Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:248
Date: 2025-04-03
Language of the case: Spanish
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary C-21/24 – 1 
Case C-21/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
12 January 2024 
Referring court: 
Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.º 1 de Zaragoza (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
10 January 2024 
Applicant: 
CP 
Defendant:  
Nissan Iberia S.A. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Cartel agreements – Article 101 TFEU – 
Directive 2014/104/EU – Compensation for harm caused by an infringement of 
competition law – Limitation period for bringing an action for compensation of 
harm – Limitation 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Compensation for harm caused by an infringement of competition law – 
Application of the national legislation transposing a European Directive to actions 
for damages brought after transposition but relating to events occurring prior to 
transposition – Mandatory nature of action for damages – Limitation period – 
Start of the limitation period – Precedence of decisions imposing an 
administrative penalty – Issue of publication 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-21/24 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
1) Is there a legal basis in EU law for a distinction between the possibility and 
the obligation to bring an action for damages in respect of an infringement of 
competition or, conversely, once the injured party is aware or could reasonably 
have been aware both of the fact that he, she or it has suffered damage as a result 
of that infringement and of the identity of the perpetrator of the infringement, 
must that party bring such an action, and does the limitation period begin to run? 
2) For an action for damages to be brought before the judicial authority, must 
the party wishing to bring that action wait until the penalty has become final 
before the courts or, conversely, if the decision of the competition authority, 
published in full, contains information about the identity of the perpetrators of the 
infringement in question, its exact duration and the products concerned by that 
infringement, must it be assumed that an action for damages may be brought 
before the courts and the limitation period begins to run? 
3) Should the publication of the full penalty on the official, public website of 
the competition authority be treated as equivalent to the publication of the 
summary of the European Commission’s decision in the Official Journal of the 
European Union for the purposes of the limitation period, given that the decisions 
of the competition authority are only published on the official website? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
TFEU, Articles 101, 102 and 267 
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, in particular Article 22(1) 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation 
of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases C-637/17, 
C-267/20, C-453/99, C-557/12, C-295/04 and C-298/04, Order of the Court of 
Justice of the European Union in case C-199/22, and opinion in case C-605/21 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Constitución Española (Spanish Constitution), Articles 9.3, 24.1 and 117.1 
Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on civil procedure), Articles 22, 43 and 455.1 
Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (Law on the protection of competition), 
Articles 13 and 74, and the first transitional provision 
NISSAN IBERIA 
 
3 
Código Civil (Civil Code), Articles 1902 and 1968(2) 
Real Decreto-ley 9/2017, de 26 de mayo, por el que se transponen directivas de la 
Unión Europea en los ámbitos financiero, mercantil y sanitario, y sobre el 
desplazamiento de trabajadores (Royal Decree-Law No 9/2017 of 26 May 2017 
transposing EU directives in the financial, commercial and health fields and on the 
posting of workers) 
Judgments of the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) 19/2008 and 
192/2009 
Judgments of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) 651/2013, 926/2023, 
947/2023, 528/2013, 511/2018, 112/2022, 434/2021 and 780/2021 
Judgment of the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Zaragoza Provincial Court) 
118/2023 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 CP brought an action against Nissan Iberia S.A. for damages for the purchase of a 
vehicle, pursuant to the penalty imposed on the defendant by the national 
competition authority, the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia 
(National Commission on Markets and Competition; CNMC). 
2 The referring court has held that such actions were time-barred, considering that 
the action should have been brought as soon as the CNMC’s full decision was 
published on its official website, without waiting for it to become final. 
3 The Zaragoza Provincial Court partially upheld the appeal against that court’s 
decision, ruling that the action was not time-barred and considering that the 
limitation period should begin to run from the point when the CNMC’s decision 
became final through a Supreme Court ruling. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
4 The defendant raises the question as to whether it is contrary to EU law and case-
law to interpret a national provision as meaning that the limitation period in 
respect of actions for damages arising from anti-competitive actions does not 
begin with the official publication in full of the administrative decision imposing a 
penalty issued by the national competition authority, even where that decision 
imposing a penalty is challenged before the courts. 
5 It also asks, with respect to the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity 
of rules of law, which rule must be applied in the case of actions for damages 
brought after the entry into force of Directive 2014/104/EU and the legislation 
transposing it (the Law on the protection of competition) relating to facts and 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-21/24 
 
