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

Disclosure in competition damages claims must balance relevance and proportionality. The Damages Directive does not impose an inflexible requirement that applicants identify only positive categories of documents. A defined competition-authority file may be disclosed subject to precise exclusions where that approach is practicable and proportionate. The court must consider the factors in Articles 5(3) and 6(4), including the evidential basis for the claim, the scope and cost of disclosure, confidentiality, the specificity of the request and the protection of public enforcement. Consistency with disclosure ordered in related proceedings, and the absence of additional burden on the disclosing party, may be important considerations. An order made on unusual facts should not be treated as a general precedent.

The claimants brought follow-on damages claims arising from the European Commission’s settlement decision concerning a truck cartel operating between 1997 and 2011. They applied for disclosure from the Commission file held by DAF and Iveco. Similar disclosure had previously been ordered by Rose J in the Royal Mail proceedings, subject to specified exclusions. The Commission made observations under Article 6(11) of the Damages Directive concerning proportionality. The central issue was whether the requested disclosure was sufficiently specific and proportionate under Articles 5 and 6 of the Directive and CPD31.C.

1. The applications were granted in substance. The court ordered disclosure of the relevant balance of the Commission file, subject to a process allowing DAF and Iveco to identify documents or categories said to be clearly irrelevant, supported by reasons. Any disputes could be addressed at the case management conference.

2. The Damages Directive required a purposive interpretation. Its disclosure provisions were intended to facilitate effective competition damages claims while limiting expense, burden and intrusion. The relevant controlling criteria were relevance and proportionality.

3. Article 5(2) did not impose an absolute rule requiring an applicant to specify only positive categories of documents. A defined category, such as the Commission file provided to a defendant, could be sought subject to carefully identified exclusions where that course was practicable and proportionate.

4. Under Article 5(3), the court considered the evidential support for the claims, the scope and cost of disclosure, and confidentiality. The claims were follow-on claims supported by an infringement decision; confidentiality was protected by a confidentiality ring; and the scope of the file was relevant both to understanding the cartel’s operation and to the defendants’ proper-law arguments.

5. Article 6(4) imposed additional considerations for disclosure from a competition authority’s file. Article 6(4)(a) required attention to the specificity of the request, but was a factor to be considered rather than an absolute prohibition on broader requests. Article 6(4)(b) was satisfied because the disclosure was sought for damages actions. Article 6(4)(c) was not engaged on the evidence.

6. Consistency with the disclosure already ordered in the related Royal Mail proceedings was significant, particularly because the actions arose from the same infringement and DAF faced minimal additional burden. The order was fact-specific and was not intended to establish a general precedent for future claims or proceedings in other jurisdictions.