The article analyses the amendments of Bulgarian law and more specifically of the Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act adopted in the beginning of 2018 in order to implement EU Directive Directive 2014/104/ЕС, also known as the Competition Damages Directive. Under the changes promulgated by Bulgarian State Gazette No. 2/2018, a new Section II to Chapter 15 of the Protection of Competition Act has been included. The article suggests that the rules included in the new Section do not alter fundamentally the law on competition damages claims as such claims were allowed under the existing law prior to the implementation of the Directive. On the other hand, the amended Protection of Competition Act now features a specific set of rules which applies to evidence and which is an important tool to assist for proving a competition damages claim in addition to the general regime of evidence under the Bulgarian Civil Procedural Code.
The article also provides an overview of the issues relating to international jurisdiction and applicable law on competition damages claims in cross-border scenarios within EU. Although EU Regulation № 1215 on international jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments (“Brussels Ibis”) does not contain specific rules on competition damages claims, according to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union there are two special grounds, apart from domicile of defendant, for international jurisdiction in such cases: first, on basis of the place where the harmful event giving rise to the claim occurred; and second, on basis of the place where the actual damages occurred. In the second instance, the amount of damages claimed should be limited to those taking place within that particular country (so called “mosaic principle”). In contrast, under EU Regulation № 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”), there is a detailed rule on law applicable to claims for damages caused by competition law infringements – the applicable law is the law of the market which is actually or even potentially affected by the infringement. When the market is, or is likely to be, affected in more than one country, the person seeking compensation in the court of the domicile of the defendant may instead choose to base the claim on the law of the court seised, provided that the market in that country is amongst those directly and substantially affected by the infringement.
За достъп до пълната версия на български език на статията, следвайте този линк:
 Attorney-at-law of international law firm CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP (in CMS Sofia), practising in the areas of commercial law, litigation and arbitration, private international law and having numerous publications in Bulgarian and English languages in the said areas. Graduated in Bulgarian law from Sofia University and English law from Manchester University, UK. Assistant Editor for Europe, Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Member of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple (London, UK), and the Advisory Board on Publications of International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA). The views expressed in this article belong entirely and solely to the author.