PRIVATE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY 103 of the Directive, that is related to substantial law, focuses on antitrust damages claims; namely, types of damages, presumptions, limitation periods and so forth44. To this extent, the US private antitrust enforcement, with the exception of specificities in the American legal system and judiciary, has similar characteristics45. The need for such private antitrust enforcement stems from the economic harm suffered by the injured party, whether consumer or business, and the needs of its repair, which through such enforcement becomes easier to explore. The above-mentioned mechanism works similarly when implemented in the tourism industry and its related businesses. The damage suffered by the purchaser of goods or services’ user is the easiest to track down and quantify, at least as a principle. If the transportation companies, airlines, hotels or tour operators, simultaneously, based on unlawful agreement, raise or maintain prices in the relevant market over a given period of time, it becomes relatively easy to investigate and discover this collusion for the competition authority. Accordingly, it is also relatively easy for an injured party to sue the perpetrator for compensation as it happens very often in other industries. Nevertheless, the violation of antitrust law can cause other consequences in the scope of private law. These consequences usually pertain to the contractual relations between the parties, if a particular business relationship was found unlawful by the authority or court due to antitrust law violations. As a result, the entire contract or its part can be recognised as null and void. Surprisingly, the nullity of contract and its consequences are not particularly rare in comparison to the damage and need for its compensation46. There are several different consequences of such nullity within the scope of parties’ contractual relations. First and foremost, if the contract was found null and void, it means that all services, fees, payments and other provisions exchanged between the parties based on the contract, would have to be returned. It is an obvious consequence of the basic principles of private law stipulating that any provision or goods being exchanged between the parties should have legal grounds. Otherwise, the party or parties are unjustly enriched. This results in the need to regain economic balance between the parties which was disturbed by the above unjust enrichment. As previously stated, any exchange of goods or services must have legal grounds. 44 See A. Piszcz, D. Wolski, Poland, in A. Piszcz (ed.), Implementation of the EU Damages Directive … 45 See comprehensive study of the US private antitrust enforcement C. D. Floyd, E. T. Sullivan, Private Antitrust Actions … 46 See e.g. German example S. Peyer, Myths and Untold Stories – Private Antitrust Enforcement in Germany, SSRN Electronic Journal, July 2010.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==