The German cement cartel – a landmark decision for private damages actions

The German cement cartel has been occupying German courts of all levels for some time. From the feasibility of the assignment of claims to a third party (see here), or a reduction of fines by nearly 50% by the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf (OLG Düsseldorf; in German see here) to the recent decision of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or ‘BGH’) regarding the scope of the limitation period of cartel damage claims earlier this month (decision in German here). The latter has been hailed a ‘landmark judgment’ with an impact far beyond this particular case and therefore merits some further discussion in this blog post.

Background – the cartel

The firms involved had, in separate agreements in four different regional markets all across Germany, agreed on market allocation and quotas. In some cases, these agreements were put in place as early as the 1970s in some cases. The cartel had been detected around the year 2002, solely because of information from within the market, originating in the construction sector, which was then confirmed by nation-wide searches at cement manufacturers’ premises and confessions by the largest manufacturers involved. This lead to the German competition authority – the Federal Cartel Office (FCO) – imposing a fine of around EUR 660 million on six of the largest cement manufacturers in 2003. The fine constituted the highest fine the FCO had imposed until then and is to this day among the highest fine the authority has imposed. This holds true even after the OLG Düsseldorf reduced the fines in 2013 (see above).

The case gained further attention after the Belgian company CDC (Cartel Damage Claims) acquired private damage claims amounting to around EUR 176 million from several customers of the cement manufacturers who had been damaged by the higher prices the cartel enabled. CDC sought to enforce the damage claims in its own name before the German Courts. The general concept behind this ‘business model’ has been hailed by some as an important development in addressing practical concerns of time- or administrate burdens which may prevent private individuals to bring damages actions to recover any money they overpaid because of a cartel, despite them having the right to do so (see e.g. here). Ultimately, CDC’s action was dismissed by the OLG Düsseldorf in 2015, as it considered the assignments of claims by the damaged companies to CDC to be immoral and void in line with §138 BGB. The court found that CDC would be unable to meet a potential future litigation cost order and that, therefore, the assignment shifted the risk of the litigation costs to the defendant (for the decision in German see here). (For a more detailed discussion of the CDC proceedings in English see here from 11.261)

The recent Federal Court of Justice’s decision

The recent Federal Court decision ties in with the CDC subject matter of private damage claims and another question which to some extent arose during the CDC proceedings. The core question the BGH had to decide on was when private claims become time-barred and how long the limitation period is suspended. The particular issue regarding this question was that the relevant competition law norm (§33 V ARC 2005; corresponding norm in the current ARC amendment: §33h VI ARC 2017) had been introduced in 2005. The damage proceedings, however, had already commenced before the introduction of the norm.

33 V ARC 2005 essentially declares that damage claims do not become time-barred if infringement proceedings have been initiated. The question was, therefore, whether the scope of the norm would also apply retroactively to proceedings which started before 2005, like the ones started in 2003 by the FCO.

The BGH decided that §33 IV, V ARC 2005 do indeed apply to proceedings which started before the introduction of the norm (§ 33 IV ARC 2005 concerning the related declaratory effect of an authority’s decision about the existence of the infringement in question). Further, the court also decided that the norm applied to damages claims based on infringements which occurred before the introduction of §33 V ARC 2005, as long as these had not become time-barred by the time the provision was introduced (paras 30 et seq and 65 et seq).

Comment and outlook

The BGH’s decision has rightfully been called a ‘landmark judgement’. In the press release accompanying the decision, the BGH itself points out the relevance of this decision not only to the cement cartel, but to other ongoing proceedings as well, such as the truck-, the railway track-, or the sugar cartel. The decision is bound to give any private claimant already seeking damages certainty to the temporal scope of damages he may be able to recover. Even more importantly, the decision might encourage anyone having incurred damages from a long-running cartel to take the initiative and seek to recover those damages in court.

