Short Reads

European Court of Justice clarifies the application of choice of forum clauses in competition damages claims

European Court of Justice clarifies the application of choice of foru

European Court of Justice clarifies the application of choice of forum clauses in competition damages claims

01.11.2018 NL law

On 24 October 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that a choice of forum clause in a contract between Apple and eBizcuss, a former reseller of Apple products, may apply to abuse of dominance claims, even when the clause does not explicitly refer to disputes relating to liability resulting from a competition law infringement.

In 2012, eBizcuss brought damages proceedings against Apple in France claiming that Apple had abused its dominant position. Apple, however, argued that the French courts had no jurisdiction in this matter as the choice of forum clause included in the contract between Apple and eBizcuss conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Irish courts. After lengthy proceedings before several French courts, the country's highest court – the Cour de Cassation – referred a request for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) asking whether a party can rely on a choice of forum clause in the context of claims seeking damages for an abuse of dominance where that clause does not explicitly cover competition law infringements.

In an earlier judgment of 21 May 2015 in the case of CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, the ECJ ruled that under Article 23 Brussels I Regulation (44/2001), choice of forum clauses can only be upheld in the context of actions for damages based on Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), if they explicitly refer to competition law infringements. The purpose of that requirement is to avoid a party who has no knowledge of an unlawful cartel at the time of the conclusion of the contract being surprised by the other party invoking a choice of forum clause to shield himself against damages claims relating to the cartel infringement.

In its recent judgment in the case of Apple v eBizcuss, the ECJ draws a distinction between damages claims based on the infringement of Article 101 and 102 TFEU. The ECJ confirms that conduct covered by Article 101 TFEU is in principle not directly linked to the contractual relationship between a cartel member and a third party affected by the cartel. Contrary to Article 101 TFEU, the anti-competitive conduct covered by Article 102 TFEU can materialise in contractual relations that an undertaking in a dominant position establishes and thus makes it foreseeable. The Court considers that "while the anti‑competitive conduct covered by Article 101 TFEU, namely an unlawful cartel, is in principle not directly linked to the contractual relationship between a member of that cartel and a third party which is affected by the cartel, the anti‑competitive conduct covered by Article 102 TFEU, namely the abuse of a dominant position, can materialise in contractual relations that an undertaking in a dominant position establishes and by means of contractual terms." In the present case, reliance on a choice of forum clause in the context of an action for damages based on Article 102 TFEU, where the clause refers to the contract and 'the corresponding relationship', should not come as a surprise to any of the parties. As a consequence, eBizcuss should have expected that the choice of forum clause also covered future claims related to an alleged abuse of dominance.

The Cour de Cassation also sought to ascertain whether  the prerequisite of finding an infringement of competition law by a national or European authority according to Article 23 Brussels I Regulation still stands in order for the choice of forum clause to apply. Unsurprisingly, the ECJ ruled that the existence or absence of a prior finding of an infringement is not relevant in determining whether a choice-of-forum clause is applicable in a case concerning an action for damages allegedly suffered as a result of an infringement of the competition rules. Going forward, such clauses may therefore apply to both 'follow-on' actions and 'stand-alone' actions for damages based on an infringement of Article 102 TFEU.

 

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Franchise argument in laundry cartel does not wash with Dutch court
  2. A problem shared is a problem halved: fine reduction and fine liability are correlated
  3. Rotterdam District Court rules on follow-on damages claim in relation to Dutch bitumen cartel
  4. ACM bound by its own rules during dawn raids

Team

Related news

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring