Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/9

(Case C-312/21)

(2021/C 382/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tráficos Manuel Ferrer, S.L., D. Ignacio

Defendant: Daimler AG

Questions referred

1.Are the rules laid down in Article 394(2) [of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure)], pursuant to which an injured party is to bear a portion of the costs of the proceedings based on the amount of the sums wrongly paid as a surcharge which are returned to him after his claim for damages is upheld in part, where, as a premiss for a declaration, it is assumed that there is an infringement of competition law and that that infringement has a causal link to the harm suffered, which is indeed verified, quantified and awarded as a result of the proceedings, compatible with the right to full compensation of a person harmed by anti-competitive conduct, as referred to in Article 101 TFEU and in accordance with the case-law interpreting it?

2.Does the power of the national court to estimate the amount of damages enable those damages to be quantified in the alternative and independently, on the grounds that a situation of information asymmetry or insoluble difficulties regarding quantification have been identified which must not impede the right to full compensation of the person harmed by an anti-competitive practice as referred to in Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, including where the person harmed by an infringement of competition law consisting of a cartel generating a surcharge has had access during the course of the proceedings to the data on which the defendant based his expert report for the purpose of denying the existence of damage eligible for compensation?

3.Does the power of the national court to estimate the amount of damages enable those damages to be quantified in the alternative and independently, on the grounds that a situation of information asymmetry or insoluble difficulties regarding quantification have been identified which must not impede the right to full compensation of the person harmed by an anti-competitive practice as referred to in Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, including where the person harmed by an infringement of competition law consisting of a cartel generating a surcharge brings his claim for damages against one of the addressees of the administrative decision, who is jointly and severally liable for those damages but who did not sell the product or service acquired by the injured party in question?