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

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

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 – en cookieverklaring