Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2023:132
Date: 2023-02-28
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

summary of its content was published in the 
OJEU of 6 April 2917. The Decision assessed the existence of a cartel of truck 
manufacturers and ordered the undertakings concerned, including the defendant in 
the present proceedings, to pay fines. As described in paragraph [10] of the 
Decision, the infringement: 
‘… consisted of collusive agreements on pricing and gross price increases in the 
EEA for medium and heavy trucks; and the timing and the passing on of costs for 
the introduction of emission technologies for medium and heavy trucks required 
by EURO 3 to 6 standards. The addressees’ headquarters were directly involved 
in the discussion of prices, price increases and the introduction of new emission 
[Or. 3] standards until 2004. From at least August 2002 onwards, discussions 
took place via German subsidiaries which, to varying degrees, reported to their 
Headquarters. The exchange was operated both on a multilateral level and on a 
bilateral level. …’ 
3 The infringement covered the entire EEA and lasted from 17 January 1997 until 
18 January 2011. 
4 On 2 August 2007, the applicant, Epifanio Campo, S. L., financed by leasing 
contract the purchase of a vehicle bearing chassis number 00000000000013838 
for a price of EUR 281 000. According to the claim made in the application, the 
price paid by the leasing company ― taken as the point of reference for the 
payment of instalments under the contract by the lessee ― was higher than what 
the market price would have been if it had not been for the infringing conduct. 
According to an expert report submitted with the application, the average price 
increase was 16.35%, and the applicant therefore claims in respect of the 
aforementioned vehicle the sum of EUR 88 853.51, consisting of an overcharge of 
EUR 60 948.90 and the sum of EUR 27 904.61 by way of interest as from the date 
of purchase of the vehicle. 
Legal framework. 
5 The action brought in the application is a follow-on action consecutive to a 
punitive decision by the competition authority. Such actions are currently 
governed by Damages Directive [2014]/104/EU, published in the OJEU on 
5 December 2014, which was transposed into Spanish law by Real Decreto-ley 
9/2017 (Royal Decree-Law 9/2017) of 26 May 2017, which reformed the Ley de 
DALARJO AND OTHERS 
 
3 
Defensa de la Competencia (Law on the Protection of Competition) and the Ley 
de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law of Civil Procedure). 
6 However, the facts of the case pre-date the entry into force of those provisions. 
This is no bar to the private application of competition law, as the European Court 
of Justice has had occasion to recall (inter alia, in the judgment of the ECJ of 
20 September 2001, C-453/99, Courage Ltd, paragraph 26, EU:C:2001:465): 
‘The full effectiveness of Article 85 of the Treaty and, in particular, the practical 
effect of the prohibition laid down in Article 85(1) would be put at risk if it were 
not open to any individual to claim damages for loss caused to him by a contract 
or by conduct liable to restrict or distort competition’. [Or. 4] 
7 Commission decisions are binding on courts hearing private actions for damages. 
Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) […] 1/2003 […] of 16 December 2002 on 
the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of 
the Treaty provides: 
‘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. They must also avoid giving decisions which would conflict with 
a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings it has initiated. To 
that effect, the national court may assess whether it is necessary to stay its 
proceedings. This obligation is without prejudice to the rights and obligations 
under Article 234 of the Treaty’. 
8 Consequently, decisions by the Commission, as the European competition 
authority, are binding on the national court in the prosecution of actions for 
damages brought by individuals. They are so binding in relation to both the 
determination of the facts and the legal assessment of those facts. Consequently, a 
precise interpretation of the objective scope of the Decision will dictate the extent 
to which that decision is binding. 
9 According to the Decision (paragraph [9]), the products concerned by the 
infringement were trucks weighing between 6 and 16 tonnes and trucks weighing 
more than 16 tonnes: 
‘The products concerned by the infringement are trucks weighing between 6 and 
16 tonnes (“medium trucks”) and trucks weighing more than 16 tonnes (“heavy 
trucks”) both as rigid trucks as well as tractor trucks (hereinafter, medium and 
heavy trucks are referred to collectively as “Trucks”) [5]. The case does not 
concern aftersales, other services and warranties for trucks, the sale of used 
trucks or any other goods or services’ [the footnote excludes ‘trucks for military 
use’]. 
10 The vehicle purchased by the applicant is an articulated dumper. It is a special 
vehicle identified by its chassis number because it does not have a registration 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 23. 4. 2021 – CASE C-285/21 
 
