doc__table__185

In this judgment, the court found that a producer of pesticide had passed on 50 percent of the initial overcharge to the indirect customers. This finding was based on economic theory. In this case, the court could rely on publicly available market studies characterising the market on which the direct customer was active as a monopoly market. In a report provided by the direct customer, it was argued that the market should in fact be characterised as competitive rather than a monopoly. The direct customer inter alia submitted that a large number of products were competing on the market and that moderate market shares indicated a competitive market. However, due to the facts of the specific case, the court disagreed with this approach.

← Schätzung der Schadensabwälzung auf der Grundlage qualitativer Beweismittel — Cheminova, 2015 (94) · All articles · Kasten 10 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-25 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.