Short Reads

Industrial plastic-bag makers lose out on EUR 800,000 at European Court of Justice

Industrial plastic-bag makers lose out on EUR 800,000 at European Cou

Industrial plastic-bag makers lose out on EUR 800,000 at European Court of Justice

04.01.2019 NL law

Companies awaiting the outcome of appeal proceedings should carefully consider whether to pay the imposed fine by bank guarantee or direct payment. The European Court of Justice recently ruled that companies cannot blame the EU for losses incurred from having to pay extra bank guarantee costs as a result of excessively long appeal proceedings.

As companies are free to replace the payment by a bank guarantee, they are also free to terminate it once they foresee that proceedings may take longer than initially anticipated.

On 13 December 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled on three separate appeals against the General Court judgments in actions for damages brought by industrial plastic-bag makers Gascogne, Kendrion, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez (joined cases). The Court of Justice overturned the General Court decision awarding more than EUR 800,000 in compensation for material damages for the breach of the obligation to adjudicate within reasonable time, upholding only EUR 16,000 for compensation for non-material damages suffered by the companies as a result of the delay.

In 2017, the General Court awarded the companies compensation for the damage that they had suffered as a result of excessively long court proceedings on their challenges to cartel fines [see our February 2017 Newsletter for the Gascogne appeal]. The companies argued that the delay led to higher costs to fund the bank guarantees covering the cost of the unpaid fines, as well as compensation for non-material damage. The General Court ordered the EU to pay compensation to the companies for (i) the material damage resulting from having to pay the costs of the bank guarantee during the period in which the reasonable time for adjudication had been exceeded; and (ii) the non-material damage arising from the prolonged state of uncertainty in which they found themselves during the proceedings. 

The EU and the companies, with the exception of Kendrion, appealed the General Court's judgments. The Court of Justice upheld the EU's appeal finding that there was no causal link between the fault committed by the General Court and the damage suffered by the companies. Under Article 340 TFEU, the EU may incur in non-contractual liability if three cumulative conditions are met: (i) the conduct of the EU institution is unlawful, (ii) there is damage to an individual, and (iii) there is a causal link between such conduct and the damage.

The Court of Justice considered that the EU was not liable for the costs that the plastic-bag makers incurred as a result of providing and maintaining the bank guarantees in favour of the Commission, which they had chosen for the payment of fines. Nothing prevented the companies from terminating the bank guarantee at any time, especially when the companies were aware that the judgment would be delivered later than initially expected, resulting in higher costs. According to the Court of Justice, there was not a sufficiently direct causal link between the breach of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time and the losses incurred by the companies as a result of paying the bank guarantee charges during the extended period.

This judgment sends a clear message that damages claims will be carefully reviewed by EU courts and provides guidance on the circumstances under which damages can be awarded. Even if it is accepted that the EU violated its obligation to adjudicate within reasonable time, in cases where companies choose to pay by a bank guarantee, establishing a causal link between potential damages and the illegality of excessive length in EU proceedings appears to be almost impossible.

 

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of January 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