{"id":1368,"date":"2020-07-31T16:07:37","date_gmt":"2020-07-31T16:07:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.andrelang-law.de\/?p=1368"},"modified":"2026-08-26T09:20:00","modified_gmt":"2026-08-26T07:20:00","slug":"rail-cartel-ii-antitrust-damages","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\/","title":{"rendered":"Antitrust damages \u2013 rail cartel II"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Author:<br> <strong>dr Christian Andrelang, LL.M. <br><\/strong>  Lawyer <br> Specialist lawyer for international business law<br> Specialist lawyer for commercial and corporate law<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz &#8211; Der Bundesgerichtshof hat sich bereits mehrfach mit Fragen zum <a href=\"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/antitrust\/\">kartellrechtlichen Schadensersatz<\/a> auseinandergesetzt, insbesondere in den Entscheidungen ORWI (BGH, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2011 \u2013 Az: KZR 75\/10), Lottoblock II (BGH, Urteil vom 12.07.2016, Az.: KZR 25\/14), Grauzementkartell II (BGH, Urteil vom 12.06.2018, Az.: KZR 56\/16) und Schienenkartell I (BGH, Urteil vom 11.12.2018, Az: KZR 26\/17). Die j\u00fcngste Entscheidung Schienenkartell II (BGH, Urteil vom 28.1.2020, Az: KZR 24\/17) kn\u00fcpft ebenfalls an das Schienenkartell, ein Quoten- und Kundenschutzkartell, an und kl\u00e4rt wichtige Fragen zu Kausalit\u00e4t und Schadensnachweis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Antitrust damages - cartel impact vs cartel bias<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Cartel Senate made a clarification that is important for practice in its judgment in the rail cartel II on the distinction between being affected by a cartel and being biased by the cartel. Antitrust damages require a precise distinction between the two requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Cartel impact addresses the question of whether the respective plaintiff can at all be entitled to invoke the violation of an antitrust norm and to assert a claim for damages under antitrust law. Or in the wording of the Federal Court of Justice, whether the opposing party is to be blamed for anti-competitive behavior which - mediated by the conclusion of sales transactions or in another way - is suitable for directly or indirectly causing damage to the claimant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the case law of the European Court of Justice, anyone can demand compensation for the damage if there is a causal connection between the damage and the behavior prohibited under Article 101 TFEU (ECJ, judgment of July 13, 2006 \u2013 C-295\/04, \u2013 <em>Manfredi<\/em>; <a href=\"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/cartel-damages\/\">ECJ, judgment of March 14, 2019 \u2013 C-724\/17, \u2013 <em>Skanska<\/em><\/a>; ECJ, judgment of December 12, 2019 \u2013 C-435\/18, <em>\u2013 Otis et al.\/Land Ober\u00f6sterreich<\/em>). Ultimately, popular lawsuits should be ruled out by the characteristic of \u2013 personal \u2013 cartel concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Die Kartellbefangenheit ist nach der Klarstellung des BGH in Schienenkartell II eine Frage der Kausalit\u00e4t und damit eine Frage des Schadens. Hier gab es nach dem Urteil im Schienenkartell I geh\u00f6rige Verwirrung. Der BGH stellt nun im Urteil Schienenkartell II klar, dass es keine Frage der Haftungsbegr\u00fcndung ist, ob sich die Kartellabsprache auf den in Rede stehenden Beschaffungsvorgang, auf den der Anspruchsteller sein Begehren auf kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz st\u00fctzt, tats\u00e4chlich ausgewirkt hat und das Gesch\u00e4ft damit in diesem Sinn &#8222;kartellbefangen&#8220; war. Erweist sich, dass dem Anspruchsteller ein der Kartellabsprache zurechenbarer Schaden entstanden ist, steht zugleich fest, dass sich die verbotene Absprache nachteilig auf das Gesch\u00e4ft, insbesondere auf den gezahlten Preis, ausgewirkt hat. Dies ist insbesondere dann der Fall, wenn der Tatrichter zu der \u00dcberzeugung gelangt, dass die kartellrechtswidrige Vereinbarung in einer \u00dcberh\u00f6hung des Preisniveaus resultiert, die den gesamten Markt betrifft. Kann der Tatrichter eine marktbezogene Preiserh\u00f6hung nicht feststellen, muss er die Indizien w\u00fcrdigen, die einen \u00fcberh\u00f6hten Preis im konkreten Fall, also f\u00fcr alle betroffenen und vorgetragenen Beschaffungsvorg\u00e4nge, begr\u00fcnden. Diese Gesichtspunkte sind im Rahmen der Schadensfeststellung Gegenstand der haftungsausf\u00fcllenden Kausalit\u00e4t. Der BGH stellt auch ausdr\u00fccklich klar: Soweit dem Urteil Schienenkartell I des Senats vom 11. Dezember 2018 () etwas anderes zu entnehmen sein sollte, wird daran nicht festgehalten. Dies hat f\u00fcr den Kl\u00e4ger den Vorteil, dass der Erstrichter sich bei der Beweiserhebung mit der \u00fcberwiegenden Wahrscheinlichkeit begn\u00fcgen kann und keine volle \u00dcberzeugung erlangen muss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The plaintiff&#039;s problem of proof and prima facie evidence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">burden of proof on the plaintiff<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In practice, antitrust damages require the claimant to prove all the facts necessary for his claim, viz<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Affected by the cartel \u2013 this is about the plaintiff\u2019s entitlement to claim <\/li><li>antitrust bias \u2013 this is about the question of whether a specific transaction by the plaintiff concerned a product that was affected by the antitrust behavior<\/li><li>Anti-trust behavior - here the plaintiff can usually refer to the investigation and the decision of the anti-trust authorities<\/li><li>The causally caused damage and the causal connection between the antitrust violation and the damage.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiff must therefore prove that he has suffered damage of a certain amount which can be traced back to this violation of antitrust law, the so-called &quot;fulfillment of liability&quot;. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">principles of proof<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The law regulates when a fact is actually proven. Compensation under antitrust law requires compliance with these legal principles in exactly the same way. A fact is proved when the judge is satisfied that a fact is correct as alleged. However, there are different degrees of this judicial conviction: While the judge must be completely convinced when establishing liability that the necessary claim requirements such as violation of antitrust law and cartel impact have been met, it is sufficient for the fulfillment of liability, i.e. the occurrence of damage, of the asserted Amount of damage and the causality that the judge considers these to be predominantly probable. The so-called prima facie evidence helps here. The prima facie evidence is a facilitation of proof: If the person with the burden of proof succeeds in proving a certain course of events that is typical, i.e. often occurs in general, and this course of events typically causes a certain success, the occurrence of this success is also assumed for the person with the burden of proof, without the person with the burden of proof being able to prove the success must be specifically proven. For a cartel, this would mean: If the anti-trust agreements generally have a price-increasing effect, there would be an empirical finding that the specifically disputed procurements made on the market affected by the cartel were also affected by this effect. The plaintiff would therefore have to prove a general price-increasing effect and at the same time would have provided evidence for the products he purchased.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Antitrust damages: The end of prima facie evidence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The jurisprudence also allowed the prima facie evidence for two questions: On the one hand, there should be an appearance and thus the proof should be provided that a certain procurement process, i.e. the purchase of products from one of the cartelists, which was in the &quot; Sphere of action&quot; of a cartel took place, was also biased by this cartel agreement. On the other hand, there should be an indication that a cartel is increasing prices, i.e. that the plaintiff bought at inflated prices and suffered damage as a result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the BGH did not agree with this assumption of prima facie evidence as far as quota and customer protection cartels were concerned. The Federal Court of Justice ruled in its judgment of 11.12.2018 Rail Cartel I, Az.: KZR 26\/17 - &quot;Rail Cartel&quot; that in the case of a quota and customer protection cartel, the requirements for prima facie evidence are not met either with regard to the occurrence of damage or with regard to the cartel bias of individual orders are. Whether the BGH still wanted to allow and use the prima facie evidence for price cartels, however, cannot be inferred from the judgment in the First Rail Cartel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In its judgment on the rail cartel II, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed its task of prima facie evidence from the judgment on the rail cartel I and justified it more clearly. According to the BGH, prima facie evidence does not work in the case of quota or customer protection cartels because there is no typical and uniform course of events in quota or customer protection cartels that always leads to the same result. There are too many different forms of and behavior within quota and customer protection cartels to be able to speak of a typical, i.e. always the same, course of events. Cartels differ in particular in the number of participants, the duration and stability of the cartel, the cartel discipline of the participants, the structure of the affected market, the degree of market coverage by the cartel or alternative market options. The longer a cartel has existed, the more these factors can change, so that there is no typicality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For quota and customer protection cartels, it has now been decided that prima facie evidence is of no help. However, for other forms of cartels, such as price cartels, prima facie evidence is not expressly excluded. Plaintiffs can therefore continue to work and argue with prima facie evidence; however, they will probably no longer be successful with quota or customer protection cartels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The new role of circumstantial evidence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the Federal Court of Justice explains in its judgment on the rail cartel II how the proof of the occurrence or causality of the damage and the amount of the damage is to be provided without recourse to prima facie evidence. The plaintiff has to work with circumstantial evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The finding that the price that a company involved in a cartel agreement agrees with a customer is higher than it would be without the cartel agreement, or in general the price level that occurs on a market affected by a cartel agreement is higher than that price level lies, which would have arisen without the agreement, can regularly only be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Because only the actually agreed prices and the actual price level on the affected market can be observed and thus directly ascertained. By contrast, prices and price levels under unmanipulated market conditions are necessarily hypothetical. The judge of fact must therefore come to conclusions about the hypothetical market price, using those circumstances that indicate how market events would probably have developed without the cartel agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For the conviction of the judge of fact as to whether the prices or the price level are higher than the hypothetical one, an overwhelming probability based on a secure basis is sufficient that damage has occurred. The judge must take into account all the evidence presented by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in turn, must ensure that he cites enough evidence in his lawsuit that justifies the overriding probability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Der Tatrichter muss bei der Gesamtw\u00fcrdigung der Indizien und der Beurteilung einer solche \u00fcberwiegende Wahrscheinlichkeit aufgrund der vorgetragenen Indizien auch Erfahrungss\u00e4tze mit einbeziehen. Der BGH hebt in seinem Urteil Schienenkartell II ausdr\u00fccklich hervor, dass der Tatrichter insbesondere zu beachten hat, dass zugunsten des Abnehmers eines an einer Kartellabsprache beteiligten Unternehmens eine auf der hohen Wahrscheinlichkeit eines solchen Geschehens beruhende tats\u00e4chliche Vermutung &#8211; im Sinne eines Erfahrungs-satzes, nicht als Anscheinsbeweis &#8211; daf\u00fcr streitet, dass die im Rahmen des Kartells erzielten Preise im Schnitt \u00fcber denjenigen liegen, die sich ohne die wettbewerbsbeschr\u00e4nkende Absprache gebildet h\u00e4tten und damit die Vermutung anstellen, dass die im Rahmen des Kartells erzielten Preise im Schnitt \u00fcber denjenigen liegen, die sich ohne wettbewerbsbeschr\u00e4nkende Absprache gebildet h\u00e4tte. Diese Erfahrungss\u00e4tze hat der BGH insbesondere in seinem Urteil \u201eGrauzement II\u201c vom 12.06.2018, Az.: KZR 56\/16, aufgestellt. Diese Vermutung gewinnt an Gewicht, je l\u00e4nger und nachhaltiger ein Kartell praktiziert wurde und je h\u00f6her daher die Wahrscheinlichkeit ist, dass es Auswirkungen auf das Preisniveau gehabt hat, das sich infolge der Ausschaltung oder zumindest starken D\u00e4mpfung des Wettbewerbs eingestellt hat (BGH, WuW\/E DE-R 1567, 1569 &#8211; Berliner Transportbeton I, BGH, NZKart 2019, 101 Rn. 55 &#8211; Schienenkartell). Diesen anerkannten Erfahrungssatz hat der Bundesgerichtshof in seinem Urteil Schienenkartell I vom 11. Dezember 2018 best\u00e4tigt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The difference to prima facie evidence lies in the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The plaintiff must present indications of increased prices or an increased price level. It is not enough to simply present a quota or customer protection cartel. Although this is additionally necessary, it is not sufficient according to the judgment of the Rail Cartel II. The defendant will also present evidence that the prices were not increased. In particular, the plaintiff must provide evidence of the hypothetical cartel-free price and price effects.<\/li><li>For the judge, based on an overall assessment of all indications that speak for and against an increased price level, there must be an overwhelming probability that damage has occurred.<\/li><li>In addition, the judge of fact has to deduce for each individual case and take into account in this overall assessment whether there is experience that the prices are excessive. These empirical statements must be taken into account in addition to the indications in the overall assessment. In this respect, the BGH repeats the following two statements of experience: 1. This presumption becomes all the clearer the longer and more sustainably a cartel has been practiced and 2. the higher the probability that it has had an impact on the price level that has changed as a result of the elimination or at least severe dampening of competition.