Short Reads

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

Limitation periods: ready while you (a)wait?

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

06.02.2020 NL law

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.

On 4 February 2020 the Amsterdam Court of Appel rendered judgment in a cartel damages action filed by claim vehicle CDC against Kemira Chemicals Oy (Kemira), a producer of sodium chlorate. The Court of Appeal disagrees with the Amsterdam District Court's judgment of 10 May 2017 on issues of statutory limitation (see our June 2016 newsletter) and considers that CDC's claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law.

The District Court established that CDC’s claims are governed by various systems of law, including Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. Applying the rules of statutory limitation existing in each of those jurisdiction, it held that CDC's damages claims were by-and-large time-barred. On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturns that decision and rules that the claims governed by Spanish, Finnish, Swedish law are not time barred. The case is referred back to the District Court, which will have to review the merits of CDC’s claims.

Central in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning is the Cogeco judgment of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) of 18 March 2019 (see our April 2019 newsletter). In that case, the ECJ considered that short national limitation periods that start to run before the claimant is able to ascertain the identity of the infringer and that cannot be suspended or interrupted during proceedings before the national competition authority, are incompatible with Article 102 TFEU and the European principle of ‘effectiveness’ (and are therefore precluded). According to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, this implies "that the injured party must be able to await the final decision of the competition authority (including an appeal) and have sufficient time thereafter to bring his claim for compensation, without being precluded by national limitation rules, considered as a whole." Indeed, the Court’s view is that under EU law claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against the infringement decision, even in relation to respondent Kemira, who had not filed an appeal against the European Commission’s infringement decision.

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal went on to apply (its interpretation of) the European principle of effectiveness to the relevant statutes of limitation under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. Under Spanish law, the Court of Appeal accepts that a limitation period of one year normally runs from the moment the claimant is aware of his loss and the liable person(s). However, with reference to the principle of effectiveness the Court holds that Spanish law must be interpreted as meaning that the one-year limitation period cannot have commenced until the General Court decided on the appeals filed by other addressees against the Commission Decision in May 2011. Under Finnish and Swedish law, the relevant (objective) statutes of limitation ran out before the General Court’s decision in May 2011. Applying (its understanding of) the rationale of Cogeco, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal considers that the Finnish and Swedish statutes of limitation must therefore be set aside.

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s decision revives CDC’s sodium chlorate case against Kemira and – more generally – represents a very far-reaching application of the European principle of effectiveness. Whether the decision will stand up to scrutiny on appeal before the Dutch Supreme Court, remains to be seen. For now, suffice it to say that the Court’s reasoning contrasts starkly with the reasoning of the UK Supreme Court in the 2014 case of Deutsche Bahn v Morgan Crucible (summary here), where it was unanimously held that administrative appeals filed by cartelists other than the defendant are irrelevant for purposes of establishing statutory limitation in relation to damages claims against the defendant. Cf. also the 2018 ruling of the EFTA Court in the case of Kystlink v. Color Line, from which it follows that a three year limitation period that is capable of running out before the competition authority has issued its final infringement decision, is not per se contrary to the European principle of effectiveness (see our October 2018 newsletter).


This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of February 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:







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