# C_2023127EN.01000401.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Valencia — Spain) — Tráficos Manuel Ferrer S.L., Ignacio v Daimler AG

(Case C-312/21, (1) Tráficos Manuel Ferrer)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU - Decision of the Commission finding the existence of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases for trucks in the European Economic Area (EEA) - National rule of civil procedure under which, in the event that the claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each party, except in cases of wrongful conduct - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence - Directive 2014/104/EU - Objectives and overall balance - Article 3 - Right to full compensation for the harm suffered - Article 11(1) - Joint and several liability of the undertakings that infringe competition law - Article 17(1) - Possibility for national courts to estimate the harm - Conditions - Impossibility or unreasonable difficulties in quantifying harm - Article 22 - Temporal application)

(2023/C 127/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Valencia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tráficos Manuel Ferrer S.L., Ignacio

Defendant: Daimler AG

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 101 TFEU and Article 3(1) and (2) 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
  must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a national rule of civil procedure under which, in the event that the claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each party and each party bears half of the common costs, except in cases of wrongful conduct. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 101 TFEU and Article 3(1) and (2) 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

must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a national rule of civil procedure under which, in the event that the claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each party and each party bears half of the common costs, except in cases of wrongful conduct.

| 2. | Article 17(1) of Directive 2014/104
  must be interpreted as meaning that neither the fact that the defendant in an action falling within the scope of that directive has made available to the claimant the data on which it relied in order to refute the expert report of the latter nor the fact that the claimant has addressed its request to merely one of the infringers are not, in themselves, relevant for the purposes of assessing whether it is permissible for the national courts to undertake an estimation of the harm, that estimation being based on the premiss, first, that the existence of that harm has been established and, second, that it is practically impossible or excessively difficult to quantify it with precision, which involves taking into consideration all the parameters leading to such a finding and, in particular, the unsuccessful nature of steps such as the request to disclose evidence laid down in Article 5 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 17(1) of Directive 2014/104

must be interpreted as meaning that neither the fact that the defendant in an action falling within the scope of that directive has made available to the claimant the data on which it relied in order to refute the expert report of the latter nor the fact that the claimant has addressed its request to merely one of the infringers are not, in themselves, relevant for the purposes of assessing whether it is permissible for the national courts to undertake an estimation of the harm, that estimation being based on the premiss, first, that the existence of that harm has been established and, second, that it is practically impossible or excessively difficult to quantify it with precision, which involves taking into consideration all the parameters leading to such a finding and, in particular, the unsuccessful nature of steps such as the request to disclose evidence laid down in Article 5 of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---