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>However, these empirical statements do not apply in the abstract, but antitrust damages require their relevance in the specific damages process and the facts presented in its context. The weight of the empirical sentence thus depends decisively on the specific structure of the cartel and its practice, as well as on which other circumstances can be identified that speak for or against a price effect of the cartel agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Antitrust damages \u2013 This is important now<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Since the Rail Cartel II judgment, three things have to be observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>1. The decision model basic judgment and double prima facie evidence is no longer open to the courts. Fundamental judgments are likely to be issued much less frequently in the future, if they are still permissible at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>2. M\u00f6chte eine\nPartei <a href=\"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/antitrust-claims-for-compensation-statute-of-limitations\/\">kartellrechtlichen Schadensersatz<\/a> wegen eines Quoten- oder\nKundenschutzkartells geltend machen, ist sie unbedingt gehalten, alle ihre so\ngenannten Beschaffungsvorg\u00e4nge, also Vertr\u00e4ge, mit denen sie Produkte zu\nkartellm\u00e4\u00dfig \u00fcberh\u00f6hten Preisen erworben zu haben glaubt, einzeln vorzutragen.\nZudem muss sie s\u00e4mtliche Indizien darlegen, die f\u00fcr eine \u00fcberwiegende\nWahrscheinlichkeit eines kartellbedingten Schadens sprechen. Die klagende\nPartei kann sich also nicht darauf zur\u00fcckziehen, aus dem Bu\u00dfgeldbescheid zu\nzitieren und dann einen Schaden ohne einzelne Darlegung der einzelnen Vorg\u00e4nge\nbehaupten.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>3. These principles are relevant for all cases that took place before the introduction of Section 33a GWB. Section 33a GWB now contains an actual presumption of damage and the cartel-related price increase. The cartel bias, on the other hand, still has to be demonstrated by means of circumstantial evidence in accordance with the requirements of the Rail Cartel II judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>You are welcome to quote or link the article<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Autor: Dr. Christian Andrelang, LL.M. Rechtsanwalt Fachanwalt f\u00fcr Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht Fachanwalt f\u00fcr Handels- und Gesellschaftsrecht Kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz &#8211; Der Bundesgerichtshof hat sich bereits mehrfach mit Fragen zum kartellrechtlichen Schadensersatz auseinandergesetzt, insbesondere in den Entscheidungen ORWI (BGH, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2011 \u2013 Az: KZR 75\/10), Lottoblock II (BGH, Urteil vom 12.07.2016, Az.: KZR 25\/14), Grauzementkartell [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[83,16,17,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1368","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antitrust","category-kartellrecht","category-kartellrechtliche-schadensersatzklage","category-schadensersatz"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Schienenkartell II: BGH-Urteil zu Kartellschaden &amp; Beweislast | andrelang law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"BGH-Urteil Schienenkartell II: Warum der Anscheinsbeweis bei Quoten- und Kundenschutzkartellen entf\u00e4llt und worauf es bei Kausalit\u00e4t und Schadensnachweis stattdessen ankommt \u2013 erkl\u00e4rt vom Fachanwalt f\u00fcr Kartellrecht.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/rail-cartel-ii-antitrust-damages\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Schienenkartell II: BGH-Urteil zu Kartellschaden &amp; Beweislast | andrelang law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"BGH-Urteil Schienenkartell II: Warum der Anscheinsbeweis bei Quoten- und Kundenschutzkartellen entf\u00e4llt und worauf es bei Kausalit\u00e4t und Schadensnachweis stattdessen ankommt \u2013 erkl\u00e4rt vom Fachanwalt f\u00fcr Kartellrecht.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/rail-cartel-ii-antitrust-damages\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Andrelang Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-07-31T16:07:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-26T07:20:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d455a6285abe5aff392767ca53af4122\"},\"headline\":\"Kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz &#8211; Schienenkartell II\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-07-31T16:07:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-26T07:20:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2161,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Antitrust\",\"Kartellrecht\",\"Kartellrechtliche Schadensersatzklage\",\"Schadensersatz\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\\\/\",\"name\":\"Schienenkartell II: BGH-Urteil zu Kartellschaden & Beweislast | andrelang law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-07-31T16:07:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-26T07:20:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"BGH-Urteil Schienenkartell II: Warum der Anscheinsbeweis bei Quoten- und Kundenschutzkartellen entf\u00e4llt und worauf es bei Kausalit\u00e4t und Schadensnachweis stattdessen ankommt \u2013 erkl\u00e4rt vom Fachanwalt f\u00fcr Kartellrecht.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Startseite\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz &#8211; Schienenkartell II\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/\",\"name\":\"Andrelang Law\",\"description\":\"Gesellschaftsrecht M\u00fcnchen\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Andrelang Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/andrelang-law_logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/andrelang-law_logo.png\",\"width\":1096,\"height\":201,\"caption\":\"Andrelang Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d455a6285abe5aff392767ca53af4122\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.eu\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/andrelang-law.de\\\/en\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Schienenkartell II: BGH-Urteil zu Kartellschaden & Beweislast | andrelang law","description":"BGH-Urteil Schienenkartell II: Warum der Anscheinsbeweis bei Quoten- und Kundenschutzkartellen entf\u00e4llt und worauf es bei Kausalit\u00e4t und Schadensnachweis stattdessen ankommt \u2013 erkl\u00e4rt vom Fachanwalt f\u00fcr Kartellrecht.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/rail-cartel-ii-antitrust-damages\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Schienenkartell II: BGH-Urteil zu Kartellschaden & Beweislast | andrelang law","og_description":"BGH-Urteil Schienenkartell II: Warum der Anscheinsbeweis bei Quoten- und Kundenschutzkartellen entf\u00e4llt und worauf es bei Kausalit\u00e4t und Schadensnachweis stattdessen ankommt \u2013 erkl\u00e4rt vom Fachanwalt f\u00fcr Kartellrecht.","og_url":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/rail-cartel-ii-antitrust-damages\/","og_site_name":"Andrelang Law","article_published_time":"2020-07-31T16:07:37+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-26T07:20:00+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Estimated reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/#\/schema\/person\/d455a6285abe5aff392767ca53af4122"},"headline":"Kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz &#8211; Schienenkartell II","datePublished":"2020-07-31T16:07:37+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-26T07:20:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\/"},"wordCount":2161,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Antitrust","Kartellrecht","Kartellrechtliche Schadensersatzklage","Schadensersatz"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\/","url":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\/","name":"Schienenkartell II: BGH-Urteil zu Kartellschaden & Beweislast | andrelang law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-07-31T16:07:37+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-26T07:20:00+00:00","description":"BGH-Urteil Schienenkartell II: Warum der Anscheinsbeweis bei Quoten- und Kundenschutzkartellen entf\u00e4llt und worauf es bei Kausalit\u00e4t und Schadensnachweis stattdessen ankommt \u2013 erkl\u00e4rt vom Fachanwalt f\u00fcr Kartellrecht.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/schienenkartell-ii-kartellrechtlicher-schadensersatz\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Startseite","item":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kartellrechtlicher Schadensersatz &#8211; Schienenkartell II"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/","name":"Andrelang Law","description":"Corporate Law Munich","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/#organization","name":"Andrelang Law","url":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/andrelang-law_logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/andrelang-law_logo.png","width":1096,"height":201,"caption":"Andrelang Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/#\/schema\/person\/d455a6285abe5aff392767ca53af4122","name":"admin","sameAs":["http:\/\/andrelang-law.eu"],"url":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1368","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1368"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1368\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3895,"href":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1368\/revisions\/3895"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/andrelang-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}