Scholar

³⁴ See, e.g., Thomas Lübbig, Die zivilprozessuale Durchsetzung etwaiger Schadensersatzansprüche durch die Abnehmer eines kartellbefangenen Produkts, 20 Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis (WRP) 1254, 1255-1256 (2004); Michael Buch, supra note 4, at 145. It has to be noted that the majority view rejected this restrictive interpretation and argued that direct purchasers are entitled to recover damages, see, e.g., Karsten Schmidt, in EG-Wettbewerbsrecht, Kommentar, Vol. I Art. 85 Abs. 2 no. 79 (Ulrich Immenga & Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker eds., 1997); Volker Emmerich, Kartellrecht 58 (9th ed., 2001); Wulf-Henning Roth, in Frankfurter Kommentar zum Kartellrecht § 33 GWB 1999 no. 49 (Helmut Glassen, Helmuth v. Hahn, Hans-Christian Kersten & Harald Rieger eds., loose-leaf, 2001).Google Scholar

³⁵ See only Volker Emmerich, supra note 34, at 58-59.Google Scholar

³⁶ See, e.g., Oberlandesgericht (OLG) (Higher Regional Court of Appeal) Stuttgart, WuW/E DE-R 161, 162 (1998).Google Scholar

³⁷ See, e.g., OLG Düsseldorf, WuW/E DE-R 143, 146 (1998).Google Scholar

³⁸ See, e.g., Landgericht (Regional Court) (LG) Berlin, case 102 O 155/02 Kart (not published), cf. on this ruling Silke Hossenfelder, Wilko Töllner & Konrad Ost, Kartellrechtspraxis und Kartellrechtsprechung 2003/2004, No. 101 (19th ed., 2004); LG Mannheim, 106 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) 182 (2004) with a critical case note by Köhler, Helmut, Kartellverbot und Schadensersatz, 106 GRUR 99 (2004). The OLG Karlsruhe endorsed the legal reasoning of the LG Mannheim, see OLG Karlsruhe, 57 NJW 2243 (2004) with a critical case note by F. Wenzel Bulst, Private Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung durch die Marktgegenseite – deutsche Gerichte auf Kollisionskurs zum EuGH, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2201 (2004).Google Scholar

³⁹ The European Commission described the vitamin cartels as “the most damaging series of cartels the Commission has ever investigated.” See Press Release, European Commission, Commission Imposes Fines on Vitamin Cartels, IP/01/1625, Nov. 21, 2001, available at: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/. See also Harry First, The Vitamins Case: Cartel Prosecutions and the Coming of International Competition Law, 68 Antitrust Law Journal 711 (2001), at 712 (describing this cartel as “probably the most economically damaging cartel ever prosecuted under U.S. antitrust law”).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See LG Mannheim, 106 GRUR 182 (2004); OLG Karlsruhe, 57 NJW 2243 (2004); LG Mainz, 19 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift-Rechtsprechungsreport (NJW-RR) 478 (2004). But see LG Dortmund, 14 EWS 434 (2004) (awarding damages to direct purchasers of cartelised vitamin products). On this case, see F. Wenzel Bulst, Internationale Zuständigkeit, anwendbares Recht und Schadensberechnung im Kartelldeliktsrecht, 14 EWS 403 (2004).Google Scholar

⁴¹ § 33 (1) sentence 3 GWB.Google Scholar

⁴² BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 10-11 (§ 33 (1) GWB).Google Scholar

⁴³ See on the one hand F. Wenzel Bulst, supra note 38, at 2202 (suggesting that the draft may be read as giving indirect purchasers a claim for damages); Marc Schütt, Individualrechtsschutz nach der 7. GWB-Novelle, 54 WuW 1124, 1129 (2004) (noting that the draft may be interpreted as allowing for indirect purchaser claims); but see on the other hand Thomas Lübbig, supra note 34, at 1259 (reading the draft as excluding claims for damages brought by consumers).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cf. § 33 (3) GWB.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For an overview about major changes brought by the recent UWG reform in 2004, see Manuela Finger & Sandra Schmieder, The New Law Against Unfair Competition: An Assessment, 6 German Law Journal 201 (2004).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Cf. §§ 249-254 BGB.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. § 249 BGB.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ BGH, 31 Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 480 (1980); 98 BGHZ 212, 218. See also Walter van Gerven, Jeremy Lever & Pierre Larouche, Tort Law 883 (2000).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See on the complex case law Gottfried Schiemann, in J. v. Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen § 249 no. 132-177 (2005).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Hanover Shoe & Co v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, 392 US 481 (1968).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Mannheim, LG, 106 GRUR 182 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² Id., at 184.Google Scholar

⁵³ Id.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Id.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Karlsruhe, OLG, 57 NJW 2243, 2244 (2004).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 54.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See, e.g., statement of Professor Hellwig, Member of the German Monopolies Commission, in BT-Drs. No. 15/5049, 44. See also Norbert Reich, The “Courage” Doctrine: Encouraging or Discouraging Compensation for Antitrust Injuries?, 42 CMLRev. 35, 44-48 (2005) (arguing to reject on the one hand the ‘passing on’ defence, but limit on the other hand indirect purchaser claims, though without excluding them completely).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ This view was taken by certain authors, see Jürgen Beninca, Schadensersatzansprüche von Kunden eines Kartells?, 54 WuW 604, 607 (2004); Thomas Lübbig, supra note 34, at 1257.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The current rates can be traced online at: www.bundesbank.de.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For an overview see Rolf Hempel, Private Follow-on Klagen im Kartellrecht, 55 WuW 137 (2005).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 54.Google Scholar

⁶² Cf. Art. 16 Regulation 1/2003.Google Scholar

⁶³ See Andreas Zuber, Die EG-Kommission als amicus curiae 94-96 (2001).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ There are, however, very specific areas, in which Germany, based on EC legislation or bilateral agreements, recognizes foreign administrative acts, e.g. driving licences or university diplomas.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See, e.g., Monopolkommission, Das allgemeine Wettbewerbsrecht in der Siebten GWB-Novelle 31 (2004); Rolf Hempel, supra note 60, at 144.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Cf. Art. 103 (2) Grundgesetz.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See, e.g., Hanns-Peter Nehl, Principles of Administrative Procedure in EC Law, 70-99 (1999) with ample references.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Cf. Art. 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Cf. Sec. 5 of the Clayton Act.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Cf. §§ 194-213 BGB.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cf. § 214 (1) BGB.Google Scholar

⁷² Cf. § 199 (1) No. 1 BGB.Google Scholar

⁷³ Cf. §§ 33 (5) GWB in conjunction with 204 (2) BGB.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Cf. BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 11 (§ 33 (2) GWB).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Cf. BT-Drs. No. 15/3640, 11-12 (§ 34a (1) GWB).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Id.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Cf. Donncadh Woods, Ailsa Sinclair & David Ashton, Private Enforcement of Community Competition Law: Modernization and the Road Ahead, Competition Policy Newsletter, Summer 2004, 31, 37.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Some authors argue that private plaintiffs will only take the risk of commencing a private action when there is a promising incentive such as the expectation of multiple damages, cf. Jürgen Basedow, supra note 4, at 145 (showing sympathy for treble damages); Rolf Hempel, Privater Rechtsschutz im deutschen Kartellrecht nach der 7. GWB-Novelle, 54 WuW 362, 371 (2004) (advocating the introduction of treble damages); Monopolkommission, Das allgemeine Wettbewerbsrecht in der Siebten GWB-Novelle 67 (2004) (recommending the introduction of double damages as a remedy under German law for breaches of EC competition law).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Christian v. Bar, Common European Law of Torts, Vol. I no. 605-612 (1998); Walter van Gerven, Jeremy Lever & Pierre Larouche, supra note 48, at 871-874; Wolfgang Wurmnest, Grundzüge eines europäischen Haftungsrechts – Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung des Gemeinschaftsrechts 101-106 (2003).Google Scholar