62024CJ0286_RES
Case C‑286/24
Meliá Hotels International, S.A.
v
Associação Ius Omnibus
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça)
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2026
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union – Directive 2014/104/EU – Article 5(1) – Scope – Special declaratory action for the disclosure of documents preceding a potential action for damages – Assessment of the plausibility of the claim for damages)
Competition – Actions for compensation for the harm caused by infringements of competition rules – Directive 2014/104 – Provisions governing the disclosure of relevant evidence in the control of the defendant or a third party – Scope – Action under national law seeking access to evidence prior to the bringing of an action for damages – Included
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/104, Art. 5(1))
(see paragraphs 25-48, operative part 1)
Competition – Actions for compensation for the harm caused by infringements of competition rules – Directive 2014/104 – Order to disclose relevant evidence in the control of the defendant or a third party – Conditions – Demonstration by the claimant of the plausibility of his or her claim for damages – Claimant must establish the plausibility of an infringement, of harm and of a causal link between that infringement and that harm – Commission decision finding an infringement in the form of a vertical restriction by object – Decision demonstrating the plausibility of that infringement – Decision capable of including relevant indicia for the purposes of assessing the plausibility of the harm and the causal link – Decision adopted as part of a settlement procedure – Irrelevant
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/104, Art. 5(1))
(see paragraphs 53-72, operative part 2)
Competition – Actions for compensation for the harm caused by infringements of competition rules – Directive 2014/104 – Order to disclose relevant evidence in the control of the defendant or a third party – Conditions – Demonstration by the claimant of the plausibility of his or her claim for damages – Claimant must establish the plausibility of an infringement, of harm and of a causal link between that infringement and that harm – Degree of evidential value required – Existence of an infringement, of harm and of a causal link that must be reasonably acceptable
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/104, Art. 5(1))
(see paragraphs 74-88, operative part 3)
Résumé
Ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court, Portugal), the Court of Justice interprets the provisions of Directive 2014/104 (
1
) which govern the disclosure before national courts of evidence in the control of the defendant or a third party in the context of an action for compensation for harm caused by infringements of the competition rules.
On 21 February 2020, the European Commission imposed a fine on the hotel company Meliá Hotels International, S.A. (‘Meliá’) for having infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (
2
) by implementing, by means of contracts, vertical practices that differentiated between consumers on the basis of their nationality or country of residence. (
3
)
Associação Ius Omnibus, a consumer protection association, brought a special declaratory action before the Portuguese court with jurisdiction seeking from Meliá the disclosure of documents that were relevant to a potential collective action for damages brought on behalf of consumers in Portugal who were harmed by the anti-competitive practice identified by the Commission.
The courts of first and second instance upheld that special declaratory action, and Meliá subsequently appealed to the Portuguese Supreme Court.
In those circumstances, the Portuguese Supreme Court decided to refer a number of questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104, which requires Member States to ensure that, in proceedings relating to compensation for the harm caused by infringements of the competition rules, the claimant can obtain from the national court an order requiring the defendant or a third party to disclose relevant evidence, provided that it has substantiated the plausibility of his or her claim for damages by presenting sufficient and reasonably available facts and evidence.
In that context, the Portuguese Supreme Court asks, in essence, whether Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104 is to be interpreted as meaning that:
—
it applies to an action under national law seeking the disclosure of evidence prior to the bringing of an action for compensation for damage caused by infringements of competition rules;
—
the claimant’s demonstration that its claim for damages is plausible requires proof that it is more likely than not that the conditions for liability for an infringement of competition law are met; and
—
a Commission decision finding an infringement of EU competition law in the form of a vertical restriction by object is sufficient to establish the plausibility of the claim for damages, and whether the answer to that question is affected by the fact that that decision was adopted at the end of a settlement procedure.
Findings of the Court
In the first place, following a literal, systematic and teleological interpretation, the Court confirms that Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104 is applicable to a prior action such as that provided for in the present case by Portuguese law, which allows persons harmed by an infringement of the competition rules to obtain access to the relevant evidence before the bringing of an action for damages on that basis.
According to the Court, that interpretation is supported, in particular, by the objectives of Directive 2014/104, which are to facilitate the exercise of the right to damages, in view of the need to remedy the information asymmetry characterising those disputes, and thus to ensure the effectiveness of the private enforcement of competition law.
In the second place, the Court examines the question referred for a preliminary ruling asking whether the condition laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104, which makes the gathering of requested evidence dependent on the claimant submitting a reasoned justification supporting the plausibility of its claim for damages, is met where there is a Commission decision finding an infringement of EU competition law in the form of a vertical restriction by object, and whether the answer to that question is affected by the fact that that decision was adopted at the end of a settlement procedure.
In that regard, the Court observes, first of all, that Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104 requires, in essence, that the person injured by an infringement of competition law must put forward, in support of his or her request for the disclosure of evidence, a reasoned justification containing reasonably available facts and evidence sufficient to establish the plausibility of his or her claim for damages, that is to say, the plausibility of the existence of an infringement, of harm and of a causal link between that infringement and that harm.
Regarding the demonstration of the plausibility of the infringement, the Court notes, next, that a Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU enables the national court to find that the existence and, a fortiori, the plausibility of the infringement have been established, since the national court cannot take decisions running counter to such a decision. By contrast, that decision is not sufficient, as such, to support the plausibility of a claim for damages in all circumstances. To that end, it is still necessary to demonstrate the plausibility of harm and of the causal link.
Regarding the demonstration of the plausibility of the harm, the Court recalls, in addition, that Article 17(2) of Directive 2014/104 establishes a rebuttable presumption as to the existence of harm resulting from a cartel which, as follows from point 14 of Article 2 of that directive, must be understood as a horizontal restriction of competition between two or more competitors. This therefore precludes such a rebuttable presumption from applying to a vertical restriction of competition involving non-competing undertakings which operate at different levels of the production or distribution chain.
Consequently, in the event of a Commission decision finding a prohibited cartel, the plausibility of the harm caused by the infringement must be deemed to have been established, unless the defendant can prove otherwise. However, the same does not apply in the event of a Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU in the form of a vertical restriction, even if it is a restriction of competition by object. That being said, such a decision may include relevant indicia for the purposes of assessing the plausibility of the harm and the causal link.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104 must be interpreted as meaning that a Commission decision finding an infringement of EU competition law in the form of a vertical restriction by object is not sufficient to establish the plausibility of a claim for damages, since that claim requires proof not only of the plausibility of such an infringement, as established by such a decision, but also of damage and of a causal link between that damage and that infringement. The fact that that decision was made at the end of a settlement procedure makes no difference to the answer to that question.
In the last place, the Court finds that, in order to demonstrate the plausibility of a claim for damages within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104, it is not necessary to establish that it is more likely than not that the conditions for liability for an infringement of competition law are met. It is sufficient for the claimant to demonstrate that the assumption that those conditions are met is reasonably acceptable.
Pointing out that the concept of plausibility within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104 must be given an autonomous interpretation in EU law, the Court notes that, according to its usual meaning, the concept of the plausibility of a claim for damages does not require a particularly high degree of probability that the conditions for liability are met, but rather suggests that it is necessary and sufficient to convince the national court ruling on the request for disclosure of evidence that the assumption that those three conditions are met is reasonably acceptable.
That interpretation is supported by a contextual analysis of the concept of plausibility of the claim for damages set out in Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104. First, in the general scheme of that provision, read in the light, in particular, of recitals 6, 14 and 15 of that directive, the fact that the claim for damages has been demonstrated to be plausible does not result in compensation being awarded in the context of an action on the merits. Rather, it leads to the issuance of an order for the prior disclosure of evidence necessary for such an action to be effective. The standard of proof required to obtain the evidence necessary for the purposes of the main action must therefore be lower than that required for the purpose of establishing that the conditions for incurring substantive liability are satisfied.
Second, it is apparent from Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104 and recital 16 of that directive that the plausibility of the claim for damages must be established solely on the basis of the facts and evidence which are reasonably available to the claimant, which reflects the intention of the EU legislature not to impose an excessive burden of proof on that applicant, but merely to require the claimant to make a plausible assertion that an infringement of competition law has caused him or her harm.
According to the Court, that interpretation is also the only interpretation compatible with the objectives of Directive 2014/104, which seek, inter alia, to remedy the information asymmetry which characterises actions for damages for infringements of competition law. The evidence necessary to prove a claim for damages is often held exclusively by the opposing party or by third parties, and is not sufficiently known by, or accessible to, the claimant.
If the claimant were required to establish, in support of his or her request for the disclosure of evidence necessary for an action for damages, that it is more likely than not that the conditions for liability for an infringement of competition law are met, that would constitute a strict legal requirement that could prevent the effective exercise of the right to compensation. Such an evidentiary requirement would be incompatible with the objective of facilitating actions for damages, since the standard of proof required would make it virtually impossible or excessively difficult for the claimant to bring an action for damages.
Accordingly, the objectives of Directive 2014/104 support the view that the concept of plausibility of the claim for damages and of the claimant’s burden of proof should be interpreted as meaning that the claimant must, on the basis of the information reasonably available to him or her, convince the national court ruling on his or her request for disclosure of evidence that it is reasonably acceptable to assume that the three cumulative conditions for liability for an infringement of competition law are met.
(
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).
(
2
)	Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3; ‘the EEA Agreement’).
(
3
)	Decision C(2020) 893 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40528 – Meliá (Holiday Pricing)).