Short Reads

Commercial Court of Ghent grants compensation to parallel importers for competition law infringement by Honda

Commercial Court of Ghent grants compensation to parallel importers for competition law infringement by Honda

01.05.2017 EU law

On 23 March 2017, the Commercial Court of Ghent ruled that the damages claim brought by parallel importers in the Honda motorcycle abuse of dominance case were not time-barred. In March 1999, following a complaint filed by a number of parallel importers, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) imposed a fine of approximately EUR 750,000 on Honda Motor Europe Logistics for abusing its dominant position on the Belgian market for the issuance of conformity certificates for Honda motorcycles.

The Court of Appeal confirmed this decision in 2009, and it became final in 2011 after it was upheld by the Court of Cassation, the highest appellate court in Belgium.

In 2006, the parallel importers brought a civil action before the Commercial Court of Ghent, seeking damages for the harm suffered as a result of Honda's competition law infringement. Honda argued that the claim was time-barred because more than 5 years had passed between the decision of the BCA and the civil claim. The Commercial Court asked a preliminary question to the Belgian Constitutional Court regarding when the limitation period starts to run for competition law damages claims. The Constitutional Court ruled on 10 March 2016 that actions for antitrust damages cannot be time-barred before the final decision on the infringement is rendered [see our April 2016 Newsletter].

As a result, the Commercial Court of Ghent held that the claimants' civil damages claim was not time-barred because the appeal against the BCA decision was still pending when the damages claim was brought. According to the Court, as the facts stem from events more than 25 years ago, the exact quantification of the damage was almost impossible to calculate and had to be assessed ex aequo et bono. Therefore, each of the claimants (i.e. each of the parallel importers) was awarded EUR 20,000 in damages plus interest from 1997.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of May 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice allows use of evidence received from national tax authorities
  2. Court of Justice clarifies parental liability rules in the context of prescription
  3. European Commission publishes report on effectiveness of enforcement in online hotel booking sector
  4. Dusseldorf Court confirms that Asics' online sales restrictions violate competition law
  5. Hague Court of Appeal rules on interpretation of object infringements

Team

Related news

16.02.2018 EU law
Who is a consumer? The dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation

Short Reads - On 25 January 2018, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") rendered a preliminary ruling in a case between Austrian citizen Maximilian Schrems and online social network Facebook. The ruling is important for two reasons. First, the ECJ approved a dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation. Secondly, the ECJ clarified that the special consumer forum can only be invoked by the specific consumer who is party to the contractual relationship with the professional trader.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Participation d’entreprises liées aux marchés publics: qui assume la responsabilité ?

Articles - L’avocat général Campos Sanchez-Bordona a récemment déposé des conclusions intéressante dans le cadre de l’affaire nr. C-531/A6 dont la Cour de justice a été saisie. Selon l’avocat général, des soumissionnaires qui sont liés mais qui présentent chacun une offre séparée pour un marché public déterminé n’ont pas à informer le pouvoir adjudicateur des liens existant entre eux. Il ressort en outre des conclusions que le pouvoir adjudicateur n’est pas légalement tenu de vérifier de manière active la participation d’entreprises liées à un marché public.

Read more

13.02.2018 BE law
Du nouveau en matière de « plans et programmes » !

Articles - Dans ses conclusions du 25 janvier 2018 établies dans le cadre de deux demandes de décision préjudicielle formées par le Conseil d’Etat de Belgique, l’avocat général J. KOKOTT a considéré que le périmètre de remembrement urbain en Wallonie et le règlement régional d’urbanisme en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale sont des « plans et programmes ».

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': marginal review by Belgian Court

Short Reads - On 13 December 2017, the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a judgment clarifying the qualification 'in scope' and 'out of scope' of documents seized by the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) during dawn raids at the applicants' (Distripaints NV and Novelta NV) premises. The dawn raids were launched after a complaint by SA Durieu Coatings, which accused both distributors of colluding with its competitor Akzo Nobel.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

Short Reads - On 19 January 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) published its judgment concerning an appeal brought by shoe manufacturer ASICS against a fining decision. The FCJ ruled that ASICS had infringed competition law by prohibiting its retailers from participating in price comparison websites. The judgment confirms the strict approach of German courts relating to vertical online sales restrictions.  

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy