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

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

Read more

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring