Since the dawn of the European Union, insurance and banking undertakings claimed to be subject to a special status vis-à-vis the application of EU competition law, due to the quasi social nature of the services they provide. Within the financial services industry, anti-trust concerns do arise in relation to mergers and acquisitions, possible abuses of dominant position and state aid; however Art. 101 TFEU and the regulation of forms of co-operation arguably represent the paramount and most intricate aspects of the application of the EU competition rules to the financial services sector. This is due to the fact that the insurance and banking industries historically have been characterised by intense forms of horizontal co-operation between undertakings deemed necessary for the correct functioning of the financial services industry. On a general level, any agreement establishing a homogeneous pricing structure vis-à-vis consumers represents a blatant violation of Art. 101 TFEU giving rise to serious anti-trust concerns. Nevertheless, as will be explored in this thesis, in the financial services sector the Commission has often allowed what the doctrine has correctly defined as “forms of horizontal agreements concerning a relevant cost element making up the final price vis-à-vis customers”1 through its decisions relating 1 See Faull & Nikpay, “The EC Law of Competition” OUP 2007, p. 636.to interbank fees in payment systems and through the enactment of a block exemption for the insurance industry. Art. 101 thus seems to manifest a common element for these two industries, presenting interesting and intricate teleological quandaries. This thesis endeavours to break the impasse down into questions to which an answer may be provided: Ought Art. 101 to apply to the financial services sector at all? If so, to what extent? Is there any justification for a block exemption in the insurance sector? Indeed, should the banking sector too benefit from a block exemption? This thesis endeavours to answer the above questions and thereby to contribute to the identification of an ideal regulatory framework for forms of horizontal co-operation in the financial services sector.

Die Arbeit soll zeigen, dass es zu einer breiteren Durchsetzung von Schadensersatzansprüchen wegen kartellrechtswidrigem Verhalten eines eigenständigen Informationsanspruchs des Rechtsanwalts als Organ der Rechtspflege gegenüber der EU-Kommission und den deutschen Kartellbehörden bedarf, und zwar sowohl aus tatsächlicher Notwendigkeit, als auch auf Grund europarechtlicher und grundgesetzlicher Vorgaben. Anhand des europarechtlichen Effektivitätsgrundsatzes aus Art. 4 Abs. 3 EUV und des Rechts auf effektiven Rechtsschutz aus Art. 47 der EU-Grundrechtecharta bzw. des Justizgewährungsanspruchs als Ausfluss des Rechtsstaatsprinzips, Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG, wird erörtert, wie ein solcher Anspruch mindestens beschaffen sein muss. Die Untersuchung bestehender, sekundärrechtlicher und einfachgesetzlicher Dokumentenzugangs-, Auskunfts- und Akteneinsichtsansprüche ergibt, dass bereits nach geltender Rechtslage dem Rechtsanwalt ein Informationsanspruch gegenüber der Europäischen Kommission und den deutschen Kartellbehörden zusteht. Die Interpretation der betreffenden Tatbestände nimmt hierbei die europarechtlichen und grundgesetzlichen Vorgaben auf und bewegt sich im Rahmen zulässiger Auslegung. Daneben wird ein Vorschlag unterbreitet, wie der Informationsanspruch über die Mindestvorgaben hinaus ausgestaltet werden könnte. / The work reveals that a for a better private enforcement of competition law in the form of damages claims an independent right of information vis-à-vis the EU-Commission and the German Cartel Authorities for an attorney without a client and a mandate is needed. This need not only derives from the factual necessity but also from European primary law and the German Grundgesetz. In light of the European principle of effectiveness, Article 4 para. 3 TEU, and the right to effective judicial protection, Article 47 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 20 para. 3 German Grundgesetz respectively, the author develops the right and its boundaries. The examination of information rights and rights to access documents in EU secondary law and German law then shows that an independent right of information and access to documents for an attorney without a client and a mandate already exists if the law is interpreted in accordance with the EU primary law and the German Grundgesetz. The author further develops a recommendation as to how such an information right could be extended beyond its core that is determined by EU primary law and the German Grundgesetz.

科学研究費補助金 研究種目:基盤研究(C) 課題番号:17530020 研究代表者:愛敬 浩二 研究期間:2005－2006年度