BRICS Law Journal

Advanced search


Full Text:


The research focus is an assessment of disclosure rules in the European Union and a perspective for implementation of the US discovery rules to improve European private enforcement. For these purposes the EU disclosure rules are compared with the US discovery rules; the influence of tension between disclosure of evidence and leniency programme on the effectiveness of protection of information is analyzed in order to propose areas for improvement and solutions to find a balance between some inconsistencies of the EU disclosure rules with interests of European plaintiffs in cartel litigations.
The research method is not limited to a doctrinal approach to the EU and US legislation, but includes case law, and secondary sources. This paper does not deal with particular types of evidence and generic issues of disclosure unrelated to the cartel cases.
The author contends that the American model of discovery in cartel cases cannot be transferred to the European context completely, even though disclosure of evidence in the EU is rather inefficient, and new rules are unlikely to protect consumers’ interests. In terms of consumers’ interests, protection facilitating follow-on actions looks more relevant on the EU level. Practically, the design of the US disclosure rules and priority of consumers’ rights effectively allow victims from the EU to sue in the US and obtain all necessary documents in the US proceeding. In this context convergence of the US and EU positions on disclosure of leniency materials could bring more certainty both to plaintiffs and defendants in cartel litigations.

About the Author

N. Mosunova
Adecco Group Russia, Moscow
Russian Federation

Natalya Mosunova (Moscow, Russia) – Head of Legal Department, Adecco group Russia

(2/3 Paveletskaya sq., Moscow, 115054, Russia)


1. Barker, Alex. Hurdles to Cartel Damages Suits Lifted by Brussels, FinancialTimes (Jun. 11, 2013), <> (accessed Aug. 21, 2015).

2. Cauffman, Caroline. The Interaction of Leniency Programmes and Actions for Damages, 7 Competition Law Review 181 (2011), <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

3. Comments of the ABA Sections of Antitrust Law and International Law on the European Commission’s Draft Guidance Paper on Quantifying Harm in Actions for Damages Based on Breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (October 7, 2011) 2, 4, <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

4. Crane, Daniel A. Optimizing Private Antitrust Enforcement, 63 Vand. L. Rev. 675, 676 (2010), available at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

5. Directive 2014/104/Eu of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 No- vember 2014 on Certain Rules governing Actions for Damages under National Law for Infringements of the Competition Law Provisions of the Member States and of the European union, Preamble, para. 18, 26, Art. 5, 2014 O.J. (L 349) 1, 4–5, 12–13, at <> (accessed Aug. 12, 2015).

6. Dodson, Scott, & Klebba, James M. Global Civil Procedure Trends in the Twenty-First Century, 34 B.C. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (2011), available at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

7. First Report on Competition Policy, European Commission (April 1972), at <> (accessed Aug. 12, 2015).

8. Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, COM(2005) 672 final, at 6, at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

9. Heinemann, Andreas. Private Enforcement in Europe, in The Development of Competition Law: global Perspectives 302 (Roger Zäch et al., eds.) (Edward Elgar Pub. 2010). doi:10.4337/9781849803571.00019

10. Israel, Marc, et al. United Kingdom: Private Antitrust Litigation, in The European Antitrust Review 2014, at 306, at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

11. Jones, Clifford A. Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the Eu, uK and uSA 3, 16, 26–27, 70–75 (Oxford university Press 1999).

12. Jungermann, Sebastian, & Mazur, Terri A. How to Obtain and Use US Discovery in European Private Antitrust Actions, IFLR Magazine (Jan. 21, 2013), <> (accessed Aug. 12, 2015).

13. Lande, Robert H., & Davis, Joshua P. Comparative Deterrence from Private Enforcement and Criminal Enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Laws, 2014 BYu L. Rev. 315, available at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

14. Lang, John T. Foreword, in Clifford A. Jones, Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the Eu, uK and uSA (Oxford university Press 1999).

15. Louis, Frédéric. It Is Always Darkest Before the Dawn: Litigating Access to Cartel Leniency Documents in The EU, in The International Comparative Legal guide to: Competition Litigation 2013, at 11–13 (5th ed., global Legal group 2012), available at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

16. Making Antitrust Damages Actions More Effective in the EU: Welfare Impact and Potential Scenarios: Report for the European Commission, Contract Dg COMP/2006/ A3/012, at 11, 17, 19, 345, 348, 372, 383, 671 (December 21, 2007), at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

17. Matthews, Paul, & Malek, Hodge M. Disclosure 436 (4th ed., Sweet & Maxwell; Thomson Reuters 2012).

18. Miller, Samuel R., et al. U.S. Discovery of European Union and U.S. Leniency Applications and Other Confidential Investigatory Materials, 2010(1) The CPI Antitrust Journal 2, 8–10, available at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

19. Petrasincu, Alex. Discovery Revisited: The Impact of the US Discovery Rules on the European Commission’s Leniency Programme, 32 European Competition Law Review (ECLR) 356, 361, 363, 367 (2011).

20. Private Actions in Competition Law: A Consultation on Options for Reform paras. 7.4, 7.6, Department for Business Innovations and Skills (April 2012), at <> (accessed Aug. 21, 2015).

21. Rodger, Barry J. Competition Law Litigation in the UK Courts: A Study of All Cases 2005–08 – Part II, 2009 global Competition Litigation Review 136, 144, available at <> (accessed Aug. 12, 2015).

22. Sanders, Michael, et al. Disclosure of Leniency Materials in Follow-on Damages Actions: Striking ‘the Right Balance’ between the Interests of Leniency Applicants and Private Claimants?, 34 European Competition Law Review (ECLR) 174, 175, 177 (2013).

23. Schaner, Lawrence S., & Scarbrough, Brian S. Obtaining Discovery in the USA for Use in German Legal Proceedings. A Powerful Tool: 28 U.S.C. § 1782, 2012(4) Anwaltsblatt (AnwBl) 321–24, available at <> (accessed Aug. 21, 2015).

24. Strong, S.I. Jurisdictional Discovery in United States Federal Courts, 67 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 489, 501, 522 (2010), available at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

25. Strong, S.I. Regulatory Litigation in the European Union: Does the U.S. Class Action Have a New Analogue?, 88 Notre Dame L. Rev. 899, 949, 950 (2012), available at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

26. The Impact of Cartels on the Poor, u.N. Conference on Trade and Development, Trade and Development Board, Trade and Development Commission, Intergovernmental group of Experts on Competition Law and Policy, 13th Sess., Item 3(a) of the Provisional Agenda: Consultations and Discussions Regarding Peer Reviews on Competition Law and Policy, Review of the Model Law on Competition, and Studies Related to the Provisions of the Set of Principles and Rules, ¶¶ 6, 39, u.N. Doc. TD/B/C.I/CLP/24/Rev.1 (2013), at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

27. Waelbroeck, Denis, et al. Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in Case of Infringement of EC Competition Rules: Comparative Report 11, 61, 64–65 (Ashurst, August 31, 2004), <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

28. White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, COM(2008) 165 final, para. 2.2, at <> (accessed Aug. 11, 2015).

29. Zárate Catón, Pablo g. de. Disclosure of Leniency Materials: A Bridge between Public and Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law para. 4.2 (College of Europe, Department of European Legal Studies, Research Papers in Law 08/2013), <> (accessed Aug. 12, 2015).


For citations:


Views: 8409

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2409-9058 (Print)
ISSN 2412-2343 (Online)