perspectives.jpg

Signed and sealed: Spanish Supreme Court delivers landmark judgment in Envelopes cartel damages proceedings

On 5 June 2025, the Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) issued its long-awaited judgment in the Envelopes cartel case, marking a key development in private competition law enforcement in Spain. The ruling confirms the joint liability of several companies for the surcharge incurred in the purchase of envelopes during a three-decade-long cartel, resulting in a substantial compensation for the claimant, the political party Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE). 

This ruling clarifies essential aspects of antitrust damages claims, particularly regarding the evidentiary weight of competition authority infringement decisions, the interpretation of limitation periods, and the estimation of damages. It adds to Spain's growing reputation as an increasingly important jurisdiction for competition damages claims. 

Background

In March 2013, the Spanish Competition Authority Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC), predecessor of the current Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC), fined several Spanish envelope manufacturers for their involvement in a price-fixing and market-sharing cartel that operated from 1977, the year of the first democratic elections in the country following the end of the Francoist dictatorship, until 2010. The companies involved were found to have coordinated prices, divided public tenders – especially those for ballot envelopes in Spanish elections – and synchronised their production. The CNC imposed fines exceeding 44 million euros. 

In June 2019, after the CNC resolution became final and following several unsuccessful appeals, the PSOE filed a follow-on damages claim before the Commercial Court of Barcelona (Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº3 de Barcelona) against four of the sanctioned companies, all part of the Spanish Tompla Group. The PSOE sought approximately 8 million euros in compensation for the overcharges incurred when purchasing electoral envelopes from cartel members over a period of 33 years. 

In March 2021, the Commercial Court ruled in favour of the PSOE and ordered the defendants to compensate the party for the damages suffered as a result of the prices paid during those years. The ruling acknowledged the anticompetitive conduct and awarded compensation based on a 20% overcharge. 

The judgement was appealed before the High Court of Barcelona (Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona), which in February 2022 upheld the lower court’s decision. The defendants then brought a further appeal to the Spanish Supreme Court.   

The judgement

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions and reaffirmed several key principles applicable to follow-on antitrust claims: 

  • The Court held that the limitation period for a follow-on damages claims against cartel participants is generally considered to begin when the competition authority's decision becomes final – after all administrative remedies and judicial appeals have been exhausted – as that is when all elements necessary to bring a damages action can be deemed judicially established. The Supreme Court clarified, however, that a final decision is not required to initiate follow-on damages actions. 
  • The Court confirmed the presumption of harm in cartel cases. Based on the findings of the CNC’s decision, the Supreme Court established both the existence of a cartel and a presumption of damages resulting from the cartel’s anticompetitive practices, even where the underlying decision did not quantify the anticompetitive effects. The Court held, in line with the presumption of harm set out in the Damages Directive, that the natural effect of an infringement by object is to distort competition. Accordingly, it found that the cartel directly impacted the prices of envelopes used in electoral processes, in which administrations governed by the PSOE were contracting parties. 
  • The Court also approved the use of reasonable judicial presumptions and estimations to calculate overcharge in cases where data is lacking and expert evidence is deemed insufficient. In particular, the Court upheld the approach taken by both the first-instance court and the appellate court, which, having found the expert report submitted by the claimant to be inadequate, made their own estimation of the overcharge by applying a uniform percentage across the entire duration of the cartel. 
  • However, the court remitted the assessment of damages to the enforcement phase, which typically occurs when the court considers that the quantum requires more detailed calculation or further evidence. During this subsequent procedure, both parties will be allowed to submit documentation and expert reports to support their positions. This highlights the need for a more robust and honest debate on quantum at an earlier stage in order to avoid unnecessary delays, showing solid foundations for calculation and anticipating different potential results. 
  • The Court endorsed the use of compound interest as the appropriate method to fully compensate victims in competition damages claims – that is, interest calculated on both the original loss and the accumulated interest from the time the offence was committed until the claim was filed. Citing both European and national case law, the Court held that full compensation must reflect the time value of money as well as the actual loss suffered by the claimant. This approach mirrors the guidance in the EU Damages Directive and the CNMC Guide for the quantification of damages. The judicial recognition of the use of compound interest could have a significant impact on the award of damages, particularly in older cases. It may also increase settlement pressure on defendants, particularly given the recent MASC reform, which requires claimants to attempt alternative dispute resolution before formally filing a complaint. 

Comment

The Supreme Court’s judgement in the Envelopes case marks a significant step forward for antitrust damages claims in Spain by establishing clear criteria. These enable claimants to overcome procedural obstacles to private enforcement, limit the ability of offenders to evade liability through specious procedural arguments, and increase incentives to settle by imposing greater costs on delay, notably through the use of compound interest. In doing so, the Court reveals a clear pathway to enhanced consumer protection through the private enforcement of competition law. 

This article is also available in Spanish. 

With thanks to Paralegal Inés Berizzo for her assistance with this piece.