Short Reads

General Court awards damages for failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time

General Court awards damages for failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time

General Court awards damages for failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time

01.02.2017 NL law

On 10 January 2017, the General Court ("ruled on the non-contractual liability of EU institutions in an action for damages brought by Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH ("Gascogne Sack") and Gascogne. The GC ordered the EU to compensate Gascogne Sack and Gascogne for the damage that they had suffered as a result of the GC's failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time.

The European Commission had fined Gascogne Sack and Gascogne in November 2005 for a cartel on the industrial bags market. The companies subsequently appealed to the GC, which delivered its judgment in November 2011, i.e. after a period of almost 5 years and 9 months. In their appeal before the Court of Justice, Gascogne Sack and Gascogne sought, among other things, to have the judgment of the GC set aside or a reduction of the fine imposed due to the excessive length of the GC's procedure. The Court dismissed their appeal and ruled that the sanction for a failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time "must be an action for damages brought before the General Court, since such an action constitutes an effective remedy" [see our December 2013 Newsletter]. Following this ruling, Gascogne Sack and Gascogne started the current action for damages against the EU at the GC. 

In the judgment, the GC first of all assessed whether there had been a failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time and whether this qualifies as a sufficiently serious breach of EU law. It noted that in the GC proceedings, approximately 3 years and 10 months had passed between the end of the written stage of the proceedings and the opening of the oral stage. After considering the factual, legal and procedural complexity of the proceedings, the GC ruled that the reasonable time for adjudication had been exceeded by 20 months. According to the GC, this constitutes a sufficiently serious violation of EU law.

The GC subsequently examined whether Gascogne Sack and Gascogne had suffered damage as a result of this violation. Instead of paying the fine immediately, Gascogne had provided a bank guarantee to the Commission. The GC ruled that Gascogne suffered material damage resulting from having to pay the costs for the bank guarantee during the period in which the reasonable time for adjudication had been exceeded. Furthermore, the GC held that the companies were placed in a prolonged state of uncertainty because of the excessive length of the procedure. Since this necessarily had an influence on the planning of the decisions to be taken and on the management of the companies, Gascogne Sack and Gascogne had also suffered immaterial damages. The GC ruled that the EU was liable for both the material and immaterial damage and ordered the EU to pay damages to Gascogne Sack and Gascogne, which amounted to approximately EUR 57,000 in total. 

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

1. Court of Justice confirms Commission's approach in its first hybrid settlement case
2. Court of Justice clarifies rules on evidence in bathroom fittings cartel judgments
3. Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Toshiba and Panasonic in the cathode ray tubes cartel
4. District Court of Rotterdam confirms that investment firms may be held liable for conduct of portfolio companies

Team

Related news

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

20.09.2022 EU law
Launch of Metaverse blog series

Articles - Stibbe launches a new blog series focusing on the legal challenges of the Metaverse. In our upcoming blog posts, we will discuss the legal challenges of NFTs, crypto-assets, Metaverse platforms, crypto exchanges, DAO, and many more.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more