The so-called car cartel affected up to ten million car buyers between 2006 and 2013. During this period, some vehicle brands exchanged strategic information and agreed on the prices of different models in Spain.
The National Commission of Markets and Competition (CNMC) sanctioned in 2015 the manufacturers, big brands, dealers and consultants involved with fines that exceeded 170 million euros.
When the Supreme Court ratified these sanctions in 2019, it opened the door to claims from the affected buyers. Those who meet the criteria to claim for the car cartel have all the legitimacy to do so, but they have to avoid legal errors so that their appeals are not dismissed right off the bat. Below we review some of the most common mistakes that are usually made when claiming and that should be avoided at all costs.
Any person, company or self-employed person who has acquired a vehicle affected by this agreement can claim against the car cartel. And for this, it is necessary to understand well the resolution of the CNMC and what prohibited practices the agents involved committed.
The CNMC resolution establishes periods of infringement, from February 2006 to July 2013, and determines that not all brands violated the anti-compete rules throughout that period for the first time.
Therefore, it is essential to adjust the period of the claim within the time that the CNMC specifies for each of the offenders.
It is the basic mistake to avoid. The plaintiff has to determine the real damage that the car cartel's anti-competitive pact caused him when he acquired the vehicle. And the way to do it is through expertise.
The sentences passed against the truck cartel are the precedent that augurs the success of the claims by the car cartel. And they provide the keys for the demands to prosper.
In addition, it is necessary to sue only for those cars that the consumer acquired through the Official Network of Dealers, which is also described in the CNMC resolution.
Otherwise, it will be necessary to demonstrate the existence of damage due to the 'umbrella effect' in other dealers, manufacturers or brands for the courts to decide in favor of the plaintiff.
In the car cartel, 147 Spanish dealers, more than 20 manufacturers, 2 consultants and almost 30 major vehicle brands were involved.
In order for the consumer claim to follow its legal process, it is necessary to sue each of these agents separately for those infractions for which the CNMC has sanctioned them.
This implies, for example, knowing if there were infringers involved in the sales and/or after-sales processes in a given vehicle model and, if so, suing them separately.
Those who acquired vehicles by 'renting' that meet the criteria to receive compensation for the car cartel can also sue. That yes, it is necessary to differentiate between those concepts of the 'renting' fee that are considered 'cartelized' (for example, the vehicle itself) and those that are not (insurance, maintenance, spare parts, etc.), in addition to those taxes.
For leasing operations, once again, the rulings against the truck cartel are a precedent for how to proceed in vehicle lawsuits. The Provincial Court of Valencia, in two sentences in relation to the truck cartel, considered that in the monthly installments the injured parties paid the surcharge derived from the cartel and that they can claim the extra cost paid for the total of the installments paid.
Without evidence proving the purchase of the vehicle in the period in which the car cartel was active, it is not possible to claim. All relevant documentation will serve for the claim. But the one that is essential is the purchase invoice, the purchase or rental contracts, the technical file of the vehicle, the accreditation of the payment of the 'renting' or 'leasing' and the invoices paid for repairs.
