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

05.04.2022 NL law
Game on for gatekeepers: Digital Markets Act finalised

Short Reads - Now that political agreement has been reached on the final text, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) will enter into force soon. The DMA’s ex ante rules and obligations will apply next to the ad hoc EU and national competition rules. Time for big digital companies to take stock of the potential implications of these additional rules on their day-to-day business operations. See our infographic for a concise overview of the DMA.

Read more

04.04.2022 EU law
ACM jumps on gun-jumping bandwagon

Short Reads - Companies involved in multi-step acquisitions should beware of potential gun-jumping risks. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has fined a trade association for failing to notify the acquisition of four pharmacies involving a consecutive partial resale. Unlike the European Commission’s gun-jumping fine for partial implementation of a concentration through a ‘warehousing’ two-step acquisition (see our July 2019 newsletter; appeal pending), the ACM’s fine relates to faulty turnover calculations due to an unmaterialized two-step transaction.

Read more

04.04.2022 EU law
The ECN+ Directive implemented in Belgium and introduction of merger filing fees

Short Reads - On 7 March 2022, the Act implementing the ECN+ Directive into Belgian law was published in the Belgian Official Gazette. The Act entered into force on 17 March 2022. Some of the key amendments include (i) the introduction of filing fees for the notification of a concentration, (ii) new fines and penalty payments (including clarifications on the leniency programme), (iii) new dawn raid powers and (iv) the introduction of a regulatory framework for mutual assistance and cooperation within the European Competition Network.

Read more