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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more