On 15 April, the Rechtbank Amsterdam handed down a landmark ruling in the European heavy goods vehicle cartel case, recognising the harm suffered by buyers and setting an average price premium of 7%. The case pits several manufacturers—MAN, Daimler, Iveco, Volvo/Renault and DAF—against Retail Cartel Damage Claims (CDC), a Luxembourg-based entity specialising in aggregating claims from companies that have purchased or leased lorries.
The dispute stems from the decision adopted on 19 July 2016 by the European Commission, which imposed fines for a cartel covering the entire European Economic Area between 17 January 1997 and 18 January 2011, a period of nearly 14 years. This cartel concerned lorries weighing over 6 tonnes, including medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and involved the coordination of gross prices as well as the timing and passing on of costs associated with Euro III to VI emissions standards.
Builders’ liability
The European Commission had imposed fines totalling nearly €2.93bn, divided between Daimler (€1.008bn), DAF (€752.7m), Volvo/Renault (€670.4m) and Iveco (€494.6m), whilst MAN was granted full immunity as a whistleblower.
In its judgment, the Dutch court relies on these findings to establish the manufacturers’ civil liability. It rejects the arguments regarding the limitation period and accepts an average cost overrun of 7%, whilst acknowledging that the effects of the cartel continued until 30 May 2013.
Arthur Welter Group among the 20 known victims in Luxembourg
In Luxembourg, some companies had already decided to join these legal actions. This is notably the case for the Arthur Welter Group, one of the first national players to join the initiative led by CDC before the Dutch courts. Its finance director, Claude Quaring, explained at the time to our colleagues at Le Wort that the company had no knowledge of the cartel during the period in question, whilst noting price movements deemed atypical: “With every change in emissions standards, the price of lorries rose by €10,000—another €10,000 between Euro IV and Euro V, and another €10,000 between Euro V and Euro VI—a strange coincidence.”
Support for the collective action was also based on economic and strategic considerations. “The CDC offered us a token sum for our claims. It costs us neither money nor manpower. They take care of everything,” he said, adding: “It’s more a question of European solidarity. Even with just a hundred lorries, together we have more clout.”
The Dutch ruling does not, however, bring the dispute to a close. It leaves several key issues unresolved, notably the exact volume of the transactions in question, their economic value, and the question of whether the additional costs will be passed on to end customers. It does, however, confirm the rise in Europe of compensation litigation structured around specialist firms such as CDC—founded in Luxembourg—and based on the pooling of claims, within a legal framework that is increasingly favourable to victims of anti-competitive practices.
