GREECE Law and Practice Contributed by: Anna Manda and Maria Kallidopoulou, Karatzas & Partners
2014/104/EU. Under the Damages Law, a claim can be brought by any natural or legal person who has suffered harm caused by an antitrust infringement, regardless of whether the harm has a direct or indirect effect on the claimant
eral announcement of future pricing intentions ( “price signalling” ) or the invitation, coercion or induction in any other way by one undertaking to another to engage in or contribute to a pro - hibited agreement between competitors is pro - hibited under Article 1A of the GCA. Article 1A of the GCA applies only to undertakings with a total turnover of at least EUR50 million and at least 250 employees. Moreover, Article 1 (3) of the GCA includes an identical provision to Article 101 (3) of the TFEU stipulating that certain anti-competitive practic - es falling initially under Article 1 or Article 1A (as the case may be) are eventually not prohibited because of certain pro-competitive effects. Pursuant to Article 1 (4) of the GCA, EU Regula - tions on the application of Article 101 (3) of the TFEU to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (block exemption regula - tions) will apply ‒ mutatis mutandis to the imple - mentation of Article 1 (3) of the GCA ‒ to agree - ments, decisions or concerted practices by associations of undertakings, which affect the Greek market but are not likely to affect trade between EU member states within the meaning of Article 101 (1) of the TFEU. 1.5 Limitation Periods The GCA establishes a five-year limitation period for penalties to be imposed by the HCC. The five-year period commences on the date on which the infringement was committed or, in the case of continuing infringements, on the date on which they ceased. The limitation period is interrupted by any action taken by the HCC dur - ing the investigation in relation to the specific infringement. Actions that interrupt the limitation period include, in particular, the following:
(see 6. Civil Litigation ). 1.4 “Cartel Conduct”
The GCA does not define the term “cartel” . Arti - cle 1 of the GCA, which reflects the prohibition contained in Article 101 of the TFEU, uses the term “prohibited agreements and concerted practices” and refers to specific practices con - sidered to have as their object or effect the pre - vention, restriction or distortion of competition, identical to those included in Article 101 of the TFEU. As such, the following practices (inter alia) can be classified as cartel behaviour: • restrictions on innovation, production, distri - bution, technological development, invest - ments, etc. Furthermore, as mentioned in 1.1 Legal Bas- es , one of the most significant changes in the GCA (as modified) is the new Article 1A, which addresses issues relating to tacit collusion and price signalling. The HCC has issued guidelines regarding the application of Article 1A. • price fixing; • bid rigging; • output quotas/restrictions; • market sharing; and Notably, Article 1A targets unilateral practices, thereby rendering this form of unilateral practice as a self-standing antitrust infringement. Hence, this provision goes beyond Article 1 of the GCA and Article 101 of the TFEU, which require an agreement or concerted practice between two or more undertakings or a decision of an association of undertakings. Thus, the unilat -
131 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook