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

03.10.2019 NL law
It's in the details: HSBC fine quashed for insufficient reasoning

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the EUR 33.6 million fine imposed on banking group HSBC for its participation in the euro interest rates derivatives cartel. Full annulment was granted based on the Commission's failure to provide sufficiently detailed reasoning for the first step of the fine calculation, establishing the value of sales. As the value of sales could not be established in a straightforward way, the Commission used a proxy. When doing so, the Commission needs to properly explain its reasoning to allow the companies fined to understand how it arrived at the proxy. 

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
The postman will no longer ring twice: Minister unblocks postal merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently blocked postal operator PostNL's acquisition of its only national competitor, Sandd, because this would create "a monopolist on the postal delivery market". However, the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy has overruled the ACM's decision on grounds of public interest. Invoking industrial policy or public interest reasons for merger clearance seems to be catching on.

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
The ACM has to pay: moral damages awarded to real estate traders

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) needs to cough up a total of EUR 120,000 in moral damages to three real estate traders. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal (CBb) agreed with the real estate traders that the annulment of the ACM's cartel decisions against them was insufficient compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of the length of the procedure and the press coverage of their cases.

Read more

02.10.2019 NL law
Politie aansprakelijk voor schietpartij Alphen aan den Rijn

Short Reads - De politie is aansprakelijk voor de schietpartij in een winkelcentrum Alphen aan den Rijn in 2011. Dat oordeelt de Hoge Raad in zijn arrest van 20 september 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1409). Bij deze schietpartij vonden zes mensen de dood en raakten zestien mensen gewond. De dader doodde ook zichzelf. Nabestaanden van dodelijke slachtoffers, slachtoffers die gewond raakten en winkeliers spreken de politie aan tot schadevergoeding. Zij voeren aan dat de politie de vergunning voor de wapens die de man gebruikte, niet had mogen verlenen.

Read more

03.10.2019 NL law
Margrethe Vestager to play matchmaker between enforcement and regulation

Short Reads - Current Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager may face even greater challenges in the next European Commission. President-elect Ursula von der Leyen has not only nominated Vestager for a second term as Commissioner for Competition, but has also asked her to coordinate the European Commission's digital agenda. As a result, Vestager may soon be tackling digital issues through competition enforcement whilst also proposing additional regulation to deal with these (and related) issues pre-emptively.

Read more

02.10.2019 NL law
Dutch national police service liable for unlawful granting of firearms permit

Short Reads - In a recent decision (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1409), the Supreme Court has decided that the Dutch national police force is liable for damage suffered by victims of a shooting which took place in a shopping centre in 2011; an event that shocked the Netherlands. The Supreme Court held that the police had unlawfully granted a permit for the firearms used in the shooting.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring