Short Reads

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

Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressin

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

06.02.2020 NL law

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).

On appeal, the main issue concerns the retroactive application of Article 33(5) of the German Competition Act, which came into force in July 2005. Unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeal regarded a German Supreme Court judgment of June 2018 as the leading authority on the proper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of German law.

The Court of Appeal will now proceed to review the merits of the claims and has invited the parties to submit briefs that are “no longer than 15 pages”.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal confirms that the rules of the law applicable to Deutsche Bahn’s damages claims – here: German law – determine the relevant limitation periods as well as the interruption and the suspension thereof. Under German law, a ‘long-stop’ limitation period of ten years and a ‘short-stop’ period of three years apply. On appeal, the main issue concerns the suspension of those limitation periods under Article 33(5) of the German Competition Act (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbbeschränkungen, "GWB") that came into force in July 2005. According to Deutsche Bahn, that provision triggered an automatic suspension of any running periods of limitation for the duration of the European Commission's investigation into the competition law infringement. The defendants challenged that position and argued that Article 33(5) GWB could not be applied retroactively to damages claims in relation to loss suffered prior to July 2005.

When the case was before the Limburg District Court, the retroactive application of Article 33(5) GWB was still a highly contentious issue under German law. However, the controversy was resolved when on 12 June 2018 the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) ruled that the provision applies to all competition damages claims regardless of whether they accrued before or after July 2005, provided that these claims had not yet become time-barred on the day on which Article 33(5) GWB entered into law. Unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch regarded that German Supreme Court judgment as the leading authority on the proper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of German law, “even if the judgment drew criticism in German [legal] literature, as some of the respondents have argued”. 

The Court of Appeal will now proceed to review the merits of the claims and has invited the parties to submit briefs. However, the Court stresses that the briefs should be short – “no longer than 15 pages” – and should serve to convey any additional points the parties may wish to make, not to reiterate what the parties have already stated in earlier court briefs.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of February 2020. 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

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