Private enforcement of competition law: a survey of preliminary references to the Court of Justice (2024–2025)

Abstract

The cases reported concern the assignment of claims to third-party litigators, limitation periods, and the consequences of the competition law concept of a ‘single economic unit’ with regard to the jurisdiction of national courts under the Brussels I bis Regulation. For example, in ASG 2, the Court of Justice was asked whether EU law requires that collective redress, in some form, be available in the Member States, but allowed the Member States a rather wide margin of discretion on the matter. Another example was Heureka, in which the Court of Justice ruled that EU law precludes national rules on the limitation of follow-on damages actions if they do not provide for the limitation period to be suspended, at the very least, until one year after the date on which the public enforcement decision finding an infringement has become final. As the case law develops, we gain legal foreseeability in private enforcement of competition law that will, in turn, further increase incentives to seek compensation for harm caused by infringements. This survey reports developments in private enforcement of EU competition law in the years 2024 and 2025, up until 31 May of the latter year. As there have been no news in EU regulation during this period, the report focuses on case law developments. Private enforcement of competition law takes the form of civil litigation. As a consequence, it falls under the jurisdictions of national courts and will only find its way to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through references for a preliminary ruling. For the purposes of this report, this also means there have been many cases before national courts that will be interesting but cannot be covered here. To offer just two examples, the infamous trucks cartel1 and the Booking.com infringement2 have both given rise to an array of damages claims across European jurisdictions.3 The CJEU case law to be reported mainly concerns three core aspects that will each be covered in one of the sections below. First, whether national law can preclude or restrict the possibility for victims of an infringement of competition law to assign their damages claim to a provider of legal services (a ‘third-party litigator’). This is an issue of fundamental importance to the business model of certain providers active in the private enforcement of competition law. Second, several cases referred to the Court of Justice have concerned limitation periods that apply to damages claims, whether or not the rule on limitation periods in the 2014 Competition Damages Directive4 is temporally applicable in the proceedings. A new case on this issue is reported below. Third, issues related to jurisdiction and other procedural the is an that both and and to the victims of the and core issues that have been further I will a for a preliminary which is before the Court of the of on damages the a and will be The and of for a of victims of an infringement of competition law is a business in the The business model on the of victims to assign their to claim damages to a will the claims and a of the damages if The case reported ASG concerned whether a national limitation of this was with EU law. As in in this it is that damages claims for an infringement of competition law and some form of collective and have that victims of the infringement have to The for will be for to with for each be a rather of actions by providers of legal services in for the collective of victims can to the of for and to This preliminary by a the in the of a for damages for harm caused by an infringement of The infringement in a of for by a of during the period to The victims of the in and The was The victims their to damages in of the infringement of competition law to a third-party ASG which in the proceedings. its to the national the the of a it was under law to assign to damages in a of for the purposes of a for this not been for harm caused by an infringement of competition law. the under the by the victims to the be the was also concerned whether an of law was with EU law. The referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary was in whether EU law precludes national law victims of an infringement of competition law to assign their to damages to a provider of legal The Court of Justice that EU law the possibility of actions for the of compensation but not for Member States to a for The Court of Justice to the referred under the EU law of the national its in to that As I will this is a to ASG with some this for the the issues in the case whether law collective that an to a for whether the for an it or to the to The Court that the of claims the and economic in actions for in the Court not in that it was to the of if victims to their claims the Court of Justice ruled that EU law an of national which the of victims of an infringement of competition law their to compensation to a provider of legal that a only if national law not provide for other possibility of the claims of victims that the of to and the of an for damages was or The Court of Justice not been asked whether EU law requires that collective redress, in some form, be available in the Member ASG is an The Court a to the the Member States a rather wide margin of The of only claims to the there no in national law that claims for certain in the that a for the to with First, the Court of Justice very that the national not it to other of EU law the of the Court the to also the to in of the in its it not the of the national the of in its it is that it have been the Court of Justice to that actions for the of damages rather and under and that it they be available in follow-on the of the actions on EU law not be actions under national law. the Court of Justice has actions with a and the be in it rather that the of will for actions for the of damages to be available in actions if they available in follow-on actions for damages by of an infringement of competition law. The of also to the if actions for the of damages available for other actions under that the actions have a and the of the 2014 Competition Damages there have been several cases in which the Court of Justice has been to the of national limitation periods with the rules of the with or and of EU law. several the core issue has been at in the rules in the temporally in other to the EU law before the 2014 Competition Damages to EU law under that This has been an issue in to of the which its rules on limitation of damages issues in the case law have been the a that on which date the applicable national limitation period can to and under limitation periods be or A new to this of the case law. This one of many cases of its in the of is also a by in the of in of The Court of Justice has not its in the latter this the legal issues will be covered in of the cases on limitation periods in competition damages actions is in which the Court of Justice ruled that and the of preclude a limitation period to if the was of the of the not possibility of or that period during before the national competition As we will the and in Heureka, the that its by its services to the of services This by the of to to The before the of the 2014 Competition Damages on and after the of the for the of the rules of the national law on that claim was under the applicable limitation rules of the at with regard to the period to The limitation period was three and to the the or have of the harm and the of the to of the a limitation period of The the asked the Court of Justice whether EU and in of the and the of preclude a national limitation period applicable to actions for damages for an infringement of competition which to the or be to have that it harm and the of the to compensation for the and which is not during public enforcement it was not whether the 2014 Competition Damages be applicable in the the Court of Justice the a issue a of the of and that the Court that the of the to compensation for harm caused by an infringement of competition law be or if the limitation periods applicable to actions to before the infringement to an and the not or not have been to the for its for The Court an two to the by the national The of the was that a limitation period not to before the infringement has to an The Court of Justice that a was in to it for the to its of in to the of an the of and the the the Court and there is an to the of the The Court with in that the that a limitation period not to before the infringement has to an an to their The of the was that limitation periods cannot to before the or be to the for its for The at the Court of Justice of an infringement of competition the of the that harm and that and the of the the Court with the of a decision the infringement at issue in the EU if the decision was under This was a decision has it has not been and can on the decision to their for damages the the Court also it is in some that gain the at an it be for the in the damages to that the the at an in the case that limitation periods in actions for competition damages cannot to until be the of the infringement of competition law and of the for an for damages with the for the a in of the 2014 Competition Damages As a of in Heureka, there is very the and for damages actions by of an infringement of EU competition at damages actions a decision it is that the is not or it is whether it is the Court of Justice is law in a which very the rules in the the Court is the of the rules in the to law This is not but it is The of the is that it and legal the and to be but consequences for the the Court a in not to across the rules and of for rules that by the EU of this the and the case law is also new and very that will apply under the 2014 Competition Damages they have been on a of law. For a rule of on a can be to the of of the that a certain an infringement of competition a decision on the is will have This the Court to the possibility for the to that the at an The case concerns the but in the has been national public enforcement of competition law. in has that the core of the case is at a will have of the which that to an for for the purposes of follow-on the claim the can on a decision that is of legal the of the the a be on the date the national decision has become we that in the decision not to be final. that it the of legal and the of follow-on in the of to for the national decision to be this is to the of the in Heureka, the of the was not whether the decision was but whether it the infringement to the of The legal by the be by rules on the or of limitation periods in damages actions during public enforcement proceedings. This to the legal Heureka, the Court of Justice also whether and the of for the limitation period to be or during this the Court that the or of limitation periods for the of in to to their actions for the Court also it was not to to or limitation periods during an of the the decision by the be by the if it not of the Court provide an example of a to the rule in of the 2014 Competition Damages that the at the one year after the infringement decision has become or is or national infringement under the and the of do not the limitation period to to be until the the decision this I to the of in that national be a for the a As I for the purposes of the I that the by the form a for the national limitation period until the national decision has become final. The of rules in the 2014 Competition Damages on the of its rules or the of its of the not apply that not apply to that have to an before the national rules rules not apply to damages claims which a national was to other the of rules on the infringement has and on the national rules the of other rules on and the Court ruled that a and not be with but also that an for damages which is after the of the national it national law the of if the national limitation period not before the of the for of the The consequences of this further in the Court of Justice the national limitation period by that the national the of rules on limitation periods, that have the the national its of the claim by this and that the infringement not on the Court further that it its that the limitation period not have to on that As a consequence, of the 2014 Competition Damages was in temporally applicable to and to be that the Court that it was for the national to the rule in to the Court of case law on the of rules in the of the limitation period, through the of to the of the rule in I to that it is a in to the and of the in Heureka, which the for on the of this has with the on in and will the The private enforcement of competition law in issues of jurisdiction and that can be the case law of the Court of Justice on and several a of a economic has for to their the in The Court has a in its case but in the cases reported they also some to their in a case the Court has not its preliminary is also The issues at in cases to the concept of the the the of of the Brussels I bis in to the competition law concept of a economic to the rule on jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis in to the concept of a ‘single economic and to to a a economic issues will be covered in For damages claims, of the Brussels I bis jurisdiction to courts for the the or a of or a of trucks the the The was the in the that the the been by the trucks with to the decision in the was the The was the Court of and the legal issue in its concerned The on of the Brussels I bis and it and its a economic its be covered by the concept of the the the of harm by that economic only its in other Member States in to have harm and the not to have The claim on a of the economic its the Court of Justice that in it that of the Brussels I bis jurisdiction to Member States on the of whether the by an infringement of competition law is in that Member that not consequences can be will be and that consequences of harm the by the Court of Justice that there was no in its case law for the of the economic by the The Court further that the of the was at with the of the Brussels I bis an of the of and of the rules and that victims of an infringement of competition law other the Court that the concept of a economic not be to jurisdiction in the by the The that the Court of Justice have been in its of the economic to private enforcement of competition it is not to will be and the by the in this case was a to the claims a of and this can be in but at the of the the rule is that jurisdiction is at the or of the jurisdiction is under the rules of the Brussels I bis and case but jurisdiction is not it be to that is a of the of the latter an is several of the Brussels I bis jurisdiction to courts for the one of is the claims that it is to and to the of This is in damages claim several and the is a of or a of that form a economic the of competition law. the core issue was whether a national its in an for damages a and its and for an infringement of competition by on the of the and in case law. The in the in and its in the The in was a to on the The competition that its on the but not it that been in the infringement or a the decision by the competition an for damages and before a in the jurisdiction to claims its that and and for harm caused to by the infringement by the competition there was in the to whether the courts jurisdiction in of to whether of the Brussels I bis preclude courts on the a or or of the of the that the competition a a the in to their jurisdiction This issue its way to the the Court of the and was referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. For to be applicable it was the Court to whether there was a of a that it was to the actions in to the of The Court further that the whether the of law and with regard to the claims the and that the not been before it with an to the in on case law its in the Court that the of whether the of law and with regard to the claims the be several in a and infringement of competition law that been by the the by the Court that this also the a economic and of the the of competition law and and for the harm the Court of Justice that it was not in to have jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis for and several to have been in a the whether the in and the for the which was was The was also concerned with the for the of a and that the Court of Justice that the not only in public enforcement but also in private enforcement of competition law and that the concept of an was the in both the Court that to its jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis a national not a of the or of the but to the for regard to a that in the the Court that the to that a by the its cannot be a in to its The do the Court if the on the of the and an to the to the not or or of the of its or that that be the Court of Justice ruled that of the Brussels I bis not preclude the for the of of a in to its on the that a or or of the of a that has competition it a that that the not of the possibility of that that not or or of the of that or that that be the of this the for jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis by the Court of Justice in is The of its is that if the the of the the of competition and the has jurisdiction to actions at one of the in there also be a possibility for the to the but this requires this the to this is an in private enforcement in which is to the of both and The of the and with regard to the infringement is a in the of this and the in be the and through EU for actions by across EU jurisdictions also be an is several at a certain which only have jurisdiction to actions one of an to the claims the at that one that the in the The through which jurisdiction is for is referred to the in the that it for the before the at two and of the Court of Justice is to further on of the Brussels I bis and in to the a to the with the is no in the cases but has an on the The in the two a of in several that have been of and both follow-on The case a a in and and related and The case a decision by the competition on a in and covered several European jurisdictions and several at economic the of competition law. both cases only one the of that was in the actions was a has competition cannot an for damages of its to on the and several of a economic have the of that and do have the and legal and there is a the economic of that and the of the infringement by the the to of the Brussels I bis the to the that there several they can be in a national jurisdiction for one of that claims that it is to and to the of that regard it