On 15 April 2026, the Amsterdam District Court has ruled that the European Trucks cartel caused a price overcharge of 7%. In an interim judgment handed down in proceedings brought by Retail Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) and concerning roughly 60,000 trucks, the Court endorsed the methodology and econometric analysis of CDC’s experts, Maarten Pieter Schinkel and Leo Huberts (University of Amsterdam), as well as the quality of the underlying data submitted by CDC. The Court also found that the run-off period lasted until 30 May 2013.
Dutch original (html), English convenience translation (pdf), (html).
Background
CDC’s action, filed in July 2017, pertains to about 60,000 trucks sourced by over 700 affected companies, that sold and transferred their damage claims to CDC (“assignors”). In substantiating the claim, CDC had submitted almost 200,000 documents. The 15 April 2026 judgment concerns the first action brought by CDC against DAF, MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, and Iveco for damages resulting from their participation in the European Trucks cartel. In addition, in June 2020, CDC filed a second action for damages relating to over 30,000 trucks purchased or leased by close to 400 companies.
The CDC actions are based on the decision of the European Commission of 19 July 2016 (Case AT.39824 – Trucks) which found the truck manufacturers had coordinated the pricing for medium and heavy trucks and the timing for the introduction of emission reduction technologies as well as the passing on of the costs for such technologies to customers. The Commission imposed record fines of several billion euros for the infringement which covered the entire EEA and lasted 14 years. The trucks cartel has spawned damages claims across the EU to a hitherto unparalleled extent.
The judgment addresses key aspects of the quantification of the damage but does not constitute a final ruling yet. At this stage, the Court determined that the cartel resulted in a price overcharge of 7% on trucks and that the effects of the infringement continued during a run-off period lasting until 30 May 2013. With respect to the so-called passing-on defence raised by the defendants, the court held that further examination is necessary and that the debate on this issue will continue in the next phase of the proceedings.
Findings on overcharge and duration
In earlier interim judgments, the Court had already answered affirmatively the question of whether the Trucks cartel infringement could cause harm to the assignors. This assessment was reaffirmed in the present judgment, characterising the theory of harm presented by CDC’s experts conclusive and convincing. At the same time, it rejected the approach taken by the defendants’ experts, in particular their modelling of brand and country combinations in isolation.
The court concluded that the cartel resulted in an increase in truck prices and sets the resulting overcharge at 7% of the purchase price. This conclusion is based primarily on the econometric regression analysis submitted by CDC’s experts, which compares actual transaction prices with a counterfactual scenario in which the cartel is assumed not to have existed. The court accepts this analysis as a reliable basis for its assessment, considering both the underlying dataset and the methodology to be sufficiently robust and representative.
The court also addresses the evidentiary value of the data relied upon by the defendants, expressing particular reservations about their internally constructed cost series. In doing so, it refers to case law from the English Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Borgarting Court of Appeal in Norway, highlighting concerns relating to potential endogeneity and a lack of transparency.
The court furthermore ruled on the duration of the cartel’s effects. While the European Commission identified 18 January 2011 as the formal end date of the infringement, the court held that its impact on prices continued beyond that date. It established a “run-off” period lasting until 30 May 2013, during which cartel effects were considered to persist.
Volume and Value of Commerce
The judgment provides guidance on determining both the volume and value of commerce relevant for damage calculations.
Regarding volume, the court set out principles for identifying which truck transactions qualify for compensation. It accepted that, in the absence of invoices, alternative documentation such as vehicle registrations or official database records may be used to substantiate transactions. This approach aligns with broader developments in European case law on evidentiary standards in cartel damages actions, including the clarification provided by the Spanish Supreme Court in its judgment STS 71/2026, where accounting and indirect documentation were recognised as valid means of proof under certain conditions, even in the absence of original invoices.
On value, the court ruled that the purchase prices and leasing instalments paid by CDC’s assignors, as captured by CDC, are the appropriate basis for the calculation of damages, rather than prices paid by dealers. It also accepted CDC’s methodology for estimating missing pricing data in cases where exact information was no longer available.
Emissions-related claims
CDC had also argued that the delayed introduction of emissions-reducing technologies led to higher operating costs, including increased fuel consumption and toll expenses. The court did not accept this claim, finding that the alleged damages had not been sufficiently substantiated.
Limitation period
The court rejected arguments from the defendants that the claims were time-barred under Dutch law. It held that the limitation period did not begin until 7 April 2017, when a summary of the European Commission’s decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. As the proceedings were initiated within five years of that date, the claims were deemed timely.
The court also dismissed arguments based on the 20-year objective limitation period, concluding that it only commences to run once the infringement has ceased.
Passing-on defence
The court addressed the so-called passing-on defence, under which defendants argue that any overcharge was passed on by purchasers to their own customers and should therefore reduce recoverable damages.
At this stage, the court did not reach a final determination on this issue. It confirmed that the burden of proof lies with the defendants but indicated that further examination is required. The parties have been invited to continue the debate on this point in subsequent submissions.
Next steps in the proceedings
The court emphasized that its ruling is interim and that a final judgment will not be issued until the Court of Justice of the European Union provides guidance on questions referred by the Dutch Supreme Court regarding the applicable law.
In the meantime, the parties have been invited to submit further submissions on the quantification of damages. These concern:
- the final determination of the value and volume of commerce, reflecting the decisions by the court; and
- the treatment of the passing-on defence.
By Ben Harry Bornemann and Amelia Mora
