Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Edition innan rättegång i konkurrensrättsliga skadeståndsprocesser - En analys av hur svensk processrätt förhåller sig till effektivitetsprincipen

Svensson, Hannah LU (2026) JURM02 20261
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Konkurrensrättsliga skadeståndsprocesser förekommer sällan i Sverige, trots att möjligheten att erhålla skadestånd på konkurrensrättslig grund har funnits länge i svensk rätt. Detsamma gällde under lång tid även i övriga EU-medlemsstater, fastän Europeiska unionens domstol erkände rätten till skadestånd redan år 2001. En central processuell utmaning är att skadelidande ofta saknar tillgång till nödvändig bevisning. Skadeståndsdirektivet ger därför en part möjlighet att under vissa omständigheter få tillgång till bevisning som finns hos svaranden eller tredje part.

Den svenska lagstiftaren har tolkat direktivet som att bestämmelserna om bevisutlämning endast är tillämpliga efter att talan har väckts. Syftet med uppsatsen är att... (More)
Konkurrensrättsliga skadeståndsprocesser förekommer sällan i Sverige, trots att möjligheten att erhålla skadestånd på konkurrensrättslig grund har funnits länge i svensk rätt. Detsamma gällde under lång tid även i övriga EU-medlemsstater, fastän Europeiska unionens domstol erkände rätten till skadestånd redan år 2001. En central processuell utmaning är att skadelidande ofta saknar tillgång till nödvändig bevisning. Skadeståndsdirektivet ger därför en part möjlighet att under vissa omständigheter få tillgång till bevisning som finns hos svaranden eller tredje part.

Den svenska lagstiftaren har tolkat direktivet som att bestämmelserna om bevisutlämning endast är tillämpliga efter att talan har väckts. Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka huruvida en sådan ordning är förenlig med den unionsrättsliga effektivitetsprincipen. För att uppnå detta syfte utreds hur effektivitetsprincipen tillämpas inom konkurrensskadeståndsrätten, hur frågan om en föregående editionstalan förhåller sig till denna princip och hur avsaknaden av en sådan möjlighet i svensk processrätt påverkar utövandet av rätten till konkurrensrättsligt skadestånd. Frågeställningarna besvaras genom tillämpning av den rättsdogmatiska och EU-rättsliga metoden.

Utredningen visar att sannolikheten för ingripande från Europeiska unionens domstol är större när frågan ligger nära utövandet av rätten till konkurrensrättsligt skadestånd, särskilt när den direkt påverkar den materiella rätten, såsom preskriptionsregler. Möjligheten att begära edition innan rättegång kan ha stor betydelse för utövandet av rätten till skadestånd. I uppsatsen identifieras tre svårigheter som kan uppstå utan en sådan möjlighet: att talan inte tas upp till prövning, att anspråket inte i slutändan kan styrkas eller att anspråket inte väcks alls på grund av otillräckliga incitament. Hur stora problemen blir beror dock på omständigheterna i det enskilda fallet, exempelvis typen av överträdelse, talans karaktär samt vilken aktör som har lidit skada.

En skadelidande som avser att väcka en skadeståndstalan i Sverige riskerar att möta den första och den tredje svårigheten. Utan möjlighet att begära edition före rättegång finns en risk att skadelidande inte kan utforma stämningsansökan i enlighet med de krav som ställs i svensk processrätt, vilket kan leda till att talan avvisas. Dessutom medför regleringen i dess nuvarande utformning att skadelidande många gånger inte har tillräckligt incitament att initiera en talan. Slutsatsen är därför att svensk processrätt i vissa situationer kan göra det väldigt svårt, kanske till och med orimligt svårt, att utöva rätten till skadestånd. (Less)
Abstract
Despite the long-standing availability of damages claims under Swedish competition law, such disputes remain uncommon. The same was true for a long
time in other EU Member States, even though the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized the right to damages as early as 2001. A central
procedural challenge is that injured parties often lack access to the evidence
they need. The Damages Directive grants parties, under certain circumstances, access to evidence held by the defendant or a third party.

The Swedish legislature has interpreted the Directive to mean that the provisions on disclosure of evidence apply only once proceedings have been initiated. The purpose of this thesis is to examine whether such an arrangement is
... (More)
Despite the long-standing availability of damages claims under Swedish competition law, such disputes remain uncommon. The same was true for a long
time in other EU Member States, even though the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized the right to damages as early as 2001. A central
procedural challenge is that injured parties often lack access to the evidence
they need. The Damages Directive grants parties, under certain circumstances, access to evidence held by the defendant or a third party.