4  
plate. Dumpers are [Or. 5] industrial vehicles generally designed for use on 
uneven terrain and for heavy-duty work (in mining and construction, for 
example). Their price point is appreciably higher than that for trucks used for the 
transport of goods. According to the details provided by the applicant in the expert 
report which it submitted with the application, the vehicle’s trade description is 
‘Volvo A-35D, (6x6)’ and it has a maximum speed of 50 km/h and a maximum 
authorised mass of 60 tonnes. 
11 According to the applicant, this class of vehicle falls within the scope of the 
Decision. The defendant, on the other hand, takes the view that dumper-style 
vehicles are not covered by the Decision. 
12 The judgment at first instance, given by the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.º 1 de 
Pontevedra [España] (Commercial Court No 1, Pontevedra [Spain]), accepted the 
manufacturer’s argument and held that the vehicle in question could not be 
brought within the scope of the Decision. The judgment cites Regulation (EU) 
[…] No 70/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 
2012 on statistical returns in respect of the carriage of goods by road, Article 2(e) 
of which defines ‘lorry’ as ‘a rigid road vehicle designed exclusively or primarily 
to carry goods’. Since dumper-style vehicles are not intended for use on the road 
and for that reason are not registered, they cannot be brought within the scope of 
the Decision. 
13 The applicant lodged an appeal against that ruling. In its appeal, Epifanio Campo, 
S. L., expresses the view that the Decision excludes only vehicles for military use. 
It relies in support of that view on the content of an e-mail from the European 
Commission to the applicant which reads as follows: 
‘With reference to your question concerning the typology/range of trucks 
concerned, as described in the non-confidential provisional version of the 
Commission Decision of 19 July 2016, the only exception referred to is that 
relating to ‘trucks for military use’ (footnote 5 to recital 5 of the Commission 
Decision). Regrettably, we are unable to disclose in this regard any details other 
than those that are already available to the public’. The communication is signed 
by Claudia de Cesaris, who signs as ‘head of unit’ at the European Commission. 
[Or. 6] 
14 The applicant defines the dumper vehicle as a ‘self-propelled tipper, automated 
tipper or tipper truck’ the distinguishing feature of which is that it is equipped 
with a hydraulic system enabling the load to be tipped. The applicant/appellant 
relies on the Spanish legislation concerning vehicles, in particular Real Decreto 
2822/1998, de 23 de diciembre, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento General de 
Vehículos (Royal Decree 2822/1998 of 23 December 1998 adopting the General 
Rules on Vehicles), Annex II(c) to which classifies vehicles according to criteria 
of use, and defines ‘dumper’ in point 18 thereof as a ‘highly reinforced, highly 
manoeuvrable all-terrain construction tipper truck’. The applicant further 
considers that these vehicles are suitable for use on the road, as their official 
DALARJO AND OTHERS 
 
5 
technical documentation demonstrates. It also emphasises that the fact that they 
are not registered does not mean that they are not suitable for use on the public 
highway. 
15 The defendant, on the other hand, considers that the type of vehicle in question is 
very different from medium or heavy truck such as those described in the 
Decision. [The vehicle in question] does not have a registration plate and its price 
point is much higher than that for trucks in that class, which sell for around 
EUR 18 000, whereas the purchase price in [this] case was EUR 281 000. The 
defendant also relies on a European Commission decision of 24 April 2014, 
adopted in the context of a merger transaction, which defined the market in 
industrial vehicles and dumpers and determined that that market does not include 
as competitors any of the manufacturers penalised in the Decision. 
16 In its submissions on the making of the present reference for a preliminary ruling, 
the defendant added that the manufacturer of the truck in question was an 
undertaking within the group not mentioned as being concerned by the Decision, 
and stated that this unique class of vehicle is distributed by companies other than 
those regularly involved in the marketing of trucks. 
Points of uncertainty warranting the making of the reference for a preliminary 
ruling 
17 As has been made clear above, the court is bound by the content of the Decision in 
its prosecution of the action for damages brought by the applicant. Consequently, 
in order to determine whether the defendant’s conduct did indeed cause direct 
damage to the applicant’s assets, the first condition of prosecution is to identify 
the objective scope of application of the Decision. This is the only way to 
determine whether the conduct in question caused [Or. 7] damage and whether 
that damage can be causally linked to the conduct penalised by the competition 
authority. This, in the view of the Audiencia Provincial, entails the interpretation 
of a provision of Community law on which its decision is contingent. On the other 
hand, although the reference for a preliminary ruling relates to a particular class of 
vehicle, the interpretation of the precise objective scope of the Decision will have 
a general application, inasmuch as the conduct described in the Decision could 
presumably affect many vehicles of the type forming the subject of the action. 
18 The so-called ‘truck cartel’, which is giving rise to a multiplicity of disputes in 
Spain, has prompted the issue of two punitive Commission decisions. The first ― 
which is applicable to the present dispute ― was issued in a settlement procedure 
and penalised the manufacturers DAF, Daimler, IVECO and Renault/Volvo by 
fining them a total of EUR 2 926 499 000 for having been part of a cartel 
uncovered following an application for leniency filed by one of the cartel 
members, MAN. 
19 The second is the Scania decision issued on 27 September 2017 (published in the 
OJEU on 30 June 2020). On the basis of the same facts, this decision defines the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 23. 4. 2021 – CASE C-285/21 
 
