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

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

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