Further, the decision gives an important indication to the relevance the court attaches to private damages actions and contributes to legal certainty for anyone seeking or considering to seek damages because of a long-running cartel. The court stretched the wording of the norm in question in favour of anyone seeking private damages and, in doing so, sent an important signal that it is inclined to favour the enforcement of anti-cartel action and the attempts of individuals to recover damages. The court interpreted the wording of § 33 V ARC 2005 broadly to also extend to any damages incurred because of infringements before the introduction of the norm (paras 70 et seq). The court explains this broad approach with the relevance the legislator attached, in the court’s opinion, to securing the enforcement of cartel damages claims.
The effect of this particular part of the decision is welcome for two reasons: firstly, it will obviously facilitate private claimants’ recovery of the damages they did incur as well as, hopefully, motivate more private claimants to come forward and seek damages in the first place (see above). The further effect of the BGH’s broad approach to the enforcement of private action is likely to be a further increase in deterring undertakings from engaging in a cartel to begin with – the BGH is unlikely to abandon its pro-private damages actions stance in other decisions and lower courts are likely to pick up on this general position. Therefore, any cartel can expect to face more and more determined private damages actions in addition to any fines the authorities might impose.

Tags

Über

Anja Naumann

Blog Editor

Graduate Teaching Associate, Queen Mary University, London

>> Anja’s CoRe Blog posts >>

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Zusammenhängende Posts

05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:1025 LS Cable & System v Commission

Court Court of Justice Date of ruling 28 November 2019 Case name (short version) LS Cable & System v Commission Case Citation Case C-596/18 P ECLI:EU:C:2019:1025 Key words Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — Burden of proof — […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:966 Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission

Court Court of Justice Date of ruling 14 November 2019 Case name (short version) Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission Case Citation C-599/18 P ECLI:EU:C:2019:966 Key words Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Proof of the infringement — Presumption […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:675 HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 24 September 2019 Case name (short version) HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission Case Citation T-105/17 ECLI:EU:T:2019:675 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives sector — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Manipulation of the […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:519 Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 12 July 2019 Case name (short version) Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission Case Citation T-772/15 ECLI:EU:T:2019:519 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to bidding […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:515 Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 12 July 2019 Case name (short version) Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc v European Commission Case Citation T-762/15 ECLI:EU:T:2019:515 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:514 Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling  12 July 2019 Case name (short version) Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. v European Commission Case Citation  T-1/16 ECLI:EU:T:2019:514 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:498 Huhtamäki Oyj and Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co.KG v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 11 July 2019 Case name (short version) Huhtamäki Oyj and Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co.KG v European Commission Case Citation T-530/15 ECLI:EU:T:2019:498 Key words Competition — Cartels — Retail food packaging market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Evidence of […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests von Kiran Desai

2019:356 Recylex SA and Others v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 23 May 2019 Case name (short version) Recylex SA and Others v European Commission Case Citation T-222/17 ECLI:EU:T:2019:356 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for lead-acid car battery recycling — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Coordination of purchase prices — Fines — Point 26 of […]
09. Jun 2020
Features von Alice Rinaldi
Mobile apps image

Re-imagining the Abuse of Economic Dependence in a Digital World

As proven by the recent consultation on the Digital Services Act, the European Union is actively pursuing new solutions to cope with the challenges posed by digitalization. This post proposes a new approach to conducts taking place in the context of online commercial relationships, such as refusals to access platforms or datasets. Namely, it suggests that the European legislator should […]
06. Apr 2020
Features von Rita Paukste

EURIBOR Cartel: Features of Collusion and Detection of Cartel

A colleague of mine (kudos for you know who you are) once told me that in his competition law class he has a part called “how to make a good cartel?” A thought-provoking academic exercise in many aspects, indeed. When analyzing cartels in the financial sector this popped in mind to raise other questions – how participants in cartels in […]

Nutzen Sie unseren Newsletter, um sich regelmäßig über Konferenzen, Workshops, Trainings und die  neuesten Ausgaben unserer Fachzeitschriften u.a. aus den Bereichen des europäischen Wettbewerbs- und Vergaberechte, Datenschutzrechte, Abfallrecht, Umwelt- und Planungsrecht sowie Chemikalien- und Pharmarecht zu informieren.

Verpassen Sie keine Events und Publikationen. Neuigkeiten abonnieren