Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt
Whether victims of a cartel may access leniency documents must be decided by national courts case by case, weighing the interest in damages claims against the protection of leniency programmes.
Facts
The German competition authority fined manufacturers of decor paper for participating in a cartel, after some of them had applied for leniency. Pfleiderer, a purchaser of decor paper, applied for access to the authority's file, including the leniency applications, in order to prepare a claim for damages. The authority refused to give access to the leniency documents.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that EU law did not preclude a person who had been adversely affected by a cartel from being granted access to documents relating to a leniency procedure, but that it was for the national courts, on the basis of national law, to determine the conditions under which access must be permitted or refused, by weighing the interests protected by EU law. The courts must weigh the interest in the effective protection of the right to compensation against the interest in protecting the effectiveness of leniency programmes, which depend on undertakings being willing to admit their participation in cartels. The Damages Directive later provided that leniency statements may never be disclosed.
Related cases on investigations, cartels and penalties
- A Menarini Diagnostics SRL v Italy (2011) Application no 43509/08
- Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v Commission Case C-550/07 P, [2010] ECR I-8301
- AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission Case 155/79, [1982] ECR 1575
- Hoechst AG v Commission Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88, [1989] ECR 2859
- Norris v Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL 16, [2008] 1 AC 920
- Orkem SA v Commission Case 374/87, [1989] ECR 3283
- Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy Case C-724/17, EU:C:2019:204
Studying competition law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
