Judgment of the Court of 21 January 2021, Whiteland Import Export, C-308/19

Date21 January 2021
Year2021
13
V. COMPETITION
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2021
Whiteland Import Export
Reference fo r a preliminary rulin g Competition Penalties imposed by the national competition
authority Limitation period Actions interrupting the limitation period National legislation precluding,
after the initiation of an investigation, the possibility that subsequent action for the purpose of
proceedings or investigation may interrupt the new limitation period Principle that national law must be
interpreted in conformity with EU law Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 Article 25(3) Scope Article 4(3)
TEU Article 101 TFEU Principle of effectiveness
On 7 September 2009, the Consiliul Concurenţei (Competition Authority, Romania) commenced an
investigation on the retail food market against several undertakings, including Whiteland Import
Export SRL (‘Whiteland’), in order to ascertain whether those undertakings had infringed the rules of
competition law, in particular those laid down in Article 101 TFEU. The undertakings were accused of
having concluded anticompetitive agreements between 2006 and 2009 aimed at distorting and
impeding competition on the relevant market, by fixing the selling and resale price of the suppliers’
products. By decision of 14 April 2015, the Competition Authority imposed fines on them.
Finding that, under the national rules applicable, the limitation period had expired when the
Competition Authority adopted its decision, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest,
Romania), he aring an action brought by Whiteland, annulled that decision in so far as it concerned
that company. After finding that the limitation period had started to run on 15 July 2009, the date on
which the infringement of which Whiteland was accused had ended, that court held that the decision
of 7 September 2009 to initiate the investigation had interrupted the limitation period and caused a
new limitation period to start to run, expiring on 7 September 2014. It stated that, under a strict
interpretation of the national rules governing limitation periods, the measures taken by the
Competition Authority after the decision to initiate the investigation were not capable of interrupting
the new limitation period and, therefore, that decision is the last action of that authority which is
capable of interrupting that period. In addition, that same court held that Article 25(3) of Regulation
No1/2003,
35
concerning the interruption of the limitation period, applied only to the European
Commission and did not govern limitation periods for the imposition of fines by national competition
authorities
It is in that context that the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice,
Romania, ‘the referring court’), hearin g an appeal brought by the Competition Authority against the
judgment of the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), asked the Court of Justice, in
essence, whether national courts are required to apply Article 25(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 to the
time-barring of a national competition authority’s powers to impose penalties for infringements of EU
competition law. The referring court also requested the Court of Justice to clarify, in essence, whether
Article 4(3) TEU and Article 101 TFEU, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be
interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by the national courts having jurisdiction,
according to which the decision to initiate an investigation, adopted by the national competition
authority, concerning an infringement of EU competition law rules, is the final action of that authority
which may have the effect of interrupting the limitation period relating to its power to impose
penalties and excludes any subsequent action, for the purpose of proceedings or the investigation,
from interrupting that period.
35
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] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT