EU Court clarifies limitation in private competition enforcement
On 4 September 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘CJEU’) ruled that the limitation period applicable to a private enforcement action following on from a decision of the Spanish competition authority (the ‘CNMC’) did not begin to run until the judicial review process had completed. Indeed, the limitation period cannot run prior to national competition authority (‘NCA’) decisions becoming final and binding on the courts before which follow-on claims are brought.
Background
On 15 September 2015, the CNMC published a decision finding that several car manufacturers, including Nissan Iberia, had breached of Article 101 of the TFEU and Spanish counterpart, Article 1 of the Law 15/2007. The decision was challenged by the addressees but upheld by the Spanish Supreme Court in 2021.
In March 2023, an action for damages was brought by CP, an individual, against Nissan Iberia, seeking damages to compensate loss caused by the cartel. The defendant argued that the statute of limitations had expired as time had started to run on the date of publication of the CNMC decision in 2015. The national court referred questions to the CJEU. It was held by the CJEU that the statute of limitations had not yet expired as it only started running on the date that the CNMC decision became final, which in this case was the date of the publication of the Spanish Supreme Court judgment.
The CJEU’s reasoning: an application of the principle of effectiveness
Central to the CJEU’s reasoning was the EU principle of effectiveness. That principle requires that the right to claim compensation for the harm caused by infringements of competition law cannot be rendered “practically impossible or excessively difficult”. The European case law provides that this would be the case where a limitation period could begin to run before an infringement came to an end and where the injured party did not know, or could not reasonably have been expected to know, the relevant information necessary to bringing a claim.
The CJEU held that such key information would not be available to a claimant if the validity of a decision is still pending determination before national courts. The CJEU found that, where an NCA decision is still in the process of being challenged and its findings are not binding on a national court before which damages are sought, the statute of limitations cannot begin to run. Accordingly, the CJEU held that the statute of limitations only began to run on the date of official publication of the Spanish Supreme Court judgment confirming the CNMC decision, specifying that official publication requires the judgment to be freely accessible to the general public, with the date of publication clearly indicated.
Distinction from European Commission decisions
The CJEU carefully distinguished NCA decisions from European Commission decisions. In respect of European Commission decisions, the CJEU had previously held that the limitation period for private enforcement actions usually starts to run from the date of publication of the summary decision in the Official Journal of the EU (C-605/21, Heureka Group). The CJEU explained that the distinction is justified on the basis that Commission decisions are binding on national courts once published on the Official Journal. Accordingly, ongoing judicial review of Commission decisions would not prevent victims from relying on them to bring follow-on claims. As Advocate General Medina explained in her opinion to the CJEU, it is the legal effect of a decision - its bindingness - that should determine when the starting gun is fired.
A claimant-friendly outcome
The decision is a welcome development as it provides a clear answer to a specific question of law, but also in that it secures victims’ rights to bring a claim with the benefits of the legal presumptions attached to a competition authority’s finding of infringement. Where needed, claimants may wait for a decision to be confirmed and clarified by the national courts without risking the expiry of the statute of limitation.
One important caveat is that the CJEU’s reasoning in the present case may be limited to the application of EU rules to the specific Spanish legal framework. Under that framework, CNMC decisions under judicial challenge are not binding on national courts until they are affirmed on final appeal. It is not clear that the same conclusion would be reached in jurisdictions where NCA decisions are automatically binding on national courts, unless overturned on appeal. Following the CJEU’s reasoning, it could be argued that in such cases the limitation period would, like EC decisions, start to run from the date of publication of the NCA decision.
In practice, however, the CJEU has shown itself willing to draw a clear distinction between European Commission decisions and NCA decisions. In Heureka, the CJEU accordingly held that while the former are automatically binding on national courts, the latter only have probative value where they have become final.