European Competition Law provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, impact of intellectual property rights, procedure, merger control, State aid.

European Competition Law

Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 sets the limitation period for the imposition of penalties at five years, reduced to three years in the case of infringement of provisions concerning requests for information or the conduct of inspections. The existence of a regulation which settles in detail the periods during which the Commission is entitled, without infringing the fundamental requirement of le …

Five-year limitation period

Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 sets the limitation period for the imposition of penalties at five years, reduced to three years in the case of infringement of provisions concerning requests for information or the conduct of inspections. The existence of a regulation which settles in detail the periods during which the Commission is entitled, without infringing the fundamental requirement of legal certainty, to impose fines on undertakings excludes all possibilities for undertakings to put forward claims related to the obligation of the EU authority to exercise its power within a reasonable period . No penalty may be imposed on an undertaking for which it cannot be established that it participated in facts that occurred less than five years before the investigation started .

Time begins to run on the day on which the infringement is committed or, in the case of continuing or repeated infringements, on the day on which the infringement ceases. Any action taken by the Commission or by the competition authority of a Member State for the purpose of the investigation or proceedings in respect of an infringement  shall interrupt the limitation period insofar as the action has been notified to at least one undertaking or association of undertakings having participated in the infringement . Such is the case where there has been: a request for information, inspections , the initiation of proceedings, or a Statement of Objections  or a decision to grant partial immunity to a leniency applicant . The interruption also applies for all the undertakings that participated in the infringement , including those which are not identified as such in the statement . The inspection decision of the Commission carries the same effect of suspending the limitation period in respect of all the undertakings having participated in the infringement, even if some of them have not been notified thereof. Each interruption shall start time running afresh . Finally, under Article 25(6), the limitation period for the imposition of fines or periodic penalty payments is suspended for as long as the Commission's decision is the subject of proceedings pending before the Court of Justice . This suspension, based solely on the objective circumstance that an action is pending before the General Court or the Court of Justice, applies irrespective of the conclusions reached by these courts in their decision terminating the proceedings . However, the inter partes - and not erga omnes - effect of the suspension attached to judicial proceedings by Article 25(6) of Regulation No 1/2003, prevents the addressees of a final decision not having brought an action for annulment from benefitting from the suspensive effect derived from the action brought by another addressee of the same decision . The limitation period shall expire at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period has elapsed without the Commission having imposed a fine or a periodic penalty payment. Lastly, the limitation period is suspended as long as proceedings are pending before the Court of Justice .

The enforcement of Commission decisions imposing a fine, penalty or periodic penalty payment is also subject to a limitation period of five years which begins to run on the day on which the decision becomes final (Regulation No 1/2003, Article 26) . It may be interrupted either by notification of a decision varying the original amount or refusing an application for variation, or by an action designed to enforce payment. 

Lastly, pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, “ [i]f the Commission has a legitimate interest in doing so, it may also find that an infringement has been committed in the past”. That provision enables the Commission to establish the existence of a time-barred infringement without imposing a fine, where such a measure allows it to reinforce its finding that a  single infringement, which is not time-barred, has been committed .

Article 25 of Regulation No1/2003 applies only to the Commission : it cannot be used to declare that a national authority is time-barred from imposing sanctions for infringements of EU competition law.  However, the judicial interpretation of national legislation, according to which the decision to initiate an investigation by the national competition authority is the final action of that authority which is capable of interrupting the limitation period relating to its power to impose sanctions, is contrary to EU law since, on account of the need to carry out complex factual and economic analyses in competition cases, it presents a systemic risk that acts constituting anticompetitive agreements or abuses of a dominant position may go unpunished .

Lastly, an undertaking cannot claim that Article 25 is unlawful simply because the proceedings concerning it have been going on for more than twenty years, insofar as this does not mean that the Commission's power to impose sanctions is de facto if it not subject to limitation, and if they can always argue before the court that the reasonable time-limit has been exceeded .

Case T-276/04 Compagnie maritime belge v Commission [2008] ECR II-1277.

Case T-68/06 Stempher and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher v Commission [2011] ECR p. II-399*, Summ.pub., not available in English.

For an application, see Case T-58-01 Solvay SA, Judgment of 17 December 2009, LawLex201000001217JBJ.

Case T-561/21 HSBC Holdings plc v. Commission, Judgment of 27 November 2024, LawLex202500000075JBJ.

Case C-201/09 P Arcelor Mittal Luxembourg SA [2011] ECR p. I-2239, LawLex201100000876JBJ.  

Case T-58/01 Solvay v Commission [2009] ECR p. II-4781, LawLex201000001217JBJ.

Case T-153/04 Ferriere Nord v Commission [2006] ECR II-3889, LawLex200700001482JBJ, even if the undertaking benefited from a bank guarantee provided by the penalized undertaking in relation to an action seeking annulment before the expiration of that period. However, the limitation period of the Commission's power to impose penalties does not result in the power to find infringement being time-barred, See Case T-22/02 ACAV and others v Council [2000] ECR II-341, LawLex200500010186JBJ.

Case C-625/13 P Villeroy & Boch AG, Judgment of 26 January 2017, LawLex201700000215JBJ.

Case C-308/19 Whiteland Import Export SRL, Judgment of 21 January 2021, LawLex202100001982JBJ.

Case C-31/23 P Ferriere Nord SpA, Judgment of 4 October 2024, LawLex202500006699JBJ.

Case C-251/22 P Scania AB, Judgment of 1 February 2024, LawLex202400000783JBJ.

See in particular Case T-305/94 LVM v Commission [1999] ECR II-931, LawLex200400003601JBJ.

Case T-276/04 Compagnie maritime belge v Commission [2008] ECR II-1277: written requests for information suspend the limitation period where they are necessary for the purpose of the investigation of the infringement or the proceedings; Joined cases T-389/10 and T-419/10 Siderurgica Latina Martin, Ori Martin SA, Judgments of 15 July 2015, LawLex202000002133JBJ.

Regulation No 1-2003 of 16 December 2002, Article 25 (4) and for an example, Case T-213/00 CMA CGM and others v Commission [2003] ECR II-913, LawLex200400003543JBJ.

Case T-250/12 Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción, Judgmenti of 6 October 2015, LawLex201500001203JBJ.

Case C-586/16 P Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Judgment of 25 March 2021, LawLex202100001872JBJ.

Case T-276/04 Compagnie maritime belge v Commission [2008] ECR II-1277, LawLex201000000100JBJ; Case  T-372/10 25 Bolloré, Judgment of of 27 June 2012, LawLex201400000107JBJ.

Case T-445/07 Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG, Judgment of 27 June 2012, not available in English.

European Competition Law

274. Five-year limitation period

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

274. Five-year limitation period

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise