”
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 24 April 2024 (C‑605/21)
\n\n
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressed the question whether a former provision of Czech law on limitation periods for infringements of EU competition law is compatible with requirements under EU law. The decision focused in particular on whether national rules can impair the effective enforcement of EU competition rules if they make the prosecution of cartel infringements more difficult by reason of limitation periods that are too short or structured in an unfavourable manner.
\n\n
According to the published account of the decision, the CJEU considered the Czech limitation rule applicable at the time to be incompatible with EU law.
\n
Limitation periods in the context of EU competition law
\n
Significance of time limits for the enforcement of cartel law
\n\n
Limitation rules determine the period within which authorities or courts can take up and sanction competition infringements. In the field of European cartel law, the design of such time limits is of considerable practical relevance, as infringements are often complex, extend over longer periods of time, and are only clarified after a delay.
\n
EU-law requirements for national rules
\n\n
Where the enforcement of requirements under EU law depends on Member State rules, those rules must, in accordance with the standards recognised in the EU legal order, be designed so that the practical effectiveness of EU law is not undermined. National limitation rules must therefore not lead to the prosecution and punishment of competition infringements being made practically impossible or excessively difficult.
\n
The former Czech limitation rule in focus
\n
Issues raised by the contested design
\n\n
In the situation assessed by the CJEU, a Czech provision was at issue whose mechanism—particularly in the interplay between the start of the limitation period, its length, and the time of the authority’s knowledge and/or procedural steps—did not, in the EU-law assessment, sufficiently ensure that infringements of EU competition law can be effectively prosecuted.
\n
Incompatibility with EU law in the CJEU’s view
\n\n
The CJEU—according to the decision as reproduced in the source—concluded that the former national rule did not meet the requirements under EU law. The Court thus made clear that, although Member States have discretion when designing limitation periods, that discretion ends where the enforcement of EU competition law is impaired in its substance.
\n
Classification and significance for practice
\n
Impact on national proceedings and administrative practice
\n\n
The decision illustrates that national rules on limitation in competition law are subject to limits under EU law. Where a national limitation regime does not sufficiently enable the prosecution of cartel infringements relevant under EU law, this may entail consequences under EU law that must be taken into account in ongoing or future proceedings.
\n
Note on reporting and the source situation
\n\n
The above remarks are based on the CJEU judgment of 24 April 2024 in Case C‑605/21, as presented in the published summary (source: https://urteile.news/EuGH_C-60521_Zuwiderhandlungen-gegen-das-Wettbewerbsrecht-der-Union-Fruehere-tschechische-Verjaehrungsregelung-mit-Unionsrecht-unvereinbar~N33928). Insofar as matters are the subject of administrative or judicial proceedings, the presumption of innocence applies until a final determination has been made.
\n
MTR Legal Attorneys-at-Law – classification within the framework of competition law
\n\n
Cross-border matters and the interlinking of national procedural rules with requirements under EU law can significantly shape the assessment of limitation issues in competition law. Where clarification is needed in this regard, a well-founded classification can be provided within the framework of professional advice. Further information can be found at MTR Legal under: Legal advice in competition law.
“
