The Supreme Court Judgment STS 5861/2025 of 18 December 2025 represents a significant development in damages litigation arising from the trucks cartel in Spain as it confirms for the first time the judicial estimation of a second instance court awarding an overcharge of more than 10%. The Supreme Court has fully dismissed the appeals brought by Renault Trucks S.A.S., reinforcing the power of judicial estimation and confirming the overall trend towards an effective and adequate compensation of anticompetitive harm by way of judicial estimation, based on the facts of the infringement as established in the decision by the European Commission and in line with principles of European Union law.
The ruling was issued in the context of an extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement and a cassation appeal against Judgment SAP C 2975/2022 by the second instance Provincial Court of A Coruña of 4 November 2022. The proceedings before the Supreme Court opposed Renault Trucks S.A.S., as appellant, and Aluminios Cortizo S.A.U., as respondent.
The origin of the dispute: Aluminios Cortizo’s damage action against Renault Trucks
The case originated with the damage action by Aluminios Cortizo S.A.U. against Renault Trucks S.A.S. before the first instance Commercial Court No. 1 of A Coruña. The court partially upheld the claim and ordered Renault to pay damages equivalent to 5% of the purchase price of each of the 12 trucks concerned, together with statutory interest accruing from the date of acquisition.
Appeal proceedings: recognising a 16.35% overcharge, applying a 1/3 reduction
Both parties appealed the first-instance judgment. The Provincial Court of A Coruña dismissed Renault’s appeal, ordering it to pay the costs, and partially upheld Aluminios Cortizo’s appeal.
The Provincial Court found the claimant’s expert evidence (the so called Caballer report) to be more persuasive than the reports submitted by Renault Trucks which argued for zero damage. The court therefore concluded that the average overcharge on net prices amounted to 16.35%. Taking into account the uncertainties identified in the report itself, the court reduced the resulting figures by one third.
Supreme Court endorsement of methodology and outcome
The Supreme Court does not revise or abandon its established case law awarding a 5% compensation rate as a reference point in trucks cartel litigation. Based on the specific arguments raised by Renault in the cassation, which were targeting the judicial estimation as such without contesting the assessment of the appellate court of the Caballer report, the Supreme Court reiterates the power of courts to estimate the damage. It also confirmed that the 5% overcharge percentage is not an automatic or immutable standard, but a starting point that may be adjusted by the competent courts in light of the evidentiary record of each individual case.
The Supreme Court therefore fully endorsed the judicial estimation by the Provincial Court, in particular the reasoning of the Provincial Court and the amount of compensation awarded, rejecting all grounds of appeal raised by Renault. As set out above, Renault did not challenge the assessment of the economic report by the Provincial Court so that the outcome was driven by the – possibly flawed – cassation strategy.
Of particular relevance beyond the specific case is the Supreme Court’s express confirmation that judges may rely on rebuttable judicial presumptions (iuris tantum) under Article 386 of the Spanish Civil Procedure Act where objective circumstances justify doing so. This applies in particular to pre-Directive cases such as the trucks cartel. In this regard, the Supreme Court emphasised:
- the exceptional long duration of the cartel (14 years);
- its extensive geographical scope, covering the entire European Economic Area;
- a market share approaching 90%; and
- which involved discussions and agreements regarding the fixing and increase of gross prices.
Against this backdrop, the Court held that it is both economically rational and legally reasonable to presume the existence of an overcharge harming purchasers.
Presumable, not automatic, harm
The judgment draws an important distinction: the doctrine of ex re ipsa does not apply automatically. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court makes clear that the existence of harm may be presumed in light of the trucks cartel’s characteristics (see above), subject to proof to the contrary.
In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the reasoning of the Provincial Court according to which Renault’s expert report failed to rebut that presumption, as it was based on flawed assumptions and underestimated the scope of the collusive conduct described in the European Commission’s Decision.
The Court also expressly confirms that courts may rely on economic expert evidence to quantify harm and, where precise quantification is not possible, adjust the figures through reasoned judicial discretion.
Statutory interest from the date of purchase, also in cases of leasing
Another point of practical importance is the confirmation that statutory interest must accrue from the date the truck was purchased, even where the acquisition was made through leasing arrangements.
The Court reasoned that the harm materialises when the purchaser pays an inflated price as a result of the cartel. Any delay in the dies a quo would lead to undercompensation, contrary to the EU law principle of full compensation.
A turning point in damages quantification?
The relevance of the present judgement therefore lies not in a doctrinal shift on the 5% standard overcharge in cases of a judicial estimation in the trucks case. The fact that the Supreme Court confirmed the judicial estimation of the second instance court exceeding 10% may be the result of the specific cassation arguments (not) raised by Renault. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court confirms for the first time in the trucks cartel litigation that judicial estimations with a higher levels of compensation are compatible with its case law, where in view of the competent judges this is justified by robust expert evidence and the facts established by the competition authorities.
More broadly, the decision strengthens the power of judges to estimate damages and thus the principle of effectiveness of EU law and the objective of full compensation. The message from the Supreme Court is clear: large-scale, long-lasting cartels like the trucks cartel are unlikely to be considered harmless, and Spanish courts have the power to estimate damages that in their view accurately reflect the real economic harm caused. In this respect they can in particular rely on the specific aspects of the collusion, the conditions of the relevant market. This is fully in line with the approach taken by courts across the EU, for example the recent judgment by the Higher Regional Court Stuttgart.
By Amelia Mora and Till Schreiber
