Nissan Iberia: ECJ clarifies start of limitation periods in antitrust follow-on damages actions

On 4 September 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “ECJ” or the “Court”) delivered its preliminary ruling in Case C-21/24, Nissan Iberia. The case addressed the starting point of limitation periods for private antitrust damages actions based on decisions of national competition authorities (NCAs).

The Court held that the limitation period only begins when the NCA’s decision has become final, that is once all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. This clarification strengthens legal certainty for claimants, who no longer need to bring damages actions before the underlying infringement decision attains definitive legal force. At the same time, it prolongs the period of potential exposure for defendants, reshaping the strategic dynamics of competition litigation in Europe.

What the limitation period means

A limitation period is the legal deadline by which a claimant must bring an action. If that deadline passes, the claim is considered time-barred. In Nissan Iberia, the Court clarified that, for follow-on claims for damages based on NCA decisions, this deadline does not begin to run until the decision is final, although claimants remain free to bring actions earlier if they choose.

Background

The dispute originated in 2015, when the Spanish Competition Authority found that Nissan, along with several other car manufacturers, had violated Article 101 TFEU and its national equivalent by participating in an information-exchange cartel related to distribution and after-sales activities. The Authority adopted its infringement decision on 23 July 2015, publishing a press release shortly thereafter on 28 July 2015 and the full decision on 15 September 2015. The infringement decision was appealed by, inter alia, Nissan, claiming that the information exchanged was not related to prices and therefore legitimate. Both the Spanish Court of Appeal and the Spanish Supreme Court upheld the Authority’s decision, but due to the appeal process, the decision did not become final until June 2021.

In March 2023, a consumer who had bought a car while the cartel was in effect, brought a follow-on damages action against Nissan before the Spanish courts, seeking compensation for the alleged overcharge resulting from the cartel.

Nissan argued in its defense that the action for damages was time-barred under the old Spanish rules, which provided for a one-year limitation period beginning when the injured party becomes aware of the infringement. Nissan claimed that since the Competition Authority had issued a press release about the decision and the case had received national media coverage, the consumer had sufficient knowledge of the infringement once the decision was published in full in September 2015. Given the one-year limitation period, Nissan maintained that the claimant had filed the damages action long after the deadline had expired. On the other hand, the claimant argued that that it lacked sufficient knowledge and certainty to bring a damages action until the Competition Authority’s decision had become final. The claimant further maintained that the EU Damages Directive (2014/104/EU), which Member States were required to transpose by December 2016, and which provides for a five-year limitation period, was applicable.

Since the referring court expressed doubt as to whether the limitation period could begin before the authority’s decision had become final, it turned to the ECJ for guidance on exactly when the limitation period begins to run.

The ECJ ruling

In the 2022 Volvo and DAF Trucks judgment, the ECJ held that two conditions must be satisfied for the limitation period to begin. The first being that the infringement must have ended, and the second being that the injured party must be aware of, or reasonably be expected to know, the information necessary to bring a damages action. This raises the question of when an injured party can be deemed to have sufficient information. There, the Court clarified that once the Commission’s infringement decision had been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the injured party could be considered to have enough information to bring a damages claim

In the Nissan judgment, however, the Court drew a distinction between decisions adopted by the Commission and those issued by NCAs. While Commission decisions are binding on national courts, NCA decisions that are still under judicial challenge before national courts do not have the same binding effect. The Court held that until appeals are exhausted, national courts remain free to reach divergent conclusions.

Consequently, the Court held that the limitation period for follow-on damages actions based on NCA decisions begins only once those decisions have become final. According to the Court, only decisions with definitive legal force provide the certainty and evidentiary basis necessary to bring a damages claim.

Implications for claimants and defendants

The clarification of limitation period rules brings clarity and predictability for claimants. The ruling strengthens claimants’ rights, as they no longer risk of basing a follow-on action on an NCA decision that may later be annulled. This also spares them from incurring legal costs before the NCA’s decision is definitive. As a result, the ruling is expected to encourage more follow-on damages actions, giving potential claimants greater confidence in the viability of their claims.

For defendants, however, this ruling introduces new implications and uncertainties. Companies found to have infringed competition law can no longer assume that the clock starts ticking when the NCA publishes its decision – instead, they face potentially years of extended exposure while appeals work their way through the courts. This may also prompt companies to reconsider their settlement strategies with NCAs, balancing the advantages of earlier closure and fine reductions against the risk of extended exposure to damages claims if infringement decisions are appealed.

Concluding remarks

In short, the ECJ rejected Nissan’s argument and held that the limitation period only begins once a national competition authority’s decision has become final, i.e. that it cannot be appealed. For claimants, the ruling enhances predictability around limitation periods and prevents premature filing of claims, likely leading to an increase in private enforcement actions. For defendants however, the ruling will lead to prolonged exposure for follow-on damages.

At Delphi, we closely monitor these developments and help clients navigate the evolving landscape of competition damages litigation. Our team combines deep competition law expertise with practical litigation experience, ensuring that our clients remain strategically prepared. If you would like to discuss the implications of this landmark judgment for your business, please do not hesitate to contact us.