Under Maltese law, a natural or a legal person who has suffered damages due to an infringement of the competition rules, whether under Malta’s Competition Act or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), is entitled to claim and to obtain full compensation for that damage. This is set out in the ‘Schedule’ at the end of the Competition Act – (Article 27A) Competition Law Infringements (Actions for Damages) Regulations.
The principle that individuals may bring claims for damages arising from breaches of competition law was established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case Courage Ltd v Crehan (C-453/99). This case could be said to be the foundational pediment for private enforcement of competition law in the European Union. It paved the way for later case law such as Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA (C-295/04) and ultimately for the EU Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU).
The purpose of compensation is to restore the injured party to where they would have been had no competition infringement occurred. The victims have a right to full compensation covering actual loss, loss of profit and interest, but not overcompensation, whether by means of punitive, multiple or other types of damages.
The prescriptive period for bringing a damages claim is particularly important. Under the Schedule, an action for damages is prescribed by the lapse of five years. This period starts running from the date when the infringement of competition law has ceased and the claimant became aware, or can reasonably be expected to have become aware of, the following factors: that the individual has become aware of the behaviour and the fact that it constitutes an infringement of the competition rules; the fact that the infringement of competition law caused harm to it; and the identity of the infringer.
On September 4, 2025, the CJEU delivered a long-anticipated preliminary ruling in the matter of Nissan Iberia (C-21/24). The court confirmed that for damages actions based on the national competition authority’s decision, the prescriptive period does not begin to run until such a decision has become final. A decision becomes final once the court has ruled on it, and this was not appealed to within the appeal time limit. If the decision is appealed, the period starts only after the appeal is final, and both the decision and its confirming judgment are made public.
In Malta, it is noteworthy that the Office for Competition does not ‘decide’ cases but it is left up to the court to give its decision.
The CJEU also examined the conditions under which a victim may be regarded as possessing the requisite knowledge to bring an action for damages with respect to the rules of competition. It confirmed that four elements are necessary. These are: (a) awareness of the infringement, (b) awareness of the harm suffered, (c) awareness of the causal link between the two, and (d) knowledge of the identity of the infringer. These elements are by and large found also in our Competition Act. In the absence of such elements, the essential exercise of the right to obtain redress could, in fact, be rendered practically impossible.
The ruling therefore settles a critical issue in the antitrust private enforcement field, while strengthening antitrust victims’ rights.
Actions for damages by private parties are nowadays a fundamental tool of enforcement of the competition rules in the TFEU and those of national law. The CJEU has invariably stated that actions for damages for infringement of EU competition rules are an integral part of the system for enforcement of those rules. They not only help ensure that victims are compensated but are also intended to punish anti-competitive behaviour and to deter undertakings from engaging in such conduct.
For injured consumers and businesses alike, this ruling is significant because it provides more time and clarity when seeking compensation for anti-competitive behaviour. The limitation period for bringing a claim will start only once the authority’s or court’s decision is final and public, meaning consumers are far less likely to lose their rights simply due to long investigations or appeals.
It also confirms that time does not begin to run until consumers know the key facts about the infringement, the harm suffered and who caused it. Overall, the ruling strengthens consumers’ ability to obtain redress and helps ensure that businesses engaging in anti-competitive conduct can be held fully accountable.
This article is provided for general information only and it is in no way to be interpreted as legal advice or as a substitute of the actual wording of the law. Always consult with a legal advisor of your choice about your rights or obligations at law.
Kristian Fenech is a legal officer at the MCCAA’s Office for Competition.
