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:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Team

Related news

07.10.2021 NL law
Commission’s record fine for gun jumping upheld

Short Reads - Pre-closing covenants protecting the target’s value or commercial integrity pending merger clearance from the European Commission must be drafted carefully. The General Court confirmed the Commission’s record-breaking fines on Altice for violating the EU Merger Regulation’s notification and standstill obligations. According to the General Court, the mere possibility of exercising decisive influence over the target can result in a gun jumping breach.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
ACM walks the walk: first-ever vertical price coordination fine

Short Reads - The Dutch Competition Authority (“ACM”) has claimed a first victim in its vertical restraints battle. Samsung Electronics was fined nearly EUR 40 million for having meddled in the online resale prices for televisions at seven retailers. Compared to the European Commission’s fines on four consumer electronics producers for resale price maintenance (“RPM”), the ACM’s summary decision seems to refer to a ‘light’ version of RPM: systematic price coordination without any threats, sanctions or incentives for the retailers to stick to the price.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
Commission reveals first piece of antitrust sustainability puzzle

Short Reads - The European Commission has published a Policy Brief setting out its preliminary views on how to fit the European Green Deal’s sustainability goals into the EU competition rules. Companies keen to be green may be left in limbo by a looming clash with more far-reaching proposals from national competition authorities. More pieces of the antitrust sustainability puzzle will fall into place as soon as the ongoing review of the guidelines on horizontal cooperation is finalised.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
Court of Appeal provides guidance for further course of proceedings in prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 27 July 2021, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued an interim judgment in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation, ruling on three issues: (i) the obligation of claimant to furnish facts; (ii) the assignment of claims; and (iii) the liability of the parent companies. In short, the Court of Appeal allowed the claimant Deutsche Bahn another opportunity to supplement the facts needed to substantiate its claims in the next phase of the proceedings.

Read more

24.09.2021 EU law
Digital Law Up(to)date: (1) the download of a software with a permanent licence can constitute a “sale of goods”; (2) alert of the BEUC regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp and its new term of use

Articles - In this blog, we briefly present two interesting news in the field of digital law: (1) a judgment of the CJEU considering that the download of a software with a permanent licence can constitute a “sale of goods”, and (2) an alert of the BEUC regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp and its new terms of use.

Read more