Spain: Key Developments in Private Competition Law Enforcement in 2026

The first eight months of 2026 have brought several significant developments in the private enforcement of competition law in Spain, particularly in relation to limitation periods for damages claims.

Recent judgments from the Spanish Supreme Court and other courts have addressed the distinction between unfair competition and competition law claims, the effect of limitation periods where cartel participants are jointly and severally liable, the timing of claims following competition authority decisions, and the judicial assessment of damages arising from cartel infringements.

These developments have important practical implications for businesses pursuing or defending competition damages claims in Spain.

Supreme Court clarifies limitation periods for unfair competition damages claims

In judgment No. 1189/2026 of 17 July 2026, the Spanish Supreme Court considered the limitation period applicable to damages claims arising from acts of unfair competition that had previously been sanctioned by the Spanish National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC) because they affected the public interest.

The Supreme Court confirmed that these claims are governed by the limitation regime contained in Law 3/1991 on Unfair Competition, rather than the five-year limitation period established under Law 15/2007 on the Defence of Competition.

Under the Unfair Competition Law, the applicable periods are one year from knowledge of the infringer and three years from the relevant act.

The distinction has significant practical consequences. Claimants relying upon acts of unfair competition previously sanctioned by the CNMC do not benefit from the limitation rules applicable to damages claims arising from infringements of Articles 1 and 2 of the Spanish Competition Act.

This includes the provision under which the limitation period is suspended until one year after the conclusion of the relevant enforcement proceedings.

Businesses contemplating damages claims must therefore identify carefully the legal basis upon which the claim is brought, as this can materially affect the time available in which to commence proceedings.

Limitation against one cartel participant does not necessarily protect the others

The Supreme Court has also provided important clarification regarding joint and several liability between participants in the same competition infringement.

Spanish courts have long recognised joint and several liability in competition damages claims, and the principle is now expressly reflected in Article 73 of Law 15/2007.

In a series of judgments issued in May 2026 in connection with the Trucks Cartel, including judgment No. 682/2026 of 6 May, the Supreme Court considered what happens where a claim against the manufacturer that sold the vehicle has become time-barred but the limitation period against another cartel participant remains open.

The Court confirmed that purchasers of Volvo, Renault or Iveco trucks could pursue claims directly against Scania even where their claims against the manufacturers that actually sold the vehicles were already time-barred, provided that the limitation period applicable to Scania had not expired.

For Scania, that five-year period ran from publication of the European Commission’s Scania decision on 30 June 2020.

The Supreme Court rejected Scania’s attempt to rely on Article 1148 of the Spanish Civil Code to invoke the limitation defence available to the manufacturers that had sold the vehicles.

The judgments reinforce the importance of examining limitation periods separately in relation to individual participants in an infringement rather than assuming that the expiry of a claim against one cartel participant necessarily protects all jointly liable parties.

The Cardboard Cartel and the question of when limitation begins

A further development arose from judgment No. 88/2026 of 1 April 2026 of Barcelona Commercial Court No. 10 concerning damages resulting from the Cardboard Cartel.

The cartel had been sanctioned by the CNMC in 2015, but the CNMC’s decision was subsequently annulled by Spain’s National Court because the administrative proceedings had expired. Importantly, the annulment did not address the substantive question of whether the cartel itself had existed.

The Barcelona court treated publication of the original CNMC decision on 23 June 2015 as the starting point for the limitation period.

Because the claim pre-dated the temporal application of the five-year limitation period under the EU Damages Directive, the court applied the one-year period under Article 1968 of the Spanish Civil Code.

The claimant’s action nevertheless survived because the limitation period had been interrupted on several occasions from 2016 onwards.

The reasoning raises a potentially significant practical issue for future claimants.

If limitation begins with publication of a competition authority’s original decision, even where that decision is subsequently annulled, injured parties may need to interrupt limitation periods as a precaution before knowing whether the underlying administrative decision will ultimately become final.

The judgment therefore highlights the importance of monitoring limitation periods from an early stage rather than necessarily waiting for all challenges to a competition authority’s decision to be resolved.

It also raises questions regarding its relationship with other European and Spanish case law concerning decisions that are judicially confirmed rather than annulled. This includes the Court of Justice of the European Union’s September 2025 judgment in Nissan Iberia and previous Barcelona Provincial Court case law, under which the limitation period in those circumstances begins following completion of the judicial proceedings.

Barcelona court assesses Milk Cartel damages at 2%

The Barcelona Provincial Court has also considered the difficult question of quantifying losses caused by competition infringements.

In judgment No. 140/2026 of 2 February 2026, the Court recognised the right of parties affected by the Milk Cartel to compensation following the CNMC’s 2019 decision.

However, the Court assessed the loss at 2% of the relevant price.

That is below the 5% figure that Spanish courts have used as a reference in certain claims arising from other competition infringements, including the Trucks and Cars cartels.

In arriving at the 2% figure, the Court considered factors used in the Trucks Cartel litigation, including the duration and geographical extent of the infringement and the nature of the conduct involved. It concluded that the conduct in the Milk Cartel demonstrated a lower level of intensity and therefore justified a lower damages assessment.

The approach could have broader consequences for the judicial assessment of cartel damages. If the Trucks Cartel becomes an effective benchmark against which the seriousness of other infringements is measured, claimants seeking damages above 5% could face a higher evidential hurdle.

What do these developments mean for businesses?

Taken together, the 2026 decisions demonstrate the increasing sophistication of private competition enforcement in Spain and, in particular, the importance of limitation and damages issues.

Businesses considering competition damages claims should identify the precise legal basis of their claim at an early stage and should not assume that limitation rules applicable to conventional competition infringements will necessarily apply to claims arising from unfair competition.

Potential claimants should also consider taking appropriate steps to preserve claims while administrative and judicial proceedings remain ongoing, particularly where uncertainty exists over when the relevant limitation period begins.

For defendants, the Supreme Court’s recent Trucks Cartel judgments demonstrate that the expiry of a claim against one participant in an infringement does not necessarily eliminate exposure for other jointly liable participants.

Finally, the Milk Cartel judgment illustrates that the quantification of competition damages remains highly fact-sensitive. Previous percentage awards may provide useful reference points, but they should not be regarded as automatic benchmarks applicable to every cartel.

Conclusion

The Spanish courts continue to develop the principles governing private competition damages claims, with limitation periods emerging as a particularly important area during 2026.

Recent judgments underline that the legal characterisation of the underlying infringement, the identity of individual defendants, the procedural history of competition authority decisions and the evidence concerning the actual effect of an infringement can all materially influence the outcome of a damages claim.

Businesses pursuing or defending competition claims in Spain should therefore consider these issues at an early stage and monitor further developments as Spanish and EU case law in this area continues to evolve.

By Marimón Abogados, Spain, a Transatlantic Law International Affiliated Firm.

For further information or for any assistance please contact spain@transatlanticlaw.com

Disclaimer: Transatlantic Law International Limited is a UK registered limited liability company providing international business and legal solutions through its own resources and the expertise of over 105 affiliated independent law firms in over 95 countries worldwide. This article is for background information only and provided in the context of the applicable law when published and does not constitute legal advice and cannot be relied on as such for any matter. Legal advice may be provided subject to the retention of Transatlantic Law International Limited’s services and its governing terms and conditions of service. Transatlantic Law International Limited, based at 84 Brook Street, London W1K 5EH, United Kingdom, is registered with Companies House, Reg Nr. 361484, with its registered address at 83 Cambridge Street, London SW1V 4PS, United Kingdom.