not that the in the infringement in and at but it that they in an infringement that been by the and that the was on their in that The in the that the national not have the the no of The that not be and that there was no jurisdiction under that rule if there that the only the for its the that a not be concerns that the be but only if it or or of to the As to whether the was in this the by the that harm the was not through an on EU that the of by a which or or of the of a not apply in damages and that the in one of the not have a it was only a and the the that the Court of Justice has not been given to rule on if under the to compensation for harm caused by an infringement of EU competition law to harm in but not that the in the be or for a of jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis the the the of the by to the of the Court of Justice in the in the and of not to on the in a way to offer and the of a to be of the of the a the it that the was a of the which was for the infringement of competition law. The in turn, in that in to a to the the of the the of a the on whether its was in an economic which a to the of the infringement for which its of the been in the of the by the to the of of the Brussels I bis Regulation. whether the claims the and the the of of the Brussels I bis for the national to have jurisdiction of and whether that have in a infringement of the EU of a the claims and of the with which they each form an that of a the economic of the and the of the infringement by the be but that it not for the to have to the the that the of of the Brussels I bis there that the which they of the of law which have an infringement of the of in EU that it cannot be a that the to the that the of foreseeability not be that be to that they be in the jurisdiction of and not preclude this of the that with the that a in the of the can be an but that an to was to be the Court of Justice will the For it the in of the in it to its on the of by a which or or of the of a not apply in damages it is that the Court will not the of the referred the but rather in to a the not to be with the and the Court of Justice was asked to whether a to be to a economic which an of competition law. The in the two trucks the in The to that the been by the trucks with to the decision in the was the The an for damages with the and that the to was to be to the in The national the in with the but the was with a to the of the in The that this was a in and that the the it and its of a economic the of competition law. The issue of whether the be through its its way to the the Court of and to the Court of its the Court of Justice under its case law and in its in a economic a the of and legal that can be for an if by legal the Court an the of has no legal of its an for damages cannot be the but be a legal the Court of Justice the of and of is a under the to in of the EU of fundamental that the Court find no or in EU law for the that a an for damages one legal an and have the to legal the the the Court of Justice the to a by of the the if it been to have and it not be that legal a economic to on each The Court of Justice the of EU on and on the of The Court that related to the of be by the but that EU certain to the and that can be if the is The Court also that it be to to their a of the if the to the related to in Member the Court of Justice ruled that a cannot be with a to a if the two of the economic The of is that under the case law on a economic under competition to a of their a the of which is or the its this not can the the of for the has been that will have consequences for the of and this cannot be through to the concept of a economic The Court that of competition law by of the and the and it that the and of an of the of which cannot be with to the concept of a economic this case was a and the that there to on the concept of a ‘single economic unit’ the Court will is an of an of damages under the 2014 Competition Damages under the case law of the Court of The on by a of national law and EU which the Court is to in the referred This for a preliminary was by the Court of Justice on and no is The before the of and it is damages in to the trucks in which the compensation for to the The concerns the of in the 2014 Competition Damages and in the of on the damages The also concerns to on which date harm has by of an infringement of competition law. the the has been at a of the date for damages was to the under national the claim The that be the date harm the of the will be to on the date which to on the damages in the proceedings. will be interesting to this there is no EU case law on issues in the of competition damages For the purposes of an for damages a Member the Court of Justice has that on an is the date harm was This was in a competition damages which that the Court it in competition of the 2014 Competition damages be the the harm until the compensation is is this is rather and a through be is very to private enforcement in the EU to case law on actions for private enforcement is by there can be concerns this and whether it be issues under in the and Justice and a report and the for third-party in ASG 2, reported the Court of Justice the of the Member States a rather wide margin of discretion on whether or not to claims for competition damages to be to a third-party I have that the of which was not in the to other on the legal in the Member at will be interesting to the further of EU in to third-party law on the of rules in the 2014 Competition Damages also to The case law has on the of certain rules and on to the of rules also and and of EU law. Heureka, and through we a of limitation which is to be after the rather of the Court in and will also be very interesting to the on we a on that in is also very that we on jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis in of the concept of an in competition in This case law further to their procedural if the Court of Justice is also it in the reported cases and that not but that for the of both be As we to gain legal foreseeability in private enforcement of competition we will also increase incentives to seek in turn, further case law the Court of very for with an in the