LKW
Der Fall
On 19 July 2016, the European Commission fined five truck manufacturers — MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco, and DAF — a record €2.93 billion for cartel conduct that lasted more than 14 years (1997–2011) and covered the entire European Economic Area. The infringement involved coordinating gross list prices for medium (6–16 tonnes) and heavy (over 16 tonnes) trucks, aligning the timing of new emission technologies, and passing the cost of those technologies on to customers. The five undertakings settled with the Commission and admitted the infringement; no action for annulment was brought. On 27 September 2017, the Commission imposed a further €880 million fine on Scania for the same cartel, bringing the total to roughly €3.81 billion.
In its judgment of 1 August 2022 in case C-588/20, Daimler, the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that the cartel covered all medium and heavy trucks — rigid trucks and tractor units alike, with all standard and special equipment and factory-fitted options — excluding only trucks for military use. In line with consistent CJEU case law, any company that bought, leased, or rented trucks during the cartel period is entitled to compensation.
CDC`s role
CDC filed its first action (CDC I) before the Amsterdam District Court on 13 July 2017, bundling the claims of more than 700 companies across Europe — large corporates and SMEs alike — for around 60,000 trucks. In June 2020, CDC filed a second action (CDC II) on behalf of approximately 400 transport and logistics companies for a further 30,000 trucks; CDC II is directed against the same defendants and additionally against Scania, which was not a defendant in CDC I but intervened actively throughout those proceedings.
CDC’s case is built on around 300,000 supporting documents, substantiated truck by truck. The economic analysis is led by external experts Prof. Joseph Harrington (Wharton), Prof. Maarten Pieter Schinkel, and Leo Huberts (University of Amsterdam). Professors Harrington and Schinkel’s “theory of harm” has been accepted by the Amsterdam Court and has been widely followed and cited by courts across Europe. The econometric quantification is performed by Schinkel and Huberts, whose EU-wide methodology has now been endorsed by the Amsterdam Court.
CDC is represented by the law firm AKD, with partners Nikee Groot and Jeffrey Kleywegt.
The quality of that preparation is acknowledged on all sides. CDC has documented 99.7% of the trucks in CDC I to a high evidentiary standard; the comparable figure across other Dutch claimants is below 10%. That gap is the reason the Court separated CDC I from the broader group of cases and put it on an accelerated track, making it the first — and so far only — Dutch trucks case to reach the damages phase. Counsel for one of the defendants, the law firm Stibbe, observed in commenting on the 15 April 2026 judgment that CDC had substantiated its claims much better than other claimants — a frank acknowledgment from the other side of the courtroom of the rigour with which CDC managed the case:
“As CDC had substantiated its claims much better than other claimants, amongst others by submitting several extensive expert reports and detailed information and documentation on a per truck basis, the CDC-I proceedings were separated from the first group of joined cases. As such, the CDC-I proceedings were expedited and follow a distinct and accelerated timeline from the other Dutch trucks cases.”
CDC has reached settlements with several of the defendants across both proceedings and continues the litigation against the others, remaining the locomotive of the Dutch trucks litigation and continuing to advance the state of the legal debate.
Case developments
A series of favourable interim judgments has shaped the Dutch trucks litigation:
15 May 2019 — the Amsterdam District Court confirmed the merits of CDC’s claims, endorsed the single and continuous infringement argument, validated the bundling of claims by assignment, and made clear that specialist claim vehicles are not subject to a higher burden of proof than any other harmed party.
12 May 2021 — the Court confirmed the binding effect of the entire Commission decision, the scope and nature of the cartel, and the likelihood of damage. It accepted that defendants cannot, in damages proceedings, contest facts they admitted in the settlement procedure, and recognised that a cartel can have post-cartel (“lingering”) effects. Substantial portions of the reasoning of Professors Harrington and Schinkel were incorporated into the judgment; those passages, and the Court’s endorsement of them, have since been widely relied upon by other courts across Europe.
27 July 2022 — the Court confirmed (again) CDC’s standing as a litigation vehicle, the validity of CDC’s assignment agreements (rejecting objections based on German Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz and English Champerty and Maintenance), and the uniform application of Dutch law to all assigned claims, regardless of the member state in which the trucks were purchased.
15 April 2026 — in its most detailed interim judgment to date, the Court ruled that the cartel caused a price overcharge of 7%, endorsed the methodology and data of Schinkel and Huberts, and rejected the defendants’ more fragmented brand-by-country modelling. It addressed the problems with the defendants’ internal cost series — citing the English Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Norwegian Borgarting Court of Appeal on endogeneity and lack of transparency — and set the end of the post-cartel run-off ( = lingering effects) period at 30 May 2013. The Court decided virtually all questions on volume of commerce and value of commerce in CDC’s favour including confirming that vehicle registrations and national road-authority data can substitute for missing invoices and that the prices and leasing instalments paid by CDC’s assignors are the correct basis for damage calculation. The Court did not follow CDC on damages from the delayed introduction of new emission technologies, and it signalled that the passing-on debate will need to continue.
10 June 2026 — the parties in CDC submitted their views on the final determination of volume and value of commerce, and the continuation of the passing-on debate.
22 July 2026 — The defendants in CDC II submitted their final defences focused on the topics of Value and Volume of commerce. These submissions contained nothing that suggests a different outcome than in CDC I, in which the court confirmed the meticulous work of CDC and hence the volume and value of commerce as argued by CDC.
What comes next
On 14 October 2026, the Court is expected to inform the parties on how the Volume and Value of Commerce topics are going to be finalized in CDC II (and the other cases pending in the “third wave” in front of the same Court).
On 3 December 2026, the Court is conducting a case management hearing focused on the topic of how the passing-on debate should be handled across the different proceedings. CDC has been invited to participate in that hearing.
In both the CDC I and CDC II proceedings, the Court will not render a final judgment until the Court of Justice of the European Union has answered the questions referred to it by the Dutch Supreme Court on the applicability and choice of uniform Dutch law in the trucks case.