NEWSLETTER-2017

82 NEWSLETTER 2017 fredi 11 , wherein it confirmed that the EU competition laws produce a direct effect in the relations between individuals and creates rights “ which the national courts must safeguard. ” 12 In sum, the ECJ ruled that even though pricing behavior would seem purely autonomous, based on economical rationality, a causal link between the cartel and umbrella pricing cannot be excluded 13 . In other words, the ECJ confirmed AG Kokott’s view that the umbrella effect was not to be categorically denied. On the other hand, the US courts employed a completely different solution with regard to the umbrella effect. In general, the US imple- mentation of private competition enforcement requires the claim to be directly linked to the competition violation, as well as being clearly observable. Thus, the claims resulting from umbrella effect have not yet been upheld by the federal courts. To be more precise, in its de- cision, Mid-West Paper Products Co v Continental Group 14 , the US Court of Appeals ruled that benefits arising from an umbrella transac- tion caused by a cartel do not flow to the cartel members, but to the non-infringing competitors of the cartel members. The Court viewed that when thought along with the possibility of treble damages, the broadening of the scope of the claimants would lead to ruinous liabil- ity by stressing that multiple treble compensations would be a form of “overkill recovery.” 15 Similar to the Mid-West Paper Products deci- sion, the In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prod- ucts Antitrust Litigation 16 decision, the Court stated that the umbrella effect would lead to complexities in quantification and distribution of damages, and result in an increased risk of duplicative recoveries. In the light of the foregoing, it can conclusively be said that the recovery of damages resulting from umbrella pricing is not permitted under US law. 11 Case C-295/04 to C-298/04 Vincenzo Manfredi and others. 12 Schreiber/Savov, Kone v. Commission, Umbrella Damages Claims, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 2014, Vol. 5 No. 8, p. 549. 13 Schreiber/Savov, p. 550. 14 The US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, March 29th, 1979, Mid-West Paper Products Co v Continental Group. 15 Franck, p. 142. 16 691 F2d 1335 (9th Cir. 1982).