GERMANY Law and Practice Contributed by: Christina Malz and Sebastian Gröss, SZA Schilling, Zutt & Anschütz
tion of the limitation period – ie, the five years start afresh after the termination of the investiga - tive measures. The maximum limitation period in the case of an interruption is ten years. The ARC specifies that the limitation period can be interrupted if there are certain requests for information. More importantly, the maximum lim - it of ten years can be extended for the duration of court proceedings appealing against a fine. Thus, if court proceedings begin within ten years of the termination of the infringement and if the statutory limitation period has not yet expired, the imposition of fines will no longer be statute- barred – even if court proceedings take several years (which is not uncommon). Private Enforcement Private enforcement is subject to special limita - tion periods set out in Section 33h of the ARC. They are significantly longer than other civil law claims. The standard limitation period is five years, starting at the end of the year in which the injured party obtained knowledge of the cir - cumstances giving rise to the claim (or would have obtained such knowledge in the absence of gross negligence). In addition, the limitation period only begins when the infringement has ended, which is particularly important in the case of single and continuous infringements. Irrespective of such knowledge, claims become time-barred ten years after they arise and the infringement has ended. Statute of Limitations The statute of limitations for damages before 27 December 2016 provides for significantly shorter limitation periods. For these claims, the stand - ard limitation period is only three years (Section 195, 199 of the German Civil Code), irrespective of whether the infringement has ended or not.
However, after the ECJ’s Heureka judgment of 2024, there is a debate as to whether the Euro - pean effet utile principle compels national courts to require the termination of the infringement nevertheless. 1.6 Jurisdiction The FCO′s powers follow an effects doctrine. According to Section 185 (2) of the ARC, the rules of the ARC can also extend to conduct that occurred outside Germany if the conduct impacts German territory. The German courts′ jurisdiction over private claims follows the general rules of international procedural law and, in particular, the Brussels Ia Regulation. For example, German courts have jurisdiction if at least one of the defend - ants is based in Germany or if the harmful event occurred in Germany. 1.7 Principles of Comity Within the EU, the FCO co-operates intensively in the European Competition Network (ECN) and regularly applies the principles of comity laid out in Article 12 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. This provision allows the member states′ com - petition authorities and the EC to exchange and use in evidence any matter of law or fact for the purpose of applying EU competition law. Details of the FCO′s powers concerning the exchange of information with other competition authorities and further details are laid out in Sections 50a to 50e of the ARC. The FCO also co-operates with competition authorities outside the EU. Such co-operation can be based on bilateral agreements (eg, the US–Germany Antitrust Cooperation Agreement Relating to Mutual Cooperation Regarding Restrictive Business Practices) or within multi - lateral networks (in particular, within the OECD).
102 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook