CJEU Clarifies the Standard for Accessing Evidence in Competition Damages Cases

On 29 January 2026, the CJEU delivered an important ruling in Case C-286/24 (Meliá Hotels International, S.A. v Associação Ius Omnibus) concerning the disclosure of evidence in competition damages actions. This Commentary summarizes the key points of the judgment.

Background

This case concerned a request by Associação Ius Omnibus, a Portuguese consumer organization, to obtain documents from Meliá Hotels International, S.A. ("Meliá Hotels") prior to initiating collective damages proceedings. This disclosure request was based on a prior Commission decision which found that Meliá Hotels had infringed Article 101 TFEU through vertical pricing practices that discriminated against consumers based on their nationality or place of residence.

The Three Questions Answered in This Ruling

The CJEU answered three important questions in this case:

• Applicability to pre-action disclosure requests. Article 5 of the Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU) ("Directive") requires Member States to ensure that, in proceedings relating to a private follow-on action for damages in antitrust cases, national courts are able to order defendants or third parties to disclose relevant evidence in their control, provided that the claimant has presented a reasoned justification containing reasonably available facts and evidence sufficient to support the plausibility of their claim for damages. The CJEU confirmed that Article 5(1) of the Directive also applies to requests for disclosure of evidence filed before damages proceedings are initiated, provided that national law allows for such a procedure. This ruling is therefore directly applicable in Member States that provide for pre-action disclosure procedures. This aligns with the objectives pursued by the Directive, namely: (i) facilitating the exercise of the right to damages; (ii) the need to remedy information asymmetry; and (iii) ensuring the effectiveness of the private enforcement of competition law. Importantly, and as emphasized by the CJEU, these pre-action requests remain subject to the proportionality requirements of Article 5(2) and (3), thereby preventing so-called "fishing expeditions". National courts retain strict review powers to balance the legitimate interests of all parties and third parties concerned.
• Plausibility threshold. The CJEU clarified that in order to obtain disclosure, the claimant does not need to demonstrate that it is "more likely than not" that the conditions for liability (infringement, harm and causal link) are satisfied. It suffices for the claimant to demonstrate that the assumption that these three conditions are met is "reasonably acceptable". The CJEU considered that the threshold for obtaining evidence must be lower than the threshold that applies for establishing liability on the merits. A higher threshold could unnecessarily impede the effective exercise of the right to damages. The CJEU emphasized that demonstrating plausibility requires only that the claimant convinces the national court that the assumption is "reasonably acceptable"—not that all three conditions are definitively proven at this stage. While this facilitates access to evidence for claimants, it is important to note that the claimant must still provide a "reasoned justification containing reasonably available facts and evidence" to support the plausibility of the claim.
• Effect of a Commission decision in vertical restriction cases. Regarding the evidentiary value of a Commission decision, the CJEU held that a decision finding a "by object" vertical restriction is not in itself sufficient to substantiate the plausibility of a damages claim. While such a decision proves the existence of the infringement, the claimant must still demonstrate the plausibility of harm and causal link using reasonably available facts and evidence. This is in contrast to cartels, for which Article 17(2) of the Directive provides a rebuttable presumption of harm. The CJEU did emphasize that a Commission decision may contain relevant elements for the assessment of harm and causation.

Conclusion

This ruling clarifies the standard for accessing evidence in competition damages cases, with implications for both claimants and defendants across the EU. For potential claimants, this judgment confirms the availability of pre-action disclosure procedures in private antitrust follow-on cases in Member States that provide for them, allowing parties to improve their evidentiary position before committing to full damages proceedings. The "reasonably acceptable" criterion for the assumption of infringement, harm and causal link has been formulated to address the information asymmetry between parties, while requiring claimants to provide a reasoned justification based on facts and evidence that are reasonably available to them.

For parties defending against disclosure requests, the ruling offers important safeguards. The CJEU emphasized that national courts must strictly assess proportionality under Article 5(2) and (3) of the Directive and retain significant discretion in balancing the legitimate interests of all parties and third parties concerned. National courts may require specifically and narrowly circumscribed requests, and broadly or insufficiently defined requests may be rejected on proportionality grounds to prevent "fishing expeditions". Importantly, claimants still bear the burden of demonstrating the plausibility of harm and causal link even where a Commission decision has established an infringement—particularly in cases involving vertical restrictions.

It remains to be seen how national courts across Member States will interpret and apply this "reasonably acceptable" standard in practice and how they will exercise their discretion in assessing the proportionality of disclosure requests on a case-by-case basis.