- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-267/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial — León — Spain) — AB Volvo, DAF TRUCKS NV v RM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Directive 2014/104/EU — Articles 10, 17 and 22 — Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law — Limitation period — Rebuttable presumption of harm — Quantification of harm suffered — Belated transposition of the directive — Temporal application — Substantive and procedural provisions)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0267
62020CA0267
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
8.8.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 303/2
(Case C-267/20) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Directive 2014/104/EU - Articles 10, 17 and 22 - Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law - Limitation period - Rebuttable presumption of harm - Quantification of harm suffered - Belated transposition of the directive - Temporal application - Substantive and procedural provisions)
(2022/C 303/02)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: AB Volvo, DAF TRUCKS NV
Defendant: RM
Operative part of the judgment
Article 10 of 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 must be interpreted as constituting a substantive provision, within the meaning of Article 22(1) of that directive, and as meaning that an action for damages which, although relating to an infringement of competition law which ceased before the entry into force of that directive, was brought after the entry into force of the provisions transposing it into national law falls within its temporal scope, in so far as the time limit for transposition applicable to that action under the old rules did not expire before the time limit for transposition of the same directive.
Article 17(1) of Directive 2014/104 must be interpreted as constituting a procedural provision, within the meaning of Article 22(2) of that directive, and as meaning that an action for damages which, although relating to an infringement of competition law which ceased before the entry into force of that directive, was brought after 26 December 2014 and after the entry into force of the provisions transposing it into national law falls within its temporal scope.
Article 17(2) of Directive 2014/104 must be interpreted as constituting a substantive provision, within the meaning of Article 22(1) of that directive, and as meaning that an action for damages which, although brought after the entry into force of the provisions transposing belatedly that directive into national law, pertains to an infringement of competition law which ceased before the expiry of the time limit for transposing it does not fall within its temporal scope.
* * *
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.