6  
objective scope of the infringement as being the same as that in the previous 
decision, thus: 
‘The products concerned by the infringement are trucks weighing between 6 and 
16 tonnes (“medium trucks”) and trucks weighing more than 16 tonnes (“heavy 
trucks”) both as rigid trucks as well as tractor trucks [7] (hereinafter, medium 
and heavy trucks are referred to collectively as “trucks”). [8] The case does not 
concern aftersales, other services and warranties for trucks, the sale of used 
trucks or any other goods or services sold by the Addressees’. 
20 Footnote 7 provides: ‘A rigid truck has an integrated loading space. On a 
tractor/trailer combo, the tractor has a [coupling] instead of loading space for 
attaching trail[e]rs. The [coupled] trail[e]r has its own axles’; and footnote 8 
refers to the same exclusion as the Decision: ‘Excluding trucks for military use’. 
21 A dumper-style truck such as that which the applicant bought exhibits certain 
unique characteristics which prompt some uncertainty as to whether or not it falls 
within the category of trucks affected by the cartel’s collusive conduct. [Or. 8] As 
well as featuring the physical characteristics typical of that class of vehicle, the 
vehicle in question was not intended for use on the road, and for that reason did 
not have a registration plate, and its price is appreciably higher than the usual 
price for the vehicles normally affected by the Decision. 
22 […] [reiteration of the content of paragraph 12] 
23 For its part, Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles 
and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units 
intended for such vehicles provides that it applies to the type-approval of vehicles 
designed and constructed in one or more stages for use on the road, and of 
systems, components and separate technical units designed and constructed for 
such vehicles, and goes on to say that the approval provided for in the Directive is 
optional for, inter alia, ‘a) vehicles designed and constructed for use principally 
on construction sites or in quarries, port or airport facilities; b) vehicles designed 
and constructed for use by the armed services, civil defence, fire services and 
forces responsible for maintaining public order; and c) mobile machinery, to the 
extent that these vehicles fulfil the requirements of this Directive’. 
24 The Spanish domestic provision, Real Decreto 2822/1998, de 23 de diciembre, por 
el que se aprueba el Reglamento General de Vehículos (Royal Decree 2822/1988 
of 23 December 1998 adopting the General Rules governing Vehicles), defines 
‘truck’ as a ‘motor vehicle with four or more wheels, designed and constructed for 
the transport of goods, the cab of which is not integrated into the remainder of the 
bodywork, and which seats a maximum of 9 persons, including the driver’ 
(Annex II), and uses the term ‘automotive services machine’ to define another 
class of vehicle which it identifies as a ‘special self-propelled vehicle having two 
DALARJO AND OTHERS 
 
7 
or more axles which is designed and constructed for the performance of 
construction work’. 
25 Those provisions do not provide a clear answer to the question as to whether the 
concept of medium and heavy trucks referred to in the Decision is exclusively 
confined to those intended for transport by road, or whether it includes any class 
of vehicles having similar characteristics, with the sole exception of [Or. 9] 
military vehicles. There is some uncertainty as to whether the concept used by the 
Decision is an autonomous prescribed concept of Community law or whether it 
falls to be defined by provisions of national law. It is also uncertain whether the 
reference to medium and heavy trucks (between 6 and 16 tonnes and more than 16 
tonnes) is a general one for the purposes of which the only relevant parameters are 
weight and make, there being no need for account to be taken of the prescribed 
characteristics of the vehicles, or whether, conversely, it alludes to a specific 
prescribed concept. There is also some uncertainty as to whether that category 
must be confined to registered trucks suitable for use on the road. The final point 
of uncertainty is whether, for the purposes of interpreting the term ‘medium and 
heavy trucks’, account must be taken of the market considered in the Decision. 
26 In the light of the foregoing reasoning, 
THE CHAMBER DECIDES: 
To refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for 
a preliminary ruling: 
1.― Does the Decision of the European Commission of 19 July 2016 in case 
AT.39824, when defining its objective scope as ‘trucks weighing between 6 and 16 
tonnes (“medium trucks”) and trucks weighing more than 16 tonnes (“heavy 
trucks”) both as rigid trucks as well as tractor trucks (hereinafter, medium and 
heavy trucks are referred to collectively as “Trucks”)’, refer to a normative 
notion of EU law whose definition should be supplemented by the relevant 
provisions of EU law? 
2.― Must the Commission Decision of 19 July 2016 in case AT.39824 be 
interpreted as meaning that its objective scope is confined to medium and heavy 
trucks intended for the transport of goods by road, to the exclusion of other 
special vehicles?  
3.― Must an articulated dumper truck such as that forming the subject of the 
dispute in the main proceedings be regarded as falling within the scope of the 
Commission Decision of 19 July 2016? 
[…] [Or.10] [Or. 11] 
[Final procedural formulae and signatures of the judges]