Short Reads

EFTA Court offers guidance for assessing national limitation periods for follow-on damages claims

EFTA Court offers guidance for assessing national limitation periods

EFTA Court offers guidance for assessing national limitation periods for follow-on damages claims

01.10.2018 EU law

On 17 September 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA Court) ruled that national limitation periods should not make damages claims impossible or excessively difficult.

The judgment was delivered in the context of a Norwegian damages claim following an infringement decision issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) for a breach of articles 53 and 54 EEA (equivalents of articles 101 and 102 TFEU). Under Norwegian law at the time, competition law damages claims were time-barred three years after the date when the injured party obtained or should have procured necessary knowledge about the damage and responsible party. In these proceedings, the defendant argued that the damages claim was time-barred, in light of the fact that the claimant itself had filed the initial complaint with the competent competition authority seven years before. The national court referred several questions to the EFTA Court, asking, among other things, whether a limitation period of three years for bringing follow-on damages claims combined with a duty of investigation that could result in the term expiring before an infringement decision is taken by the competent authority, is compatible with the principle of effective application of EEA law.

First, the EFTA Court held that national limitation periods should not make it impossible or excessively difficult to bring follow-on damages claims for infringements of EEA competition rules. It then found that a period of three years combined with a duty of investigation on the part of the injured party does not, in principle, render the exercise of procedural rights impossible or excessively difficult, even if the term may expire before the ESA has reached a decision. The EFTA Court concluded that it is up to the national court to make the actual assessment. In that regard, the national court must consider: (i) the special characteristics of competition cases (e.g. large and complex cases), (ii) the aim of effective enforcement, (iii) the degree of information and evidence available to an injured party (including the potentially privileged position of parties submitting complaints to competition authorities) and (iv) the possibilities for suspension or interruption of the term under the relevant national law.

This judgment will help to guide national courts in the assessment of national limitation periods in cases where the Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU), including its provisions concerning limitation periods, is not applicable, for instance in EEA countries (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein), or in cases that are outside the temporal scope of the Damages Directive.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of October 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court
2. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision
3. UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Related news

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

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

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more