Including this latest agreement, signed on 23 June, Waberer’s has now reached a total of four settlements with truck manufacturers over the past few years. Although the company did not disclose the name of the manufacturer, it confirmed that the party was included in the European Commission’s decision of 19 July 2016 (AT.39824 – Trucks), which found that Daimler, DAF, Iveco, MAN and Volvo/Renault had engaged in illegal collusion.
Waberer’s filed its compensation claim with the Munich Regional Court (Landgericht München I) on 18 July 2017, and amended it in 2019. The claim concerned losses incurred through the purchase or leasing of trucks during the cartel period.
As part of the latest settlement, Waberer’s will drop its claim and formally request the court to close the proceedings. As with the previous settlements, the financial terms remain confidential.
Previous settlements:
- April 2023: One manufacturer was released from the case; Waberer’s revised its claim to €26.6 million.
- November 2024: A second agreement reduced the claim by a further €2.8 million.
- December 2024: A third manufacturer exited the case, and the remaining claim was lowered to €6.9 million plus interest.
With the fourth and final settlement now signed, all defendant manufacturers have been released from the case, and Waberer’s legal proceedings are officially concluded.
One of the biggest cartel cases in EU history
The case is part of the infamous EU truck cartel scandal. In 2016, the European Commission fined Daimler, Iveco, DAF and Volvo/Renault a combined total of nearly €3 billion for years of illegal price coordination. The manufacturers had colluded on factory prices, the timing of new emissions technologies, the passing on of those costs to customers, and the exchange of other commercially sensitive information regarding medium and heavy trucks across the EEA.
One year later, Scania was fined an additional €880 million for its involvement in the cartel. In 2021, the European Court of Justice ruled that affected road transport companies could seek compensation from both the parent companies and their subsidiaries — even if the subsidiary had not itself been fined.
