# C_2020320EN.01000801.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de León (Spain) lodged on 15 June 2020 — AB Volvo and DAF TRUCKS N.V. v RM

(Case C-267/20)

(2020/C 320/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de León

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AB Volvo and DAF TRUCKS N.V.

Respondent: RM

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 101 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation according to which neither the 5-year limitation period established in Article 10 of Directive 2014/104/EU nor Article 17 thereof, concerning judicial estimation of harm, is retroactively applicable, and which establishes retroactive effect by reference to the date of the penalty rather than the date on which the action is brought? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 101 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation according to which neither the 5-year limitation period established in Article 10 of Directive 2014/104/EU nor Article 17 thereof, concerning judicial estimation of harm, is retroactively applicable, and which establishes retroactive effect by reference to the date of the penalty rather than the date on which the action is brought?

| 2. | Must Article 22(2) of Directive 2014/104 (1) and the term ‘retroactively’ be interpreted as meaning that Article 10 of the directive is applicable to a claim such as that brought in the main proceedings, which, although lodged after the directive and the transposing legislation entered into force, refers to prior facts or penalties? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 22(2) of Directive 2014/104 (1) and the term ‘retroactively’ be interpreted as meaning that Article 10 of the directive is applicable to a claim such as that brought in the main proceedings, which, although lodged after the directive and the transposing legislation entered into force, refers to prior facts or penalties?

| 3. | When applying a provision such as that of Article 76 of the Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (Law on the Protection of Competition), must Article 17 of Directive 2014/104, concerning judicial estimation of harm, be interpreted as a procedural provision that will apply to main proceedings in which an action is brought after the entry into force of the national transposing legislation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

When applying a provision such as that of Article 76 of the Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (Law on the Protection of Competition), must Article 17 of Directive 2014/104, concerning judicial estimation of harm, be interpreted as a procedural provision that will apply to main proceedings in which an action is brought after the entry into force of the national transposing legislation?

---

(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).

---