Case C-57/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — RegioJet a.s. v České dráhy a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Rules governing 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 — Articles 5 and 6 — Disclosure of evidence — Evidence in a competition authority’s file — Proceedings relating to an infringement of competition rules pending before the European Commission — National proceedings relating to an action for damages with regard to the same infringement — Conditions for the disclosure of evidence)
Date: 2023-01-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, civil liability proceedings, competition law, competition policy, confidentiality, damages, disclosure of information, dominant position, evidence








C_2023071EN.01000501.xml










27.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/5






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — RegioJet a.s. v České dráhy a.s.
(Case C-57/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Rules governing 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 - Articles 5 and 6 - Disclosure of evidence - Evidence in a competition authority’s file - Proceedings relating to an infringement of competition rules pending before the European Commission - National proceedings relating to an action for damages with regard to the same infringement - Conditions for the disclosure of evidence)
(2023/C 71/05)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RegioJet a.s.

Defendant: České dráhy a.s.

Intervening party: Česká republika, Ministerstvo dopravy

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 5(1) of 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
must be interpreted as not precluding a national court from ordering the disclosure of evidence for the purpose of national proceedings brought before that court which concern an action for damages relating to an infringement of competition law, even though proceedings in respect of that infringement are pending before the European Commission with a view to the adoption of a decision pursuant to Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101] and [102 TFEU], which have led to the national court staying the proceedings pending before it. It is, however, for the national court to ensure that the disclosure of the evidence requested at that stage of the proceedings, which must fulfil the conditions laid down in Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 2014/104, does not go beyond what is necessary in the light of the claim for damages brought before it.










2.


Article 6(5) of Directive 2014/104
must be interpreted as meaning that the staying by a national competition authority of administrative proceedings that it has initiated, on the ground that the European Commission has opened proceedings under Chapter III of Regulation No 1/2003, cannot be equated to a closing of those administrative proceedings by that authority ‘by adopting a decision or otherwise’, within the meaning of that provision.










3.


Article 5(8) and Article 6(5)(a) and (9) of Directive 2014/104
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which temporarily restricts, under Article 6(5) of that directive, not only the disclosure of information ‘prepared’ specifically for the proceedings of the competition authority, but also that of all information ‘submitted’ for that purpose.










4.


Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104, read in conjunction with Article 6(5)(a) thereof
must be interpreted as meaning that those provisions do not preclude a national court, pursuant to a procedural instrument of national law, from ruling on the disclosure of evidence and ordering that evidence to be placed under sequestration, while postponing the examination of whether that evidence contains ‘information that was prepared by a natural or legal person specifically for the proceedings of a competition authority’, within the meaning of the latter provision, to a time when that court has access to that evidence. The use of such an instrument must, however, comply with the requirements arising from the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5(3) and Article 6(4) of Directive 2014/104.










5.


Article 6(5)(a) of Directive 2014/104
must be interpreted as meaning that where a national court, pursuant to a procedural instrument of national law, postpones the examination of whether the evidence whose disclosure has been requested contains ‘information that was prepared by a natural or legal person specifically for the proceedings of a competition authority’, that court must ensure that the claimant or other parties to the proceedings and their representatives do not have access to that evidence before it has completed that review, where the evidence falls within the white list or, where that evidence falls within the grey list, before the competent competition authority has closed its proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.