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

According to paragraph 2 of Article 340 TFEU, in matters of non-contractual liability, the Union must, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties. The non-contractual liability of the European Union and the exercise of the right to compensation for damage su …

Compensation for damage caused by acts of European authorities   

According to paragraph 2 of Article 340 TFEU, in matters of non-contractual liability, the Union must, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties. The non-contractual liability of the European Union and the exercise of the right to compensation for damage suffered depend on the satisfaction of a number of conditions, namely unlawfulness of the conduct of which the institutions are accused, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of. 

In competition law, the implementation of that provision has experienced a resurgence of interest since the Court of Justice  laid down that the disregard by the Court of the Union of the right to be tried within a reasonable time is not sanctioned by the annulment of the judgment or a reduction of the fine, but by an action for compensation brought before a different formation of the Court than the one having ruled on the facts . By virtue of the principle of autonomy of actions, an action for damages cannot depend on the completion of an action for annulment of the decision in the main action . However,  the starting point for the five-year limitation period referred to in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice must, in the specific case of an action for damages aimed at securing compensation for damage allegedly sustained because of a failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time, be determined in the event that the time taken to adjudicate has been brought to an end by a decision, as being the date on which that decision was adopted . The action must be brought as soon as the cause of the alleged damage becomes certain, i.e. as soon as the bank guarantee is provided in respect of part of the fine and as soon as the other part of the fine is paid, or as soon as the bank guarantee costs begin to run and the loss of profit materializes .

According to the General Court, beyond a period of 15 months between the end of the written part of the procedure and the opening of the oral part - where necessary extended by a period of one month for each additional connected case - the delay is no longer regarded as reasonable  and the victim undertaking may bring a damages action. It can obtain compensation for the material loss suffered due to the bank guarantee charges it had to pay in the excess period and the immaterial loss resulting from the greater-than-usual position of uncertainty in which it was placed . On the other hand, the payment of late payment interest on the amount of the outstanding fine during the period by which the reasonable time for adjudicating is exceeded does not cause actual and certain damage to the undertaking where it has brought no evidence to show that it was greater than the advantage conferred by enjoyment of the amount due by not paying the fine immediately .

Case C-50/12 P Kendrion, Judgment of 26 November 2013, LawLex201300001662JBJ; Case C-238/12 P FLSmidth & Co. A/S, Judgment of 30 April 2014, LawLex201400000642JBJ; Case C-603/13 P Galp Energía España SA, Judgment of 21 January 2016, LawLex201600000174JBJ; Cases C-490/15 P and C-505/15 P Ori Martin SA, Judgment of 14 September 2016, not available in English; Case C-604/13 P Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG, Judgment of 26 January 2017, LawLex201700000166JBJ. 

Case T-673/15 Guardian Europe Sàrl, Jusgment of 7 June 2017, LawLex201700001134JBJ.

Case T-673/15  Guardian Europe Sàrl, cited above.

Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Judgment of 10 January 2017,  LawLex201700001278JBJ; Case T-479/14 Kendrion NV, Judgment of 1 February 2017, LawLex201700001279JBJ; Case T-40/15 Plásticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA), Judgment of 17 February 2017, LawLex201700001280JBJ; Case T-673/15 Guardian Europe Sàrl, Jusgment of 7 June 2017, LawLex201700001134JBJ.

Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Judgment of 10 January 2017,  LawLex201700001278JBJ; Case T-479/14 Kendrion NV, Judgment of 1 February 2017, LawLex201700001279JBJ; Case T-40/15 Plásticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA), Judgment of 17 February 2017, LawLex201700001280JBJ.

Case T-479/14 Kendrion NV, Judgment of 1 February 2017, LawLex201700001279JBJ; Case T-40/15 Plásticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA), Judgment of 17 February 2017, LawLex201700001280JBJ.

European Competition Law

281. Compensation for damage caused by acts of European authorities

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

281. Compensation for damage caused by acts of European authorities

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