doc__table__186

In this judgment, the court found that the claimant had demonstrated the absence of passing-on. The overcharge in this case concerned lysine, an input into the production of chickens. The court found that lysine only represented one percent of the costs of chicken production. Such a small increase in costs was not sufficient evidence to convince the court that it would also lead to an increase in prices of chicken. The court found that the prices responded to other factors, such as competition with other meat products and buyer power. When concluding that the overcharge was not passed on to the indirect retailers, the court referred to the fact that chickens were sold on an international and competitive market and that grocery retail chains had strong buyer power.

← Schätzung der Schadensabwälzung auf der Grundlage qualitativer Beweismittel — DOUX Aliments, 2014 (95) · All articles · doc__table__187 →

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