4  
administrative decisions that pre-date the entry into force of that legislation, when 
the time limit for such actions under the earlier legislation had not expired. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
6 Following the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation 
to the lorry cartel, doctrinal and jurisprudential differences have arisen in Spain 
regarding the retroactive application of the Damages Directive and the limitation 
periods, and in relation to the possibility of invoking the Damages Directive 
illegally (contra legem). 
7 According to the referring court, the solution would be to make a distinction as to 
the precedence of the competition authority’s prior decision and the limitation 
period. On this point, the court considers that, following judgment C-267/20, with 
regard to the limitation period for actions for damages in the case of anti-
competitive conduct, the limitation period cannot begin to run until the injured 
party is aware or could have been aware of: a) the existence of the infringement; 
b) the existence of the damage; c) the causal link between the two; and d) the 
identity of the perpetrator of the infringement. Although Spanish case-law holds 
that there is a time limit of five years for bringing an action following publication 
of the decision imposing a penalty in the Official Gazette, the court disagrees with 
that time limit. 
8 In any event, it highlights certain obstacles to the application of that limitation 
period. First, there is no legal rule stipulating that the competition authority’s prior 
decision must have become final before the action can be initiated. Moreover, 
following the amendment to the Law on the protection of competition in 2007, it 
is no longer necessary for there to be a prior administrative decision declaring an 
anti-competitive action in order for a legal action to be brought. Persons who have 
been harmed by infringements of the prohibitions on anti-competitive conduct can 
now bring actions against infringers to enforce their rights directly before the 
courts, independently of any investigations or decisions by the competition 
authorities. 
9 Second, there is the issue of the injured parties’ knowledge of the decision. In 
actions for damages caused by the car manufacturers’ cartel, the starting point 
(dies a quo) should theoretically be set at the time when the administrative 
decision was made public. At that moment when the existence of the infringement 
is known, the infringers are specifically identified, the duration of the unlawful 
conduct is specified and the cause of damage can be determined. However, in 
view of the many actions initiated throughout Spain, separate from disciplinary 
proceedings brought by the CNMC, what point in time should be taken as the 
reference point for bringing an action: the publication of the decision on the 
CNMC’s website, the issue of a press release by the CNMC, the extensive 
coverage in the national media, or the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding 
the penalty becoming final? It should also be borne in mind that the judgment 
NISSAN IBERIA 
 
5 
confirming the sanction is not communicated by means of a press release, or in an 
official newspaper, or on a freely accessible website, but in a judicial database the 
existence of which is unknown to the public. 
10 With regard to the point when the limitation period for bringing an action for 
damages begins to run, the question arises as to whether this should be the date of 
publication of the administrative decision imposing the penalty – which will not 
always exist, since damages can be sought in an independent civil proceeding – or 
the date on which that decision has become final. 
11 The Zaragoza Provincial Court has decided that the limitation period for bringing 
legal action for damages begins with the publication of the decision imposing the 
penalty, without prejudice to the fact that, once civil proceedings have begun, they 
may be stayed in order to ascertain the consequences of subsequent judgements 
that may be delivered by order of the administrative courts. 
12 Another option would be to consider that the limitation period begins on the date 
on which the decision imposing the penalty becomes final. But here the problem 
arises that two different jurisdictions are involved: the civil court, before which 
the action for damages is brought, and the administrative court, before which the 
administrative penalty is appealed, with the consequent risk that contradictory 
judicial decisions could be imposed in relation to the same facts. 
13 On the other hand, the question arises as to which provisions should govern the 
statute of limitations in relation to actions for damages brought after the 
legislation transposing Directive 2014/104/EU has entered into force, but relating 
to events or decisions occurring or taken prior before it entered into force.