Kartellschadensersatz trotz Zusagenentscheidung?

The starting point for plaintiffs in claims for damages against the addressee of a commitment decision (Art. 9 Reg. 1/2003 or § 32b GWB, the German law against restriction of competition) is comparable to a stand-alone claim: in the absence of the determination of an infringement, the ruling has no binding effect (Art. 16 Reg. 1/2003 or § 33b of the GWB) in follow-on claims. Accordingly, hardly any successful claims for damages exist in this sector. As a consequence, there is a danger this might undermine the status of antitrust damages claims as a deterrent and, thereby, the overall enforcement of German and European competition law. Solutions to this problem could be considering the interests of plaintiffs in damages claims in administrative proceedings, the so-called ‘factual binding effect’ of commitment decisions in civil proceedings and, above all, the disclosure rules §§ 33g, 89b of the GWB, which were introduced by the 9th amendment to it in 2017.