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

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

20.09.2022 EU law
Launch of Metaverse blog series

Articles - Stibbe launches a new blog series focusing on the legal challenges of the Metaverse. In our upcoming blog posts, we will discuss the legal challenges of NFTs, crypto-assets, Metaverse platforms, crypto exchanges, DAO, and many more.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more