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

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