Newsletter-21

128 NEWSLETTER 2016 EU Law Above, it is explained that the passing-on defense, which is re- jected under American law, was accepted under EU legislation. Ac- cordingly, although not accepted in the USA in line with the Illinois Brick 14 decision, the Directive acknowledges the right of the indirect purchasers to claim damages, namely, the indirect purchaser rule. In ac- cordance with Art. 14 of the Directive, it shall be ensured that whether, or to what degree, an overcharge was passed on to the claimant, taking into account the commercial practice under which the price increases are passed on through the supply chain. Different from the passing-on defense, the burden of proof rests with the claimant. Pursuant to the second paragraph of the same provision, the claimant shall prove: (a) the defendant has committed an infringement of competition law; (b) the infringement of competition law has resulted in an over- charge for the direct purchaser of the defendant; and (c) the indirect purchaser has purchased the goods or services that were the object of the infringement of competition law, or has purchased goods or services derived from or contain- ing them. However, this provision shall not apply where the defendant can demonstrate credibly to the satisfaction of the court that the overcharge was not, or was not entirely, passed on to the indirect purchaser. In such a case, the indirect purchasers cannot claim damages. Turkish Law There are different views in Turkish doctrine with regard to the standing of indirect purchasers. The one that accepts the indirect pur- chaser rule argues that the Competition Act does not exclusively list the ones which may claim for damages, and that this is in line with different reasoning. Accordingly, since the damages suffered by indirect purchas- ers are directly linked to the damages of direct purchasers, these are not consid- ered to be consequential damages, p. 175. 14 Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 US 720 (1977).