Short Reads

ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage ca

ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

05.09.2019 NL law

On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

The court found that alleged damage suffered by an indirect purchaser can be seen as direct damage, and therefore the place where such damage occurred provides a basis for jurisdiction. As for the place where the damage occurred, the court ruled that this is the place where the market was affected by the anticompetitive conduct, continuing the line of reasoning established in its earlier judgment in the flyLAL case.

The ECJ recently handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in the proceedings concerning the trucks cartel. The court decided that an indirect purchaser can sue an alleged infringer of the cartel prohibition (contained in Article 101 TFEU) before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage.

The questions concerned proceedings between the Hungarian company Tibor-Trans and the Dutch company DAF Trucks in a damages claim following on from a European Commission decision of 19 July 2016 which established a cartel among fifteen international truck manufacturers, including DAF Trucks.

Tibor-Trans, who did not purchase the trucks directly from the manufacturers but through Hungarian dealerships, brought an action before the courts in Hungary for non-contractual damages against DAF Trucks in 2017.

The question submitted to the ECJ by the Hungarian court concerned the interpretation of Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation. According to the ECJ, the place where "the harmful event occurred", and therefore the place of jurisdiction, refers to the place where the damage occurred as well as the place of the event giving rise to the damage. The question was whether the place where an indirect purchaser claimed to have suffered damages (in this case Hungary) qualified as the place where the alleged damage occurred.

To answer this question, the ECJ analysed the nature of the damage and the place where the damage occurred. With regard to the nature of the damage, the court referred to its earlier case law which stated that only direct damage could provide a basis for the jurisdiction of a court. According to the court, the damage alleged by Tibor-Trans, which consisted of additional costs incurred as a result of artificially high prices, appears to be the immediate consequence of the infringement and should therefore be qualified as direct damage, even though Tibor-Trans was an indirect purchaser of the trucks.

With regard to the place where the damage occurred, the court referred to the European Commission's decision establishing that the infringement covered the entire EEA (of which Hungary has been a member since 2004). The court referred to its earlier judgment flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines, and concluded that, where the market affected by the anticompetitive conduct is in the Member State on whose territory the alleged damage is purported to have occurred, that Member State must be regarded as the place where the damage occurred for the purposes of applying Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation. According to the ECJ, this approach is consistent with the objectives of proximity and predictability of the rules governing jurisdiction, as the courts of the Member State in which the affected market is located are best placed to assess such actions for damages and, additionally, an economic operator engaging in anticompetitive conduct can reasonably expect to be sued in the courts of the place where its conduct has allegedly distorted competition.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of September 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

 

 

Team

Related news

12.05.2020 NL law
Kroniek van het mededingingsrecht

Articles - Wat de gevolgen van de coronacrisis zullen zijn voor de samenleving, de economie en – laat staan – het mededingingsbeleid laat zich op het moment van de totstandkoming van deze kroniek niet voorspellen. Wel stond al vast dat het mededingingsrecht zal worden herijkt op basis van de fundamentele uitdagingen die voortvloeien uit zich ontwikkelende ideeën over het belang van industriepolitiek, klimaatverandering en de positie van tech-ondernemingen en de platforms die zij exploiteren.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
Spreading fast: Dutch and Belgian COVID-19 State-aid approved

Short Reads - Many Member States are taking measures to support the economy during the COVID-19 crisis. The European Commission’s Temporary Framework enables the rapid approval of certain types of State aid. So far, three Dutch State aid schemes and six Belgian schemes were approved, providing the beneficiaries with legal certainty that the aid received is in line with EU State aid law and cannot be challenged at a later stage.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: no shortcut for ‘by object’ antitrust infringements

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice has found there is no shortcut for determining whether particular conduct can be held to have the object to restrict competition. A competition authority will always need to assess carefully whether the conduct reveals "a sufficient degree of harm to competition” before labelling it a ‘by object’ infringement. This is the case where there is sufficiently solid and reliable experience showing that this type of conduct is commonly regarded as being inherently anticompetitive.

Read more

28.04.2020 EU law
Origin of the primary ingredient - Implementing Regulation 2018/775

Short Reads - Since the beginning of this month, the origin of the primary ingredient of a food must be clearly indicated on the product when it differs from the origin given for the product as a whole. This is the result of the implementation of Article 26 (3) of the European Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.  

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
COVID-19: fast-forwarding competition law

Short Reads - Competition authorities are temporarily ‘green-lighting’ certain collaboration initiatives to safeguard the supply of essential products in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. At the same time, authorities warn against using the current exceptional circumstances to engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price-fixing, excessive pricing, refusals to deal or opportunistic takeovers. 

Read more