| Popis: |
Zasebnopravno uveljavljanje konkurenčnega prava Evropske unije sledi načelu, da je vsak, ki je oškodovan, upravičen do nadomestila, če dokaže vzročno zvezo med kršitvijo in škodo. Protipravna ravnanja podjetij lahko vodijo do povišanih stroškov neposrednih kupcev, ki jih bodo poskušali prenesti naprej po dobavni verigi na posredne kupce na način, da bodo povišali cene lastnih izdelkov. Institut nadaljnjega prenosa povečanih stroškov v zasebnopravnem uveljavljanju konkurenčnega prava nastopi v dveh pojavnih oblikah. Kot »meč« omogoča posrednemu kupcu vložitev odškodninskega zahtevka zoper kršitelja, ki temelji na trditvi, da so neposredni kupci delno ali v celoti prenesli škodo v obliki povišanih stroškov na posredne kupce. V obliki »ščita« pa omogoča kršitelju, da se brani zoper tožbene zahtevke oškodovancev z ugovorom, da je neposredni ali posredni kupec delno ali v celoti povečane stroške prenesel na svoje kupce. Obe pojavni obliki instituta sta bili v pravu EU dokončno uveljavljeni z Direktivo 2014/104/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 26. novembra 2014 skupaj z drugimi določili, katerih glavni cilj je bil vzpostaviti učinkovit, poenoten sistem zasebnopravnega uveljavljanja konkurenčnega prava. V magistrskem delu so analizirane določbe Direktive 2014/104/EU, implementirane v Zakon o preprečevanju omejevanja konkurence (ZPOmK-1), ki vplivajo na položaj in uveljavljenje odškodninskih tožb posrednih kupcev. Poleg instituta nadaljnjega prenosa povečanih stroškov, so v ospredju predstavljena določila o razkritju dokazov in določila, ki urejajo ocenjevanje škode. The private enforcement of European Union competition law follows the principle that anyone who is harmed is entitled to compensation if they can prove a causal link between the infringement and the damages incurred. Unlawful practices by companies can lead to increased costs for direct customers, which they will try to reduce and pass on down the supply chain to indirect customers, by raising the prices of their own products. The passing-on institute in the private antitrust litigation occurs in two forms. As a “sword,” it allows an indirect buyer to file a damage action arguing that the direct buyers of the infringer have partially or fully passed on the overcharge to them. In the form of a "shield", it allows the infringer to defend himself against the claims of the injured parties by objecting that the direct or indirect buyer has partially or fully passed on the overcharge to its own purchasers. Both forms of the institute were finally introduced in EU law with Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November, together with other provisions aimed at establishing an effective unified system of private antitrust litigation. The master's thesis analyses the provisions of the Directive 2014/104/EU that were implemented in Prevention of Restriction of Competition Act of Slovenia, which are affecting the position and enforcement of damages claims of indirect purchasers. In addition to the passing-on institute, the provisions on the disclosure of evidence and the provisions governing damage assessments are presented in the foreground. |
