Short Reads

European Court of Justice sets aside Portuguese rules time-barring a damages action

European Court of Justice sets aside Portuguese rules time-barring a

European Court of Justice sets aside Portuguese rules time-barring a damages action

04.04.2019 NL law

The European Court of Justice recently confirmed that if the EU Damages Directive does not apply, it is up to national rules to enable claimants to effectively claim EU antitrust damages.

In this case, the Court considered that the Portuguese limitation rules (a short limitation period that may start before the victim knows who is liable and that cannot be suspended during the authority’s investigation) made it practically impossible or excessively difficult to obtain compensation, and should therefore be set aside.

The Court of Justice clarified these issues when answering preliminary questions from the Lisbon District Court on the applicability of the EU Damages Directive (the Directive), and the compatibility of the Portuguese rules on limitation with general European law principles. The Court of Justice found that the Directive was not applicable, and assessed the Portuguese rules in light of the principle of effectiveness.

In June 2013, the Portuguese Competition Authority imposed a fine on Sport TV for abusing its dominant position in the pay-TV market. In 2015, one of Sport TV's contractual partners, Cogeco, sued Sport TV, seeking compensation for the harm it had suffered as a result of Sport TV's abusive conduct. Sport TV argued that Cogeco's claim was time-barred, based on the fact that Cogeco had already made a complaint to the Authority in 2009.

Under Portuguese law, the claim of Cogeco would be time-barred, but under the rules prescribed by the Directive it would not. The Directive provides that limitation periods should be at least five years, commencing when the infringement has ceased and the claimant knows or can reasonably be expected to know of the infringement, the harm caused, and the identity of the infringer. Additionally, the period must be suspended during the investigation of a competition authority. Conversely, Portuguese civil law provides a three-year limitation period starting from the moment the claimant becomes aware of its right to compensation, even if he is unaware of the identity of the person liable and the full extent of the damage. Moreover, this limitation period is not interrupted or suspended during the proceedings of a competition authority. In light of these diverging rules on limitation, the Portuguese court sought guidance from the Court of Justice on the applicability of the Directive's rules, and on whether other rules or principles of European law were relevant to this dispute.

The Court of Justice found that the Directive was not applicable ratione temporis (meaning "in time") because Cogeco had filed the claim before transposition of the Directive into the Portuguese legal order. Therefore, the Court of Justice analysed the Portuguese laws on limitation against the European law principle of effectiveness.

In the context of competition law damage claims, this principle entails that national rules may not make it practically impossible or excessively difficult for victims to exercise the right to claim compensation. In its analysis, the Court of Justice found that the Portuguese rules on limitation indeed breached this principle: "a limitation period of three years, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, starts to run from the date on which the injured party was aware of its right to compensation, even if the infringer is not known and, secondly, may not be suspended or interrupted in the course of proceedings before the national competition authority, renders the exercise of the right to full compensation practically impossible or excessively difficult."

This ruling confirms that – in the absence of applicability of the Directive – it is for the national legal order to provide the rules for EU antitrust damages claims. These national rules must however comply with European law principles, and can – if necessary – be considered inapplicable under these principles.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more