Nissan Iberia (C-21/24): The Court of Justice Defers Limitation Periods for National Competition Authorities’ Decisions

 

Marwan Ben Moussa, law clerk, Cour de Cassation

Photo credit: CMNC building, by Luis Garcia, via Wikimedia Commons

On 4 September 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), sitting as the Grand Chamber, delivered its judgment in CP v Nissan Iberia (C-21/24). The case, referred by the Commercial Court n.º 1 of Zaragoza, raises a deceptively technical but decisive question: when does the limitation period begin to run for follow-on damages claims based on infringement decisions of national competition authorities (NCAs)?

In line with Advocate General Medina’s Opinion of 3 April 2025, the Court held that the dies a quo does not start upon publication of an NCA decision (in this case the Spanish competition authority, the CNMC) but only when that decision becomes final following judicial review and has been published in an official, public, and dated manner. This holding, which departs from the rule applicable to Commission decisions, recalibrates private enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

This post unpacks the background, the AG’s opinion, the Court’s reasoning, and the implications for European litigation at large

Background to the Preliminary Reference

The case arises from the CNMC’s decision of 23 July 2015 in Expediente S/0482/13 – Fabricantes de Automóviles, sanctioning major car manufacturers, including Nissan, for information exchanges concerning distribution networks and after-sales marketing. The CNMC issued a press release on 28 July 2015 and published the full decision on its website on 15 September 2015.

Several manufacturers appealed. Between April and December 2021, the Spanish Supreme Court dismissed all fourteen cassation appeals, thereby making the CNMC’s decision final (see, inter alia, STS 1420/2021, 1 December 2021).

In March 2023, CP, a purchaser of a Nissan vehicle, brought a follow-on action for damages before the Commercial Court in Zaragoza. Nissan argued that the action was time-barred: under Article 1968 CC, the one-year limitation period began in September 2015 when the decision was published. The claimant countered that the dies a quo could not be triggered until the CNMC’s decision became final.

Spanish courts had been divided on this issue. Some Audiencias Provinciales pegged the dies a quo at publication; others deferred it until finality. Faced with this conflict, the referring court asked whether EU law requires limitation to begin only once an NCA decision is final and, crucially, whether publication on an NCA’s website is equivalent to the Commission’s publication of summaries in the Official Journal.

 

AG Medina’s Opinion

Advocate General Medina’s Opinion framed the problem squarely under the principle of effectiveness, given that the Damages Directive (2014/104/EU) was not yet applicable ratione temporis to infringements that had ceased in 2013.

Heureka as the starting point

In Heureka (C-605/21,paras 62–65), the Court had held that limitation for follow-on actions based on Commission decisions begins upon publication of the summary in the Official Journal. That publication provides claimants with the requisite knowledge: the fact of infringement, its legal qualification, the identity of infringers, its duration, and the products concerned.

Distinguishing Commission and NCA decisions

AG Medina reasoned that this logic cannot simply be transposed to NCA decisions under appeal. Commission decisions, even if not yet final, are binding on national courts by virtue of Article 16(1) of Regulation 1/2003: “When national courts rule on agreements, decisions or practices under Article 81 or Article 82 of the Treaty which are already the subject of a Commission decision, they cannot take decisions running counter to the decision adopted by the Commission.”

By contrast, NCA decisions lack such binding effect while under judicial review. Their probative value is provisional until finality is achieved. It would therefore undermine legal certainty to require claimants to sue within a limitation period triggered by a decision that might yet be annulled or modified (Opinion, paras 65–67).

Policy considerations

AG Medina stressed two considerations in her Opinion:

a)     Effectiveness: Claimants must not be forced to act while the legal basis of their claim is unsettled. To do so would make exercising their EU rights excessively difficult. (Opinion, para 63)

b)    Fairness to defendants: If damages actions are brought while public enforcement is still under appeal, defendants would face parallel proceedings, raising issues of prejudice to their rights of defence. (Opinion, para 63)

Accordingly, she concluded that the dies a quo for follow-on actions based on NCA decisions begins only when those decisions become final.

 

The Judgment of the Court

The Grand Chamber largely endorsed AG Medina’s approach.

a)    General principles

The Court recalled that the right to compensation for infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU is guaranteed under Courage v Crehan (C-453/99, EU:C:2001:465, para. 26) and Manfredi (C-295/04, EU:C:2006:461, para. 59). Member States retain procedural autonomy in setting limitation rules, but these must respect equivalence and effectiveness (Cogeco, C-637/17, EU:C:2019:263, para. 42).

