Suez Groupe Sas & Ors v Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

On 19 July 2016, the European Commission adopted a settlement decision finding that five major European truck manufacturing groups infringed Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by colluding on pricing and cost pass-through related to emission technologies for medium and heavy trucks in the European Economic Area. The cartel operated for 14 years, from 1997 to 2011. The published decision is provisional and non-confidential, with parties agreeing to disclose a less redacted confidential version within a confidentiality ring established by the court.

The settlement decision provides only an abbreviated description of the cartel’s operation, comprising 15 paragraphs with no substantive redactions, but referencing documents in the Commission’s file. This decision has triggered over 160 damages claims across the EU, including eight actions pending in England and Wales and the Competition Appeal Tribunal, with some consolidated and many claimants involved.

The first action was commenced by a corporate claimant against one of the defendant truck manufacturers in December 2016. Following a case management hearing, an order was made for disclosure of the confidential version of the Commission’s decision and related Commission file documents into a confidentiality ring, with exclusions for irrelevant categories of documents.

Currently, applications by claimants in four other proceedings seek similar disclosure orders from one defendant, essentially requesting the same scope of disclosure as previously ordered. The European Commission provided written observations expressing concerns about the proportionality of the broad disclosure requests.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether disclosure of documents from the Commission’s file, subject to certain exclusions, should be ordered in follow-on damages claims arising from the Commission’s settlement decision.
2. How to interpret and apply the disclosure provisions of the Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU), particularly Articles 5 and 6, in relation to the scope, specificity, and proportionality of disclosure requests.
3. Whether the proper law issue raised by defendants affects the scope of disclosure, specifically concerning the relevance of documents related to events in different Member States.
4. The extent to which consistency should be maintained in disclosure orders across parallel proceedings arising from the same underlying infringement.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimants' Arguments

• Claimants seek disclosure of Commission file documents to understand the detailed workings of the cartel, which is necessary for quantifying damages.
• The scope of disclosure should be consistent with prior disclosure orders in related proceedings to prevent inequality between claimants.
• The claim is plausible and supported by available facts, justifying the disclosure requests under the Damages Directive.
• The confidentiality ring adequately protects confidential information, addressing defendants' concerns.

Defendants' Arguments

• Defendants argue that the disclosure requests are too broad and insufficiently specific, contrary to Article 5(2) of the Damages Directive, which requires narrowly circumscribed requests.
• Disclosure should be limited to positive categories of documents specified by the claimants rather than by broad exclusions.
• The proper law issue raised by defendants, asserting that German law applies for part of the cartel period, justifies limiting disclosure to documents relevant to that jurisdiction.
• Overbroad disclosure could prejudice effective public enforcement of competition law by deterring leniency applications.
• Additional time should be allowed for defendants to review documents and propose categories for disclosure before documents are produced.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that the Commission’s settlement decision provides limited detail about the cartel’s operation, necessitating disclosure of Commission file documents to enable claimants to understand the cartel fully and pursue damages claims effectively. The court emphasized the purposive interpretation of the Damages Directive, which balances facilitating disclosure for damages claims with protecting against disproportionate or burdensome disclosure.

Applying Articles 5 and 6 of the Directive, the court noted that the claimants’ requests are supported by available facts, and confidentiality concerns are addressed by the confidentiality ring. The primary issue is proportionality, especially limiting disclosure to relevant documents.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that disclosure requests must specify only positive categories of documents, accepting that a defined category (the Commission file) with certain exclusions is a practicable and proportionate approach. The court acknowledged the complexity added by the proper law issue raised by defendants, which may justify broader categories of documents.

The court stressed the importance of consistency with prior disclosure orders in related proceedings to avoid inequality among claimants and noted that since the defendant has already disclosed these documents in a prior case, the burden of disclosure is minimal.

The court proposed a process allowing defendants to review the file and exclude clearly irrelevant documents with reasoned explanations, subject to review at a case management conference, rather than restarting disclosure argumentation. This approach balances the need for disclosure with proportionality and efficiency.

The court clarified that the order applies only to the current UK proceedings and does not establish a general precedent for other jurisdictions or future cases.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the applications for disclosure of the Commission file documents into a confidentiality ring, subject to exclusions for irrelevant categories and a process for defendants to exclude clearly irrelevant documents with reasoned justification.

This decision ensures claimants in the UK follow-on damages claims have access to necessary evidence to understand the cartel’s operation and quantify damages, while protecting confidential information and limiting burdens on defendants. The ruling maintains consistency with prior disclosure orders in related proceedings and does not create binding precedent beyond the specific UK context or these proceedings.