PORTUGAL Law and Practice Contributed by: José Luís da Cruz Vilaça and Mariana Tavares, Antas da Cunha Ecija
• Active Brands, Gestvinus and Sogevinus • Sumol+Compal • Bimbo • Unilever • Johnson & Johnson These cases remain pending.
applied a 5% overcharge benchmark in similar cases, and the Portuguese Supreme Court deemed comparative analysis to be relevant given the lack of domestic case law. This ruling is particularly significant as it reflects the Supreme Court of Justice’s first interpretation of key principles following Portugal’s implementation of the Private Enforcement Directive. It sets an important precedent for future damages claims. The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 30 April 2026 in Case C-191/25, Wen- zel Logistics v Mercedes - Benz Group , clarified that, in cartel damages actions, under Directive 2014/104/ EU, national rules that delay the accrual of interest until notification of the claim, rather than from the date the harm occurred (ie, the date the inflated price was paid), undermine the effectiveness of Article 101 TFEU. The Court held that interest must run from the date each overcharge was paid and be assessed separately for each purchase. While this addresses a different specific question from the Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling on the inflation-indexation of statutory interest, both answers from the CJEU apply to the calculation of the interest component of full compen - sation in cartel damages claims. Portuguese courts are thus empowered to apply this precedent in a way consistent with EU law. 2. Private Antitrust Claims: Basis and Procedure 2.1 Statutory Basis A claim for a breach of competition law in Portugal can be brought under Articles 101, 102, 107 and 108 of the TFEU. Claims can also be brought under the domestic Competition Act and the Private Damages Act. General substantive rules provided for in the Civil Code and the procedural rules of the Civil Procedure Code will apply when they are not addressed or fall outside the scope of the Private Damages Act. Claimants may bring private actions either indepen - dently of any prior regulatory decision or following the conclusion of public enforcement proceedings. Where no prior infringement decision has been issued
Portugal’s collective redress landscape has contin - ued to expand beyond the retail sector, with new representative actions filed since 2025 against major car manufacturers, including the Volkswagen/Por - sche Group, BMW and Nissan/Renault, as well as several pharmaceutical companies, including Stada, Haleon, Merck, Ratiopharma, Perrigo, Moreno, Vicks and Angelini. This trend underscores the continu - ing growth of Portugal’s claimant-friendly collective redress environment. The Trucks Cartel Litigation – Supreme Court of Justice’s Ruling of 13 February 2025 Portugal has emerged as an active jurisdiction in the wave of follow-on claims arising from the European Commission’s decision in the trucks cartel case. These proceedings, which span multiple EU member states, have emphasised the role of national courts in enforcing the EU’s competition enforcement frame - work. A milestone in Portugal was reached with the Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling of 13 February 2025 (Case No 54/19.6YQSTR.L1.S1), the first Supreme Court judg - ment in a civil damages claim relating to anti-compet - itive practices. The case concerned a claim against one of the truck manufacturers fined by the European Commission. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld two key points previously determined by the Lisbon Court of Appeal: • Interest and inflation : Compensation should not be further adjusted for inflation when statutory default interest applies, since the interest itself fulfils a compensatory function. • Judicial estimation of harm : In the absence of direct evidence of overcharging, the Court acknowledged that decisions from other EU mem - ber states, such as Spain, may serve as persuasive guidance. Specifically, the Spanish Supreme Court
124 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook