The claimant sought damages after it had been established in 2001 that the defendants had engaged in an unlawful cartel to maintain the prices of vitamins. The defendants had paid fines, and now argued that the claims, begun in 2008, were out of time, the limitation period being 2 years from the infringement decision. The claimants had argued that the period began to run on the expiry of the period allowed for an appeal against the infringement decision, and now appealed against rejection of that claim saying that it led to uncertainty.
Held: The appeal failed. There had been no failure to comply with the principles of effectiveness and legal certainty required under EU law. The limitation period was set out with sufficient clarity and precise as to allow parties to ascertain and exercise their rights.
Judges:
Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson
Citations:
[2012] UKSC 45, UKSC 2010/0236, [2012] 1 WLR 2922, [2012] Bus LR 1801, [2012] WLR(D) 286
Links:
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Basf Se and others CAT 25-Sep-2008
The claimant sought damages after the defendants had been found to be part of an unlawful price maintenance cartel. The respondent argued that the claim was out of time.
Held: The claim could proceed. . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Aventis Sa and others CAT 28-Jan-2005
Applications for security for costs. . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd v Basf Se CAT 17-Oct-2008
The Tribunal unanimously decided that ‘the relevant date’ under rule 31(2) of the Tribunal Rules for the purposes of the Claimants’ claim fell on the expiry of the period during which an appeal against the relevant judgment of the CFI could have . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Se and Others CA 22-May-2009
The claimant sought to bring an action for damages arising from an alleged breach of competition rules by the defendant. The defendant argued that the claim was out of time being outside the two year period required.
Held: The respondent’s . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others Basf Se (Formerly Basf Ag) and Others CAT 19-Nov-2009
The claimants wished to claim damages arising from the participation by the defendants in an unlawful cartel. The Court of Appeal had said that the claim was out of time, and that the claimants would have to seek an extension of time to bring their . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Se (Formerly BASF Ag) and Others CAT 12-Feb-2010
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Deutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc SC 9-Apr-2014
The Court was asked whether claims against MAM for losses suffered by reason of a cartel infringing article 81(1) TEC (now article 101 TFEU) were time-barred, and also as to substantive questions about the nature of the decisions of the European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commercial, European, Limitation
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465184
