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. The Supreme Court has fully dismissed the appeals brought by Renault Trucks S.A.S., reinforcing a clear judicial trend towards an effective and adequate compensation of anticompetitive harm, based on the facts of the infringement as established in the decision by the European Commission in line with 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, Herrerías y otros) 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 has now fully endorsed both the methodology adopted by the Provincial Court and the amount of compensation awarded, rejecting all grounds of appeal raised by Renault.
Of particular relevance is the 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. In this regard, the 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 cartel’s characteristics, subject to proof to the contrary.
In this case, 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
STS 5861/2025 marks a turning point in the quantification of damages arising from the trucks cartel in Spain. The judgment confirms that the 5% benchmark is not a cap on compensation, but rather the starting point that may be exceeded where robust expert evidence based on the facts established by the competition authorities justify this.
More broadly, the decision strengthens 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 are unlikely to be considered harmless, and Spanish courts have the power to estimate damages that more accurately reflect the real economic harm caused. 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