Two conditions must be met before limitation starts: the infringement must have ceased and the claimant must know, or be reasonably expected to know, the facts necessary to bring an action (Volvo and DAF Trucks, para.56.; Heureka, para. 64).

b)    Application to NCA decisions

The Court held that claimants cannot be deemed to have the requisite knowledge until an NCA decision is final. While publication of the decision online may provide factual information, its legal effects remain unsettled during appeals. National courts are not bound by non-final decisions, unlike Commission decisions under Article 16(1). To start the clock before finality would make exercising the right to compensation excessively difficult (Judgment, paras 64–67).

c)     Rejection of alternative safeguards

The Court rejected arguments that suspension or interruption of limitation, or the possibility of staying civil proceedings, sufficed to protect claimants. These mechanisms were contingent, discretionary, or incomplete, and thus inadequate to satisfy the principle of effectiveness (Judgement paras 69–73).

d)    Publication requirement

The Court added that final judgments upholding NCA decisions must be published in an official, public, and accessible manner, with a clear date of publication. Otherwise, claimants cannot be presumed to have knowledge (Judgement para. 74).

e)     Directive 2014/104

The Court held that Article 10 of the Damages Directive applied ratione temporis because, by the transposition deadline (27 December 2016), the limitation period had not yet begun: the CNMC decision was not final until 2021. The Directive therefore governed the limitation period in this case (Judgment paras 79–80).

Commentary

The judgment represents a significant step in reinforcing private enforcement of EU competition law. By tying the start of limitation periods to the finality of a decision, the Court reduces the risk that victims are forced to bring actions on unstable legal ground, only to see their claims undermined if the decision is later annulled or altered.

One line of criticism concerns the treatment of Spanish procedural law. Limitation periods in Spain can be interrupted with relative ease, often through simple extrajudicial steps such as a formal letter or email. This mechanism already provides claimants with a practical safeguard against premature expiry. In addition, CNMC decisions are immediately enforceable, save for the payment of fines which may be suspended on appeal, and they benefit from a presumption of validity. Against this background, treating such decisions as devoid of legal effect until the conclusion of judicial review does not sit comfortably with the way Spanish administrative law operates.

A second concern is the introduction of a sharp distinction between stand-alone and follow-on actions. In practice, the right to damages under Article 101 TFEU is a single right, and the rules governing limitation should not vary according to whether the claimant relies on a prior decision or constructs the case independently. Tying the dies a quo to finality in follow-on cases risks extending liability considerably, exposing defendants to actions many years after the initial publication of the decision.

The Court’s focus on knowledge linked to the binding force of a decision also represents a conceptual shift. Knowledge is no longer understood primarily in terms of factual awareness i.e when the claimant can reasonably be said to know about the infringement and its effects, but rather in terms of whether the decision carries legal certainty and binding probative value. This approach prioritises institutional status over the actual informational content available to potential claimants.

On the other hand, the judgment could be welcomed for strengthening the effectiveness of competition law. Victims cannot realistically be expected to rely on decisions that remain under appeal and may be annulled or altered. By deferring the start of the limitation period until finality, the Court provides clarity and fairness, ensuring that claimants base their actions on stable legal ground.

Doctrinal Position in Case Law

Nissan Iberia extends the line of Courage, Manfredi, Cogeco, Volvo/DAF Trucks, and Heureka. It entrenches the dual requirements of cessation and knowledge, but redefines knowledge for NCA cases in institutional terms: it arises only when a decision is final and binding.

This creates a structural asymmetry. For Commission decisions, limitation begins at publication in the Official Journal (Heureka, para. 78). For NCA decisions, limitation begins only upon finality. The Court justified this on the basis of Article 16 of Regulation 1/2003, but we can wonder whether the difference is truly justified, given that both Commission and NCA decisions are immediately enforceable and presumed valid.

Implications for European Litigation

For claimants, the judgment provides a significant procedural safeguard. The limitation period no longer runs while appeals are pending, giving injured parties the assurance that they will not be time-barred before the underlying infringement decision becomes final. This is especially relevant in Spain, where CNMC proceedings often take several years to clear all levels of judicial review.

For defendants, the consequence is prolonged exposure. Companies may face damages claims long after the initial publication of an infringement decision. This extended horizon complicates accounting practices, increases the cost of legal uncertainty, and alters the incentives for settlement.

For national legal systems, the Court has introduced an additional layer of responsibility. Final judgments upholding NCA decisions must be published in an official, public, and clearly dated manner. Failure to ensure transparent publication could have the unintended effect of leaving limitation periods open-ended, undermining predictability for all parties involved.

For EU law as a whole, the judgment continues the Court’s emphasis on effectiveness as the guiding principle of private enforcement. By privileging the position of claimants, it ensures that rights under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU are enforceable in practice. At the same time, the asymmetry created between Commission and NCA decisions raises concerns of doctrinal coherence. Whether this differentiation proves sustainable, or whether it prompts further clarification from the Court, remains an open question.

Conclusion

The Nissan Iberia judgment represents a decisive step in the construction of a claimant-friendly regime for antitrust damages. By requiring finality before limitation begins, the Court secures effectiveness but at the cost of legal certainty and symmetry.

For Spain, it resolves conflicting case law and ensures that claimants in the “car cartel” litigation remain within time. For the Union, it marks another expansion of private enforcement under the banner of effectiveness, extending the bridges built by Courage, Manfredi, and Heureka.

The Court has drawn a bright line: for NCA decisions, the limitation clock starts ticking only when the decision is final. Whether this asymmetry will endure or be recalibrated in future remains to be seen. For now, defendants must live with a longer tail of liability, and claimants with a clearer pathway to redress.