Malen Elorza Unanue, María Muñoz Freijanes and Marina Novo Cenarruzabeitia have published the article ‘The Nissan Iberia judgment: New developments on the limitation of antitrust damages claims’ in issue 1/2026 of Europarättslig tidskrift, available at https://www.ert.se/

The article covers the evolution of the CJEU’s case law on the limitation period for actions for damages arising from competition infringements, culminating in the recent CJEU judgment in the Nissan Iberia case, which addresses one of the most relevant issues in relation to actions for damages for competition law infringements: when does the limitation period for claiming compensation begin to run? This is a decisive aspect in follow-on actions, i.e., those claims based on a previous decision by a competition authority that has already found an infringement.

Before this ruling, European case law had already outlined the general framework. The CJEU had affirmed that the right to full compensation is part of the effectiveness of EU competition rules and that, therefore, national rules on limitation periods cannot make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise that right. Along these lines, Directive 2014/104/EU and judgments such as Cogeco, Volvo/DAF and Heureka specified that the limitation period cannot begin before the injured party knows, or can reasonably know, about the infringement, the damage and the identity of the infringer.

The Nissan Iberia case arose from the CNMC’s 2015 penalty decision in the car manufacturers’ cartel case. Although the infringement was published at that time, the decision was appealed and did not become final until 2021, when the Supreme Court confirmed it. The legal question was therefore whether the limitation period should start in 2015, with the publication of the administrative decision, or in 2021, once that decision became final.

A question was therefore referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. The CJEU’s answer was clear: when the action for damages is based on a decision by a national competition authority, the limitation period should not start until that decision becomes final, provided that the pending appeal could affect the existence or scope of the infringement. The Court thus distinguishes between decisions of the European Commission, which have immediate binding effects, and those of national authorities, which may be suspended, amended or annulled by the courts. In this way, the CJEU aligns itself with the doctrine already upheld by the Spanish Supreme Court.

This ruling is of considerable practical importance because it reinforces the legal certainty of the injured parties and consolidates an interpretation favorable to the effectiveness of the right to claim damages arising from competition infringements. Furthermore, its impact is already being felt in other proceedings before the Spanish courts, which are adopting the same approach. In short, Nissan Iberia marks a milestone in determining the dies a quo of these actions and confirms that, in the field of private enforcement of competition law, the finality of the sanctioning decision is the key reference point for the start of the limitation period.