Short Reads

Tick-tock: no reset of the appeal clock for amending Commission decision

Tick-tock: no reset of the appeal clock for amending commission decis

Tick-tock: no reset of the appeal clock for amending Commission decision

04.04.2019 NL law

The European Court of Justice recently upheld the General Court's order finding that metal production and recycling company Eco-Bat had submitted its appeal outside of the appeal term. Eco-Bat had relied on the term starting from the date of the European Commission's decision correcting figures for the fine calculation in the initial infringement decision.

The Court of Justice ruled, however, that such an amending decision does not reset the appeal period if the company could have understood the grounds and content from reading the initial decision. If uncertain, companies should therefore take the safer route and calculate the appeal term from the date of the first Commission decision.

On 10 February 2017, the Commission notified Eco-Bat of their infringement decision in the car battery recycling cartel. Almost two months later, an amended decision was issued. This amendment corrected the omission of Eco-Bat's value of purchases, which was used when determining the basic amount of the fine in the initial decision. Eco-Bat appealed the decision within the required two-month term, calculated from the notification of the amending decision.

The General Court found that the value of purchases, as used by the Commission to calculate Eco-Bat's fine, could have been understood by Eco-Bat from reading the initial decision. The clock had therefore started ticking upon notification of the first infringement decision, not upon notification of the amending decision. Eco-Bat's action was therefore dismissed for having been brought out of time.

The Court of Justice, in rejecting Eco-Bat's appeal, took as a starting point the General Court's finding that the correcting element could have been ascertained by Eco-Bat by reading the initial decision. The two-month term starts to run from the time the addressee becomes acquainted with the content and grounds of the decision. Even if the amending decision corrects more than a purely formal omission, the decision does not affect the appeal period if the undertaking could have understood its grounds and content.

This judgment clarifies that the category of re-issued Commission decisions that do not restart the clock for submitting an appeal with the General Court includes more than purely formal changes. Adding figures that could have been understood by the addressee is such a change. If uncertain, companies should take the safe route and calculate the appeal term from the date of the first Commission decision.

 

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

Team

Related news

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring