The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 4 September 2025 has issued a landmark ruling in Case C-21/24, CP v. Nissan Iberia, which strengthens the position of cartel victims, not only in Spain but across the European Union. This preliminary ruling decision, following a referral by the Commercial Court No. 1 of Zaragoza, deals with the question of when the limitation period starts running in a follow-on damages action based on a decision by a national competition authority (NCA). Precisely, the question was when a cartel victim can be considered to have sufficient knowledge about the infringement, harm and identity of the infringers. The CJEU confirms that the applicable limitation period can only start to run once the NCA’s decision has become final and the decision as well as the relevant appeal judgments have been published. This implies, that limitation periods are not running for the entire period during which NCA decisions are under judicial review, until the final resolution of the appeals.
Background: The Nissan Iberia case
In 2015, the Spanish NCA (Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, “CNMC”) sanctioned several car manufacturers, including Nissan, for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU. The decision was published on the CNMC’s website on September 15, 2015, accompanied by a press release and extensive media coverage. However, inter alia Nissan appealed the decision, and it was not until 2021 that the Supreme Court upheld the sanction, resulting in the finality of the decision.
In March 2023, a consumer that had purchased a car (‘CP’), filed a damage action with the Zaragoza court. Nissan argued that the action was time-barred, asserting that the one-year limitation period should be counted from the publication in 2015 on the website of the CNMC, as CP must be considered to have required “knowledge” of the infringement to trigger the limitation period’s start (dies a quo) at that time. The Zaragoza court referred a preliminary question to the CJEU.
An appealed decision by an NCA cannot trigger the start of limitation periods
The CJEU, in line with Advocate General (AG) Medina, rejected Nissan’s argument. The Court emphasizes that a cartel decision by an NCA whose validity has been judicially challenged does not have the same binding effect as a decision by the European Commission. Unlike Commission decisions, which are immediately binding on national courts, an NCA decision only has binding effect once it is final. The CJEU’s reasoning here establishes a crucial principle with EU-wide importance. The same logic would apply, for example, to a German follow-on damages action based on a decision by the German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) that is subject to judicial review. As the Court states (para. 63 and 64), “a court hearing an action for damages… may be bound by the finding of the existence of that infringement only where that decision has become final.” Therefore, a decision of an NCA whose validity has been judicially challenged “is not of that nature,” which means that the claimant and the court has at its disposal “information which is not definitive.” The uncertainty created by an appeal prevents the victim from reasonably knowing the essential information to file a damage action.
In such a situation, the cartel victim’s ability to bring a follow-on action for damages would be undermined, and it would be “excessively difficult” for that victim to exercise his right to compensation, in conflict with Article 101 TFEU and the effectiveness principle. The CJEU considered (para. 67) that insofar as the national court deciding on an action for damages is not bound by the finding of the existence of the infringement concerned unless the NCA decision has become final, the victim cannot reasonably be considered to have become aware of the information necessary to bring an action for damages on the basis of that decision. The judgment also rejects Nissan Iberia’s argument that an NCA’s website is a “State Official Bulletin” equivalent to the Official Journal of the European Union, as it lacks the same binding character.
Impact on objective limitation periods
An important aspect of the judgment is its impact on objective limitation periods under national law. The CJEU’s ruling, while interpreting national rules on a subjective limitation period (the one-year period from knowledge), effectively confirms that the principle of effectiveness dictates that a time limit cannot start running before a victim has the necessary knowledge of all elements of a damage claim, namely: the existence of an infringement of competition law, the existence of damage, the causal link between that damage and that infringement, and the identity of the infringer. This is crucial because it includes situations where an objective limitation period, which might start from the date of the infringement, could otherwise expire while the NCA decision is being appealed, or even before it is formally adopted. This is detrimental to the affected parties, as the expiration of the limitation period before they have the essential information to substantiate their action would make the exercise of their right to be compensated practically impossible.
The importance of official publications of NCA decisions and judgments
The Court clarifies (para. 74) that the requirement for knowledge of indispensable information to file a damages action not only requires that the NCA decision becomes final but also that the indispensable information resulting from that final resolution is made publicly available in an adequate manner. This is evident from the reference to the CENDOJ (para. 77), the Spanish system for the publication of judicial judgments. The reasoning the CJEU establishes for the requirement for an official publication applies accordingly to decisions of NCAs. This is particularly relevant in countries (e.g. Germany), where NCAs do not publish detailed decisions with all facts required to bring a damage claim, but only short press releases or case summaries. In such cases, the victim cannot be considered to have sufficient knowledge. Therefore, the lack of a complete official publication would prevent the limitation period from starting to run, as it would deprive affected parties of the indispensable information needed to substantiate their legal action.
A decision that strengthens legal certainty
The much-awaited Nissan Iberia ruling has a significant and positive impact on the possibility for cartel victims to enforce their rights through damages actions. It confirms that limitation periods only begin when the NCA’s decision is final and is not subject to judicial review. Only this guarantees that injured parties are not forced to file lawsuits prematurely in a context of legal uncertainty. The AG’s opinion had cited a key empirical fact: approximately 60% of CNMC’s 2015 decisions were annulled, highlighting the importance of this point.
In conclusion, the CJEU has ruled that a cartel victim cannot be forced to initiate legal proceedings while the competition authority’s decision finding an infringement of competition law is still subject to appeal. Pursuing a claim based on an uncertain legal foundation would be an ‘excessively difficult’ and inefficient process for the victim.
by Amelia Mora and Martin Seegers
