(AGENPARL) - Roma, 16 Febbraio 2023

(AGENPARL) – gio 16 febbraio 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Case C-312/21:
Actions for damages in respect of infringements of competition law: the relevant EU law does not preclude a national rule according to which, in the event that the claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each party, who therefore bears half of the common costs
The information asymmetry between the parties is not taken into account in the assessment of the possibility for a national court to estimate the harm caused by such an infringement
Kind regards,
Anna Rizzardi
Trainee
Press & Information Unit
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 29
/23

Luxembourg,
16

February

2023

Judgment of the Court in Case
C
–
312
/21 | Tráficos Manuel Ferrer

Action
s for damages in respect of infringements of competition law: the
relevant EU law does not preclude

a national rule according to w
hich, i
n
the event that the claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each
party
, who

therefore
bears half of the common costs

for a nation
al court to estimate the harm caused by such an infringement

Infringements of

the

of the Member States or

of the European Union may cause harm both to

undertakings and individuals. Directive 2014/104/EU contains certain rules governing act
ions for damages under
national law
concerning

those infringements.

1

According to that directive, any natural or legal person who has
suffered harm caused by an infringemen

able to claim and to obtain full compensation
for that

harm.

has
suffered harm and the party
which

has

On
19

July

2016, the Commission adopted a decisio
n by which it found that 15 truck manufacturers, including
Daimler AG, Renault Trucks SAS and Iveco SpA, had participated in a cartel on pricing
of

trucks in the European
Economic Area (EEA).

Two Spanish undertakings
, one of which
had
purchased a Mercedes
truck, manufactured by Daimler, the other

one
of which had purchased 11
trucks
(5 manufactured by Daimler, 4 by Renault Trucks and 2

by Iveco)
brought before
the Commercial Court
No

3

of Valencia (Spain), on
11

October

2019, an action for da
mages against D
aimler.
They
claim to have suffered harm consisting in an overcharge for the
vehicles

purchased
owing to

the companyâ??s
infringement
and

produced an expert

the amount of that

overcharge. Daimler, for its
part,
produced its own
e
xpert report.
Those undertaking
s
submitted a technical report on the results obtai
ned after
they were granted authorisation to consult the data taken into consideration in the expert report submitted by
Daimler,
on the suggestion of the latter.

Having doub
ts as to the compatibility of national procedura
l law with EU law, the Spanish Court
referred
questions
to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

By todayâ??s judgment, the Court considers that, as far as concerns actions for
damages

covered by Dir
ec
tive
2014/104,
EU law does not

preclude a rule of national civil procedure
under which, in the event that
the

claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each party,
who each bear half of the common costs,

except
in cases of
wrongful

conduct
.
Accordi
ng to the Court, that rule does not render practically impossible or excessively

1

Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of
26

November

2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under
national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member

States and of the European Union (
OJ 2014 L

349
,
p.

1
).

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected
!

(principle of effectiveness).

Unlike the Unfair Contract
Terms Directive,

2

on a unequal
a weak party
(the consumer) and a strong party (
the â??professionalâ??, who

sold or rented goods or supplied services
)
,
Directive
2014/104 covers actions which concern the non
–
contractu
al liability of an undertaking and involve a
balance of
, as a result of the effect of the national measures transposing
that directive
,
may

have been corrected
.

The intervention of the EU legislature therefore gave the
part
y wh
o

has
suffered
harm, who

was initially at a disadvantage, means intended to correct in
his or her

favour the balance of
himself or herself

and the
party which

.

The evolution of that
balance of power depends o
n the conduct of each of those parties,
of the tools made available
to the party who has suffered harm
.

Consequently,
if the party
who
has
suffered harm

is unsuccessful in part, it is reasonable for him or her

to
bear his or her own costs, or at least part of them, as well as part of the common costs
, provided that the
origin of those costs is to be attributable to him or her, f
or example due to the fact that he or she made
excessive
claims or due to the manner

in which he or she conducted the litigation.

As regards
the possibility for a national court to undertake an estimation of the harm

pursuant to Directive
2014/104, the Court observes that
that estimation
is

based on the
premise
, first, that the existence
of that
harm has been established and, second, that it is practically impossible or excessively difficult

to quantify it
with precision.

This implies, inter alia, that
steps such as the request to disclose evidence laid down in
the

directive

were unsuccess
ful
.

here
since, even where the
parties are on an equal footing as regards the

available

information, difficulties may arise during the specific
quantification of the harm
.

T
he fact that the
part
y which

has
has
made available

to the
party who
has
suffered harm
the
data

on which
it

relied in order to refute the expert report

of the latter
is in itself
not

relevant

for the

the national courts to
estimate the harm. The fact that
the
request was merely addressed to one of the addressees

of a decision finding the infringement at issue is, in
principle, not relevant either for those purposes.

NOTE:

A reference for a preliminary

ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of J
ustice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Courtâ??s decision, which is similarly binding on
other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.

Uno
fficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text

of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques Re
né Zammit
â??

(+352) 4
303

335
5

2

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5

April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L

95, p.

29).