Whocanclaimcompensationifafirmhasbrokencompetitionlaw?

經(jīng)營(yíng)者違反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法時(shí)何人可以請(qǐng)求損害賠償?

JonTurnerQC

Whenfirmsbreakcompetitionlaw,thiscanincreasepricestocustomers.經(jīng)營(yíng)者違反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法時(shí)，會(huì)導(dǎo)致客戶(hù)支付的價(jià)格提高。Butthecustomersmaynotbetheend-usersofthegoods.但客戶(hù)不一定是該產(chǎn)品的最終使用者。Forexample例如：- Theymaybedistributors,whichsellthesamegoodstoothers他們可能是分銷(xiāo)商，將該產(chǎn)品出售給他人Theymayusethegoodsascomponentsinother,morecomplexproducts,whichtheymake,andthenselltoothers.他們可能使用該產(chǎn)品作為生產(chǎn)其他更復(fù)雜產(chǎn)品的零部件，將以此生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品銷(xiāo)售他人。Insuchcases,thereisachainofsupply.在這些情況下，存在一個(gè)供應(yīng)鏈。Theproblem問(wèn)題(1)Ifonlydirectcustomerscanclaimcompensationforbeingovercharged,thereisaproblem如果只有直接客戶(hù)可以就多收價(jià)款請(qǐng)求損害賠償，將存在一個(gè)問(wèn)題：Theymaynothavesufferedarealloss,becausetheyhaverecovereditfromtheirowncustomers他們可能并未遭受實(shí)際損失，因?yàn)樗麄円呀?jīng)從自己的客戶(hù)那里得到了補(bǔ)償。But,if“indirect”customerscanclaimcompensation(includingfinalconsumers),theirlossesindividuallymaybetoosmalltojustifytheeffortandcostofbringingalegalclaim但是，如果“間接”客戶(hù)（包括最終消費(fèi)者）可以請(qǐng)求損害賠償，他們受到的個(gè)體損失金額可能過(guò)小，提起法律訴訟所需付出的努力和成本會(huì)得不償失。Therefore:whoshouldbeallowedtobringaclaim,andhowshouldtheCourtmanagethisproblem?因此：應(yīng)該允許何人提起訴訟，以及法院如何管理這一問(wèn)題？Theproblem問(wèn)題(2)“Indirect”purchaserstowhomlossispassedon承擔(dān)損失轉(zhuǎn)嫁的“間接”購(gòu)買(mǎi)者

BAD壞DistributorA分銷(xiāo)商ADistributorB分銷(xiāo)商BKind友好Sweet甜蜜Innocent無(wú)辜x+￡1x+￡1y+￡1yyBIG大UGLY丑IntheUSA,atfederallevel,whoshouldbeallowedtoclaimisamatterofpolicy–toencouragestrongclaimsfordamagesagainstwrongdoers.在美國(guó)聯(lián)邦層面，何人獲準(zhǔn)請(qǐng)求損害賠償是一個(gè)政策問(wèn)題——以鼓勵(lì)對(duì)違法者提起最有力的損害賠償訴訟。

HanoverShoe(1968)

IllinoisBrick(1977)Onlydirectcustomerscanclaim.AndtheCourtdoesnothavetotakeaccountoflosseswhichhavebeen“passedon”totheirowncustomers.只有直接客戶(hù)享有請(qǐng)求權(quán)。法院無(wú)需考慮被“轉(zhuǎn)嫁”給自己客戶(hù)的損失部分。Butthisapproachcanleadtoclaimantsgetting“windfallbenefits”whichtheydonotdeserve.但是這種方式可能導(dǎo)致請(qǐng)求人獲得其本不應(yīng)該得到的“意外之財(cái)”。Ananswerbasedon“policy”一個(gè)基于“政策”的解決方案InEurope,anyonewhohassufferedlossfrombreachofcompetitionlawcanclaimdamages(actualloss;lossofprofit;interest).在歐洲，因違反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的行為遭受損失的任何人都可以請(qǐng)求損害賠償（實(shí)際損失；利潤(rùn)損失；利息）。Thismeansthatdirectandindirectcustomerscanallclaim.Theycanrecoverwhateverlosstheycanprove.這意味著無(wú)論直接客戶(hù)還是間接客戶(hù)都可以請(qǐng)求損害賠償。他們可以求償其所能證明任何損失。TheEUinstitutionsarenowdraftingnewrulestohelptheCourts.Theypropose:歐盟機(jī)構(gòu)目前正在起草新規(guī)則，以對(duì)法院提供幫助。他們建議：Thewrongdoerhastheburdenofshowingthatanoverchargewaspassedonbytheclaimanttoothers違法者負(fù)有證明多收價(jià)款已被請(qǐng)求人轉(zhuǎn)嫁給他人的證明負(fù)擔(dān)Whereanindirectpurchaserclaims,thewrongdoerhastheburdenofshowingthatanoverchargewasnotpassedontothem.間接購(gòu)買(mǎi)者請(qǐng)求損害賠償時(shí)，違法者負(fù)有證明多收價(jià)款沒(méi)有被轉(zhuǎn)嫁給他們的證明負(fù)擔(dān)。TheCourtscanestimatewhatshareofanoverchargewassufferedbytheindirect,orthedirect,purchasers.法院可以估算間接購(gòu)買(mǎi)者和直接購(gòu)買(mǎi)者分別遭受的多收價(jià)款比例。Ananswerbasedon“principle”?一個(gè)基于“原則”的解決方案?

Wherewrongdoersoverchargecustomers,thefinallossmayinrealitybebornebymanyindividualconsumers.違法者向客戶(hù)多收價(jià)款時(shí)，現(xiàn)實(shí)中最終損失可能由眾多個(gè)體消費(fèi)者承擔(dān)。Eachconsumermayhavesufferedalosssosmallthatitisnotworthbringingaclaim.每一個(gè)消費(fèi)者所遭受的損失金額可能非常小，不值得提起訴訟。ThismeansthatsomeStateshave(orareintroducing)systemsofcollectiveclaims.這意味著某些國(guó)家擁有（或者正在制定）集體訴訟制度。Collectiveclaimsmustbe“certified”asappropriate.每一個(gè)集體訴訟都必須“被認(rèn)證為”適當(dāng)?shù)脑V訟。-Therulescanprovideforclaimstobe“opt-in”(requiringtheconsentoftheindividualsclaimingtohavebeenharmed)or“opt-out”(allpartieswithinthedefinitionoftherepresentedgroupareboundbytheeofthecaseunlesstheyactively