The Swedish legislature has interpreted the Directive to mean that the provisions on disclosure of evidence apply only once proceedings have been initiated. The purpose of this thesis is to examine whether such an arrangement is
compatible with the EU principle of effectiveness. To achieve this purpose,
the thesis analyses how the principle of effectiveness is applied in the field of
private enforcement of competition law, how it relates to the question of pretrial disclosure, and how the absence of such a possibility in Swedish procedural law affects the exercise of the right to claim competition law damages.
The research questions are addressed through the application of the legal dogmatic and EU law methods.

The analysis shows that the likelihood of intervention by the Court of Justice
of the European Union is greater where the issue is closely connected to the
exercise of the right to competition law damages, particularly where it directly
affects that right, such as limitation rules. The possibility of requesting disclosure before proceedings are initiated may be of considerable importance
for the exercise of the right to damage. The thesis identifies three difficulties
that may arise where injured parties cannot request disclosure before proceedings are initiated: that the claim is not admitted for consideration, that the
claim ultimately cannot be substantiated, or that no claim is brought at all due
to insufficient incentives. The extent of these problems depends on the circumstances of the individual case, including the type of infringement and the
action taken, as well as the position of the injured party.

An injured party intending to bring a damages action in Sweden risks being
affected by the first and third difficulties. Without the possibility of requesting disclosure before proceedings have been initiated, there is a risk that the
injured party will be unable to draft the summons application in accordance
with Swedish law, which may result in the claim being dismissed. Furthermore, the current regulatory framework often leaves injured parties without
sufficient incentives to initiate a claim. Consequently, Swedish procedural
law may, in some cases, make it very difficult, perhaps even excessively so,
to exercise the right to damages. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Svensson, Hannah LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Pre-trial disclosure in competition law damage claims - An analysis of how Swedish procedural law relates to the principle of effectiveness
course
JURM02 20261
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, Konkurrensrätt, Konkurrensrättsligt skadestånd, Private enforcement of competition law, Processrätt, Civil rätt
language
Swedish
id
9226953
date added to LUP
2026-06-10 17:20:41
date last changed
2026-06-10 17:20:41
@misc{9226953,
  abstract     = {{Despite the long-standing availability of damages claims under Swedish competition law, such disputes remain uncommon. The same was true for a long
time in other EU Member States, even though the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized the right to damages as early as 2001. A central
procedural challenge is that injured parties often lack access to the evidence
they need. The Damages Directive grants parties, under certain circumstances, access to evidence held by the defendant or a third party.

The Swedish legislature has interpreted the Directive to mean that the provisions on disclosure of evidence apply only once proceedings have been initiated. The purpose of this thesis is to examine whether such an arrangement is
compatible with the EU principle of effectiveness. To achieve this purpose,
the thesis analyses how the principle of effectiveness is applied in the field of
private enforcement of competition law, how it relates to the question of pretrial disclosure, and how the absence of such a possibility in Swedish procedural law affects the exercise of the right to claim competition law damages.
The research questions are addressed through the application of the legal dogmatic and EU law methods.

The analysis shows that the likelihood of intervention by the Court of Justice
of the European Union is greater where the issue is closely connected to the
exercise of the right to competition law damages, particularly where it directly
affects that right, such as limitation rules. The possibility of requesting disclosure before proceedings are initiated may be of considerable importance
for the exercise of the right to damage. The thesis identifies three difficulties
that may arise where injured parties cannot request disclosure before proceedings are initiated: that the claim is not admitted for consideration, that the
claim ultimately cannot be substantiated, or that no claim is brought at all due
to insufficient incentives. The extent of these problems depends on the circumstances of the individual case, including the type of infringement and the
action taken, as well as the position of the injured party.

An injured party intending to bring a damages action in Sweden risks being
affected by the first and third difficulties. Without the possibility of requesting disclosure before proceedings have been initiated, there is a risk that the
injured party will be unable to draft the summons application in accordance
with Swedish law, which may result in the claim being dismissed. Furthermore, the current regulatory framework often leaves injured parties without
sufficient incentives to initiate a claim. Consequently, Swedish procedural
law may, in some cases, make it very difficult, perhaps even excessively so,
to exercise the right to damages.}},
  author       = {{Svensson, Hannah}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Edition innan rättegång i konkurrensrättsliga skadeståndsprocesser - En analys av hur svensk processrätt förhåller sig till effektivitetsprincipen}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}