What You Need to Know
- Key takeaway #1In all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, the claimant is entitled to interest from the date the harm occurred, even if the harm occurred prior to the entry into force of the EU Damages Directive and its transposition into national law.
- Key takeaway #2National courts cannot limit interest in competition damages claims to run only from the date a claim was filed or formally notified to the defendant. Any national rule that produces that result undermines the full effectiveness of EU competition law and must be set aside.
- Key takeaway #3In price-fixing cartel cases, interest runs from the date on which the injured party’s funds became unavailable as a result of paying inflated prices. Where harm occurs in separate parts (e.g., multiple purchases), the starting point must be assessed individually for each part.
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Background
On 19 July 2016, the European Commission found that truck manufacturers MAN, Daimler (now Mercedes-Benz Group), Fiat Chrysler/Iveco, Volvo/Renault, and DAF had participated in a cartel involving collusive agreements on pricing and on the timing and passing on of costs for emission technologies in the EEA from 17 January 1997 to 18 January 2011.
Wenzel Logistics GmbH, an Austrian transport company, purchased trucks from distributors of several cartel participants during the cartel period. On 13 January 2021, it brought an action for damages against Mercedez-Benz before the Austrian Regional Court in Graz.
1. Interest runs from the Date the Harm Occurred for All Actions Brought After 26 December 2014
Wenzel Logistics claimed that interest was payable from the date on which the harm occurred, under the Austrian provision transposing Article 3(2) of the Damages Directive — which provides that full compensation must comprise actual loss, loss of profit, and the payment of interest from the date harm occurred. Mercedes-Benz disagreed, arguing that the relevant Austrian rules did not apply because the harm predated their entry into force, and interest should run only from the date on which the action was formally notified to the defendant.
The CJEU held that Article 3(2) of the Damages Directive did not introduce a new rule regarding interest, but rather codified existing case law under Article 101 TFEU. Therefore, national provisions implementing Article 3(2) applied with immediate effect to all actions for damages falling within the scope of the Directive, (i.e., those actions brought after 26 December 2014, this being the date that the Directive came into force). The fact that the harm predated the provisions’ entry into force was not relevant. As Wenzel Logistics brought its action on 13 January 2021, the Court confirmed that the Austrian law implementing Article 3(2) of the Directive did indeed apply, and that the interest should be calculated from the date on which the harm occurred. According to the CJEU, limiting the applicability of Austrian law to harm occurring only after 26 December 2016 would be to undermine the full effectiveness of Article 101 TFEU.
The Court emphasized the rationale underlying the obligation to pay interest: full compensation for harm caused by a competition law infringement cannot, without rendering it ineffective, disregard the passage of time. This is particularly significant in competition cases, which require complex factual and economic analysis. In the trucks cartel, for example, the Commission’s decision was not adopted until 2016, even though the infringement began in 1997. The rules on interest exist to mitigate the fact that a long period typically lapses between the harm occurring and a damages claim emerging.
2. Determining the Date the Harm Occurred: Payment of the Inflated Cartel Price as the Starting Point
The CJEU acknowledged that the Damages Directive does not provide specific criteria for determining when harm occurs. Member States retain discretion in this regard. That discretion is, however, constrained by the obligation to adopt criteria that allow identification of the circumstance that primarily marks the time when the injured party began to suffer harm.
Where multiple circumstances, each equally relevant, contribute to the occurrence of harm, the earliest circumstance must be considered to be the starting point for the purposes of calculating interest. Where harm consists of separate parts — for example, multiple purchases made at different points in time — the assessment must be made separately for each part.
In the case at hand, where harm resulted from the purchase of trucks at prices inflated by the cartel, the Court found that the point at which the funds became unavailable as a result of paying those prices could constitute the time when the harm occurred. Each purchase should be treated separately for the purpose of calculating interest.
Conclusion
The Wenzel Logistics judgment has direct and immediate practical importance. Firstly, it eliminates a line of defense used in several Member States to attempt to deny interest for harm that predates national transposition of the Damages Directive. Second, it provides the clearest guidance to date on when interest starts to run in price-fixing cases, anchoring it to the date of payment rather than to any later procedural event.
This judgment significantly strengthens the case for substantial interest awards — particularly where purchases were made years before any Commission decision, and where an even longer time has elapsed before the damages action itself was filed. The financial implications in long-running cartel cases could be considerable.
For further information, please contact:
Marieke Van Nieuwenborgh, Partner, Crowell & Moring
mvannieuwenborgh@crowell.com
