Background: limitation period for follow-on claims

Under Dutch law, a five-year limitation period applies to competition law damages claims, whether they are based on the Antitrust Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU) (the Damages Directive) or on general tort principles. The limitation period can be interrupted by a formal notice letter, but it cannot exceed the absolute limit of 20 years from the date the damage occurred, regardless of awareness. If a competition authority initiates investigative or procedural steps, the limitation period is extended by one year beyond the duration of those proceedings.

Limitation period controversy in the Spanish car cartel case

On 23 July 2015, the Spanish Competition Authority (CNMC) found that Nissan Iberia and other car manufacturers had unlawfully exchanged commercially sensitive information, breaching Spanish and EU competition law. After all appeals were dismissed, the Spanish Supreme Court confirmed the decision on 7 June 2021. Since then, affected parties have brought follow-on damages claims, relying on the CNMC’s final decision as binding proof of the infringement.

The core issue in the “car cartel” case was whether the limitation period should run from the publication of the sanctioning decision in 2015 or from its final confirmation in 2021 – a distinction with significant implications for claimants. If the limitation period starts running only once the decision is final, this is more favourable for follow-on claims, as otherwise claimants may face difficulties if the period expires before the decision becomes binding after judicial review.

Limitation period begins once the decision of the national competition authority is final

The CJEU held that the limitation period for damages claims should begin only once a NCA’s decision becomes final, as relying on a non-final decision would make it unduly difficult to exercise the right to compensation – which would be contrary to the principle of effectiveness and Article 10 (2) of the Damages Directive. This reflects Advocate General Medina’s observation that NCA decisions are frequently annulled or modified through judicial review, leaving claimants uncertain about the existence, scope, and parties to an infringement until final confirmation.

Distinction between decisions of the European Commission and NCA’s

The CJEU’s ruling in Nissan Iberia, therefore, confirms that NCA’s decisions only become binding for follow-on damages claims once they are final. Unlike European Commission decisions, which are immediately binding under Article 16 (1) of Regulation 1/2003, NCA decisions are subject to judicial review and may be annulled or modified. This distinction, first outlined in the Heureka Group ruling, underpins the CJEU’s reasoning and reinforces the need for finality before legal reliance.

Requiring finality ensures procedural fairness and legal certainty. As the CJEU and Advocate General Medina emphasized, claimants should not be forced to act while the validity of an NCA decision is still under review. Article 9 (1) of the Damages Directive supports this approach, stating that only final decisions are irrefutable proof of infringement. This protects injured parties from premature litigation and prevents defendants from exploiting delays in judicial proceedings.

Conclusion: stop the clock and its relevance for follow-on claims

The CJEU has made clear: the clock only starts ticking once the NCA’s decision has become final.

These developments may significantly lower the procedural barriers for ‘follow-on claims’, allowing individuals or companies affected by the European Commission’s decision to bring proceedings before national courts and seek damages. A European Commission’s decision constitutes, in principle, binding proof that the behavior took place and was illegal.

We closely monitor developments around competition litigation. Please contact our team below if you would like to assess how this ruling may affect ongoing or contemplated claims.