CJEU Case C-253/23 / Judgment

ASG 2 Ausgleichsgesellschaft für die Sägeindustrie Nordrhein-Westfalen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Type
Decision
Decision date
28/01/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:40
  • CJEU Case C-253/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case: 

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Article 101 TFEU – Directive 2014/104/EU – Actions for damages for infringements of competition law – Point 4 of Article 2 – Concept of ‘action for damages’ – Article 3(1) – Right to full compensation for harm suffered – Assignment of compensation claims to a provider of legal services – National law precluding recognition of the standing of such a provider with a view to group collection of those claims – Article 4 – Principle of effectiveness – First paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to effective judicial protection

    Outcome of the case: 

    On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

    Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with point 4 of Article 2, Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

    must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation which has the effect of preventing persons allegedly harmed by an infringement of competition law from assigning their rights to compensation to a provider of legal services so that it may assert them, collectively, in an action for damages that does not follow the decision of a competition authority finding such an infringement that is final and binding, in particular with regard to the establishment of the facts, provided that

    –        national law does not provide for any other possibility of grouping together the individual claims of those injured persons that would ensure the effectiveness of the exercise of those rights to compensation, and

    –        the bringing of an individual action for damages is, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, impossible or excessively difficult for those persons, with the result that they are deprived of their right to effective judicial protection.

    Should it not be possible to interpret that national legislation in a way that complies with the requirements of EU law, those provisions of EU law require the national court to disapply that national legislation.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    36.  By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with point 4 of Article 2, Article 3(1), Article 4 and Article 9(1) of Directive 2014/104 and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation which has the effect of preventing persons allegedly harmed by an infringement of competition law from assigning their rights to compensation to a provider of legal services in order for it to assert them, collectively, in a ‘follow-on’ action, that is to say, an action for damages following a final decision of a competition authority finding such an infringement (‘a follow-on action for damages’).

    ...

    49.  By its second and third questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with point 4 of Article 2, Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Directive 2014/104, and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation that has the effect of preventing persons allegedly harmed by an infringement of competition law from assigning their rights to compensation to a provider of legal services so that it may assert them, collectively, in a stand-alone action for damages.

    ...

    64. As is apparent from recital 12 of Directive 2014/104, that right to compensation for the harm caused by an infringement of competition law was codified in Article 3(1) of that directive, which provides that Member States are to ensure that any natural or legal person who has suffered such harm is able to claim and to obtain full compensation for that harm.

    65. Recital 4 of that directive states that that right to compensation requires each Member State to have procedural rules ensuring the effective exercise of that right. Under that recital, the need for effective procedural remedies also follows from the right to effective judicial protection as laid down in the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, which corresponds to the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 May 2017, Berlioz Investment Fund, C‑682/15, EU:C:2017:373, paragraph 44, and of 6 October 2020, État Luxembourgeois (Right to bring an action against a request for information in tax matters), C‑245/19 and C‑246/19, EU:C:2020:795, paragraph 47).

    ...

    75. Furthermore, when there are no EU rules governing the matter, although it is for the domestic legal system of every Member State to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from EU law, the Member States are, however, responsible for ensuring that, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, the right to effective judicial protection is effectively protected in every case (judgment of 19 November 2019, A.K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C‑585/18, C‑624/18 and C‑625/18, EU:C:2019:982, paragraph 115 and the case-law cited). As has been observed in paragraph 65 of the present judgment, recital 4 of Directive 2014/104 refers to the right to such protection.

    ...

    89.  In addition, the Court has stated that Article 47 of the Charter is sufficient in itself and does not need to be made more specific by provisions of EU or national law to confer on individuals a right on which they may rely as such (judgments of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 78, and of 20 February 2024, X (Lack of reasons for termination), C‑715/20, EU:C:2024:139, paragraph 80 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    94. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second and third questions is that Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with point 4 of Article 2, Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Directive 2014/104, and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation which has the effect of preventing persons allegedly harmed by an infringement of competition law from assigning their rights to compensation to a provider of legal services so that it may assert them, collectively, in a stand-alone action for damages, provided that

    –        national law does not provide for any other possibility of grouping together the individual claims of those injured persons that would ensure the effectiveness of the exercise of those rights to compensation, and

    –        the bringing of an individual action for damages is, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, impossible or excessively difficult for those persons, with the result that they are deprived of their right to effective judicial protection.

    Should it not be possible to interpret that national legislation in a way that complies with the requirements of EU law, those provisions of EU law require the national court to disapply that national legislation.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)