EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Prague, Czechia

certainty which means the abovementioned inability to precisely predict from which exact moment will the subjective limitation period start running should not be considered an issue. Moreover, the above-mentioned discrepancy in the case lawconcerning the time of commencement of the subjective limitation period in the case of continuing or repeated infringements has hopefully been resolved once and for all by virtue of the recent case law which definitely states that the concept of the beginning of the subjective limitation period in the case of continuing or repeated infringements which determined that the limitation period started when the OPC became aware of at least the beginning of violation of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation under the APC is unsustainable (see Judgement of the SAC, 2 As 69/2018 – 53, paras 42, 43, 45). In this case, the SAC applied (according to the relevant case-law of the Czech Constitutional Court (CC) the basic legal principle according to which in the case of continuing or repeated infringements the legal relevance is only conferred in the moment of the end of the infringement (see Judgement of the CC, II. ÚS 635/18, para 31). This means that even in the case of continuing or repeated infringements the subjective limitation period can start running when the OPC becomes aware of a violation of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation under the APC but not sooner than the continuing or repeated infringement ceased. Continuing or repeated infringements cannot thus be time-barred before the respective infringement as a whole ceases. This corresponds to how continuing or repeated infringements are also dealt with by Regulation 1/2003 except there the limitation periods starts automatically when the infringement ceases and not at the time the relevant body obtains a sufficient level of knowledge that an infringement has been committed. Though as stated above, this difference should be not determined as problematic as the objective limitation period still applies. To sum up, the authors would describe the issue of determining the beginning of the limitation period in the previous Czech legislation quite specific as to the existence of objective and subjective limitation periods both of which have the date of their beginning determined differently. That is because in contrast the relevant EU law only defines a limitation period which more closely resembles the objective limitation period as it also starts running from the date the infringement was committed. Despite the above-mentioned specifics, the authors concluded that the rules for determining the beginning of the limitation period (as a comprehensive institute of law) can be considered neutral in relation to achieving the balance between, on the one hand, providing a sufficient level of legal certainty and ensuring that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time and, on the other hand, the effective and efficient application of competition law. This is mainly because of the existence of the objective limitation period

308