# C_2021513EN.01002201.xml

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 September 2021 — Heureka Group a.s. v Google LLC

(Case C-605/21)

(2021/C 513/32)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heureka Group a.s.

Defendant: Google LLC

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 21(1) of Directive 2014/104 (1) and general principles of EU law be interpreted such that Directive 2014/104, in particular Article 10 thereof, will apply, directly or indirectly, to the present dispute seeking compensation in respect of all harm caused by a breach of Article 102 TFEU, which commenced before the date on which Directive 2014/104 entered into force and ended after the expiry of the transposition period for its implementation, in a situation when the action seeking compensation in respect of harm was also lodged after the expiry of the transposition period, or such that Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 will apply only to the part of the conduct (and the ensuing part of harm) occurring after the date on which Directive 2014/104 entered into force or, as the case may be, after the expiry of the deadline for its transposition? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 21(1) of Directive 2014/104 (1) and general principles of EU law be interpreted such that Directive 2014/104, in particular Article 10 thereof, will apply, directly or indirectly, to the present dispute seeking compensation in respect of all harm caused by a breach of Article 102 TFEU, which commenced before the date on which Directive 2014/104 entered into force and ended after the expiry of the transposition period for its implementation, in a situation when the action seeking compensation in respect of harm was also lodged after the expiry of the transposition period, or such that Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 will apply only to the part of the conduct (and the ensuing part of harm) occurring after the date on which Directive 2014/104 entered into force or, as the case may be, after the expiry of the deadline for its transposition?

| 2. | Do the meaning and purpose of Directive 2014/104 and/or Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness require Article 22(2) of Directive 2014/104 to be interpreted such that the ‘national measures adopted pursuant to Article 21, other than those referred to in [Article 22,] paragraph 1’ are those provisions of national legislation through which Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 was implemented, in other words, do Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 and the rules on limitation fall within the first or the second paragraph of Article 22 of Directive 2014/104? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the meaning and purpose of Directive 2014/104 and/or Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness require Article 22(2) of Directive 2014/104 to be interpreted such that the ‘national measures adopted pursuant to Article 21, other than those referred to in [Article 22,] paragraph 1’ are those provisions of national legislation through which Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 was implemented, in other words, do Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 and the rules on limitation fall within the first or the second paragraph of Article 22 of Directive 2014/104?

| 3. | Is national legislation and its interpretation in line with Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/104 and/or with Article 102 TFEU and with the principle of effectiveness if it links ‘knowledge of the fact that harm was caused’ — relevant to the commencement of the subjective limitation period — to the awareness of the injured party ‘of individual partial [occurrences of] harm’, which occur over time in the course of continuous or continuing anticompetitive conduct (as case-law is based on the assumption that the claim in question for compensation in respect of harm is, in its entirety, divisible) and in relation to which separate subjective limitation periods start to run regardless of the knowledge of the injured party of the full extent of the harm caused by the entire infringement of Article 102 TFEU, that is, national legislation and its interpretation that allow the limitation period for a claim for compensation in respect of harm caused by anti-competitive conduct to begin to run before the point at which ceased that conduct consisting of more favourable placement and display of one’s own price comparison engine in breach of Article 102 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is national legislation and its interpretation in line with Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/104 and/or with Article 102 TFEU and with the principle of effectiveness if it links ‘knowledge of the fact that harm was caused’ — relevant to the commencement of the subjective limitation period — to the awareness of the injured party ‘of individual partial [occurrences of] harm’, which occur over time in the course of continuous or continuing anticompetitive conduct (as case-law is based on the assumption that the claim in question for compensation in respect of harm is, in its entirety, divisible) and in relation to which separate subjective limitation periods start to run regardless of the knowledge of the injured party of the full extent of the harm caused by the entire infringement of Article 102 TFEU, that is, national legislation and its interpretation that allow the limitation period for a claim for compensation in respect of harm caused by anti-competitive conduct to begin to run before the point at which ceased that conduct consisting of more favourable placement and display of one’s own price comparison engine in breach of Article 102 TFEU?

| 4. | Do Article 10(2), (3), and (4) of Directive 2014/104 and/or Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness preclude national legislation that provides that a subjective limitation period, in the case of actions seeking compensation in respect of harm, is three years and starts to run on the day when the injured party learned or could have learned of partial harm and of the person obliged to compensate for it, but does not take into account (i) the point at which the infringement ceased; (ii) the knowledge of the injured party that the conduct constitutes an infringement of the competition rules and that, at the same time (iii) does not suspend or interrupt the three-year limitation period during the proceedings before the Commission concerning the ongoing infringement of Article 102 TFEU; and (iv) does not contain the rule that the suspension of the limitation period will end no earlier than one year after the decision concerning the infringement has become final? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do Article 10(2), (3), and (4) of Directive 2014/104 and/or Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness preclude national legislation that provides that a subjective limitation period, in the case of actions seeking compensation in respect of harm, is three years and starts to run on the day when the injured party learned or could have learned of partial harm and of the person obliged to compensate for it, but does not take into account (i) the point at which the infringement ceased; (ii) the knowledge of the injured party that the conduct constitutes an infringement of the competition rules and that, at the same time (iii) does not suspend or interrupt the three-year limitation period during the proceedings before the Commission concerning the ongoing infringement of Article 102 TFEU; and (iv) does not contain the rule that the suspension of the limitation period will end no earlier than one year after the decision concerning the infringement has become final?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1).

---