The Spanish judicial system faces a crucial challenge to properly compensate for Thousands of carriers affected by the truck manufacturers cartelsanctioned in 2016 with 2,930 million euros by the European Commission for Collusory Practices, which artificially inflated the prices of industrial vehicles. For fourteen years, several manufacturers They agreed prices and delayed the introduction of less polluting technologiesseriously harming carriers in one of the largest business collusion scandals in Europe.
After several years of litigation in Spain, a key issue is raised: the method of calculation of compensation interestswhich are of extraordinary importance considering that damage has occurred in many cases more than 25 years ago. While the Spanish jurisprudence often leans towards the use of simple interest, experts and international courts have stressed that the composite interest is more fair, equitable and chord With economic reality.
The carriers -many of which they financed their trucks through loans or leasing-They faced Significant additional costs. However, compensation recognized so far (the Supreme Court, for the moment, is setting a linear 5% for all cases) do not completely reflect the real economic damage, to which is added, especially, that the Spanish courts have avoided apply compound interest to the calculation of compensation.
The compound interest not only considers the initial capital, but also the interests generated in previous periods, which offers a more precise remuneration of the value of money over time. In contrast, the simple interest is limited to calculating a fixed percentage on the original capital, ignoring the cumulative impact of interest reinvestment.
As the Damage Quantification Guide of the National Commission of Markets and Competition (CNMC) points out, “from an economic perspective, the compound method is the most complete and usually recommended, by taking into account that interest can be reinvested to measure that are perceived. ” This approach is particularly relevant in cases of value debtssuch as compensation for damages derived from anti -competitive behaviors, being a matter of justice and deterrence.
Economist Milton Friedman clarified that “a functional market economy rests on clear incentives and the protection of property rights.” Apply compound interest not only guarantees adequate repair for victims -Spanish transport companies -but also create a deterrent incentive to avoid future infractions. In the words of the Austrian school economist “Ludwig von Mises,” the certainty of punishment, along with its proportionality, is the only way to correct abuses without undermining the operation of the market. “
In the case of the truck manufacturers cartel, the application of simple interest implies a Substimation of real damage suffered by carriers. It must also be taken into account that many of them had to resort to external financing to acquire vehicles, paying compound interests. Ignoring this economic reality perpetuates an injustice and generates an unfair enrichment of the manufacturers responsible for the cartel, who benefited from the collected surprices without assuming the corresponding financial cost, which is a round business for the offenders, which is just what the legislation Community intends to avoid.
In addition, some international courts have recognized the importance of compound interest in similar cases. The Court of Justice of the European Union (TJUE), in the matter of Vincenzo Manfredi (C-295/04), stressed that interest payment is an indispensable element for guarantee the full compensation of the damage. Likewise, the Competition Appeal Court (CAT) of the United Kingdom, in the Royal Mail Group Ltd. and BT Group PLC against DAF Trucks, supported the use of the composite interest when considering that it is most faithfully reflected the economic reality and the losses suffered by The injured.
The CAT pointed out that “in a world where money is not commercially available at a simple interest, the application of this method results in an error and an injustice.” This reasoning is also present in the Sainsbury’s vs. case. Mastercard, where it was stressed that compound interest is the conventional measure In commercial operations.
That is why the path to full reparation to Spanish carriers requires that compound interest be applied. Our Supreme Court has recognized in several sentences that value debts -as compensation for civil liability derived from this cartel -must comply with the purchasing power of money at the time of payment. This method not only ensures comprehensive repair, but also Respect the principles of effectiveness and equivalence established by the right of the European Union. However, there are still reluctance to generalize the use of compound interest and issue sentences imposing it.
In view, above all, from the long time elapsed since the beginning of the cartelized activity, for carriers affected by the truck manufacturers cartel, that our courts adopt compound interest is not only a matter of economic justice, but also a step decisive for Restore trust in the judicial systemso questioned lately. This change would also send a clear message to offenders: anticompetitive practices will have consequences proportional to the damage caused.
Comprehensive reparation, economic justice, deterrent effect. To another economist – of guidance very different from those mentioned – such as Thomas Piketty, also aligns with these ideas in the “capital of the 21st century” where he points out “economic justice is not a luxury, but an essential requirement for an economy for an economy Healthy market. “
It is time for the Spanish judicial system to attend economic principles and guarantee a Full and fair repair for carrierswho also socially cooperate as a strategic sector for the growth of our economy.
#pending #debt #justice #affected #truck #cartel #paid #compound #interests
