No. It's too bad the link didn't go straight to the press release, because it answers that question and links to more information about seeking damages.
"Any person or firm affected by anti-competitive behaviour as described in this case may bring the matter before the courts of the Member States and seek damages. The case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation 1/2003) both confirm that in cases before national courts, a Commission decision is binding proof that the behaviour took place and was illegal. Even though the Commission has fined the companies concerned, damages may be awarded without these being reduced on account of the Commission fine."
In other words, people can sue for damages and use this ruling as proof. That europa.eu pages has a little more information and some links.
The US govmt are pursuing lots of banks (suspiciously lots of foreign ones) and applying massive fines with little hope of recourse or application of due process. And It is not clear if this money goes anywhere at all.
The amount of the fines is paid into the Community budget. The fines therefore help to finance the European Union and reduce the tax burden on individuals."
applying massive fines with little hope of recourse or application of due process
Usually when companies settle it's because the evidence against them is overwhelming, and would hurt their brand far more than the cost of the fine. If you really want to know how these things work, you can generally study the text of settlements at the websites of the relevant government agencies, because they're public documents.
IF they go into the general treasury of the relevant states, then you could say that in the long term it goes "evenly" to the taxpayers of those states.
This of course assumes some relationship between the amount of money a country has and how much it decides to tax, which I think is far from given. But in some sense $ in from fines = $ of taxes they don't "need" in the future.
> IF they go into the general treasury of the relevant states, then you could say that in the long term it goes "evenly" to the taxpayers of those states.
Obviously, you could say this, and I could certainly say I think it's a ridiculous claim.
I don't think it's too ridiculous. Sure, it's by no means the only determining factor of tax rates, but I find it hard to believe that tax rates are entirely independent of a government's bottom line. Thus, if this just goes straight to their bottom line, it will have some (small) effect on the future tax rates.
If you're just trolling due to my (potentially) incorrect use of the word "could" then carry on.
