Judgment of the General Court Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition of 15 June 2022, Qualcomm v Commission Qualcomm – Exclusivity payments, T-235/18

• Date: 15 June 2022
• Year: 2022

10

limitation period applicable to RM’s action for damages under the old rules did not elapse before the

date of expiry of the time limit for transposing that directive, that action falls within the temporal

scope of Article 10 of the said directive.

With regard to the temporal applicability of Article 17(1) of that same directive, the Court finds that, by

aiming in particular to empower the national courts to estimate the amount of harm suffered where it

is practically impossible or excessively difficult precisely to quantify it on the basis of the evidence

available, the objective of that provision is to relax the standard of proof required for the purposes of

determining the amount of the harm resulting from an infringement of the competition law rules.

In the light of its case-law, according to which the rules on the burden of proof and the standard of

proof are, in principle, classified as procedural rules, the Court concludes that Article 17(1) of Directive

2014/104 constitutes a procedural provision, within the meaning of Article 22(2) of that directive, for

which the application of the transposing provisions to actions brought before 26 December 2014 is

excluded.

RM having brought its action on 1 April 2018, that action, although relating to an infringement which

ceased before the entry into force of the said directive, falls, consequently, within the temporal scope

of Article 17(1) of the said directive.

So far as concerns, last, the temporal applicability of Article 17(2) of Directive 2014/104, establishing a

rebuttable presumption as to the existence of harm resulting from a cartel, the C ourt emphasises that

that provision is directly linked to the incurrence of the non-contractual civil liability of the perpetrator

of the infringement concerned and, consequently, directly affects his or her legal situation. As such a

rule may be classified as a substantive rule, the Court considers that Article 17(2) of Directive

2014/104 is substantive in nature within the meaning of that directive, such that a retroactive

application of the provisions transposing it into Spanish law is prohibited.

Since the fact identified by the EU legislature as giving rise to a presumption of the existence of harm

under Article 17(2) of Directive 2014/104 is the existence of a cartel, the prohibition of retroactive

application of that provision and of the transposing legislation means that they cannot be applicable

to an action for damages which, although brought after the entry into force of the provisions

transposing belatedly that directive into Spanish law, pertains to an infringement of competition law

which ceased before the expiry of the time limit for transposing that directive.

2. ABUSE OF A DOMINANT POSITION (ARTICLE 102 TFEU)

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 June 2022,

Qualcomm v Commission (Qualcomm – Exclusivity payments), T-235/1 8

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Competition – Abuse of a dominant position – LTE chipsets market – Decision finding an infringement of

Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement – Exclusivity payments – Rights of the defence –

Article 19 and Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Foreclosure effects

The applicant, Qualcomm Inc., is a US company which develops and supplies baseband chipsets

(‘chipsets’) intended for use in smartphones and tablets to enable them to connect to cellular