損害賠償額の認定（ハンガリー、ラトビア、ルーマニア）
ルーマニアがカルテルの損害賠償額のみなしを入れた3番目の国で20％、ハンガリーとラトビアがそれぞれ10％。
ルーマニアは102条違反で損害が生じることのみなしも入れている（初めての国）。
In Hungary, a legal presumption has existed for a long time in Section 88 / C Paragraph 6 of the Hungarian Antitrust Act as amended on 23.3.2009 (available at https://mkogy.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a0900014.TV ). This translates as follows: “ For a not inconsiderable violation of competition law, it is assumed that this led to a price surcharge of 10% by the infringer. "(Translation from Klumpe / Thiede , NZKart 2017, 332, 334, Fn 36).
This was followed by Latvia as the next member state, also with a - refutable - presumption of 10% in Chapter VI, Section 21, Paragraph 3 (available at http://m.likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/54890-competition -law ; the English translation available there reads: " If the infringement is a cartel agreement, it is presumed that the infringement has caused a damage, as a result of which the price has been raised by 10 per cent, unless proved otherwise ." ).
Most recently, Romania has now created a legal presumption of damage as the third member state (cf. "ORDONANȚĂ DE URGENȚĂ no. 170 din 14 octombrie 2020 privind acțiunile în despăgubire în cazurile de încălcare a dispozițiilorei legislației în Legium de concuren no. 21/1996; published on October 16, 2020, available at http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/231241 ). Article 16 contains noteworthy provisions in two respects.
Article 16 (2) contains the presumption that cartels cause surcharges of 20% on the goods or services covered by the cartel, unless the infringer refutes this. Similar to Hungary and Latvia, this introduces a rebuttable presumption of the amount of damage, which, however, goes well beyond the presumption of 10% there. In addition, Article 16 (3) contains the rebuttable presumption that competition violations in the form of abuse of a dominant position also cause damage. As far as can be seen, Romania is the first member state to presume that damage has arisen for violations within the meaning of Art. 102 TFEU; the previous implementations of Art. 17 (2) of Directive 2014/104 / EU only concerned violations according to Art.Klumpe / Thiede , BB 2016, 3011, 3012 and Kersting in Loewenheim / Meessen / Riesenkampff / Kersting / Meyer-Lindemann, Kartellrecht, 4th edition 2020, § 33a GWB marginal number 59 ff.).
