Short Reads

CJEU clarifies jurisdiction for follow-on damage claims

CJEU clarifies jurisdiction for follow-on damage claims

CJEU clarifies jurisdiction for follow-on damage claims

05.08.2021 EU law

The Court of Justice of the European Union recently further clarified which courts within the EU have jurisdiction to hear follow-on damage claims. This can be either the court of the place where the claimant purchased a cartelized product, or where the claimant has its registered office (domicile), or at a centralized court designated by the EU member state for specific types of cases.

On 15 July 2021 in case C-30/20, Volvo and others, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "Court") provided further guidance on which courts have jurisdiction to hear follow-on damage claims.

Article 7(2) of the Brussels I regulation (recast) confers jurisdiction to the court of the place where the damage occurred. Previously, the Court has held that if a competition law infringement purportedly affected the market in a certain EU member state, the place where the damage occurred could be located in that member state, conferring jurisdiction to that member state's courts (case C-451/18, Tibor Trans, see our newsletter article on that judgment here).

The judgment in Volvo and others further clarifies which courts within an EU member state have jurisdiction. The main takeaways are:

  1. Article 7(2) of the Brussels I regulation (recast) directly determines which court within an EU member state has jurisdiction. For that purpose, it must be established at which place within an EU member state the damage occurred.
     
  2. National rules conferring jurisdiction to courts within an EU member state's territory, are irrelevant, with one exception: EU member states are not precluded from designating centralized courts to deal with specific types of cases. Centralization before a specialized court may be justified in the interests of the sound administration of justice and may be particularly helpful in cases that concern technically complex issues and rules, such as follow-on damage claims.
     
  3. If an EU member state has not designated a centralized court, the place where the damage occurred is the place:
    • where the claimant purchased the goods affected by the anticompetitive behavior; or
    • if the claimant has purchased goods in multiple places, the place where the claimant's registered office is located.
       

With (3), the Court also further specifies its earlier ruling on international jurisdiction: if a claimant purchased goods in one EU member state within the affected market, that member state's courts have jurisdiction. If the claimant purchased goods in multiple EU member states, the claimant can bring his claim for follow-on damages in the EU member state where his registered office is located.  

The Court's judgment in Volvo and others provides useful guidance for determining courts' jurisdiction to hear follow-on damage claims. From the perspective of claimants, the judgment can be seen as helpful, as it gives claimants the opportunity to claim damages close to home (i.e. at the court of their registered office) if they purchased goods that were affected by anticompetitive conduct in multiple places. 

From the defendant's perspective, the judgment will likely have limited impact, as the Court's ruling in Tibor-Trans had already conferred international jurisdiction to the courts of all EU member states whose markets were purportedly affected by the anticompetitive behaviour. This relatively wide interpretation of the place where damage occurred already potentially exposes defendants to follow-on damage claims throughout the EU.

The Netherlands does not have any centralized courts that deal with follow-on damage claims. If follow-on damage claims are brought in the Netherlands, the rule under (3) above will therefore determine which courts in the Netherlands have jurisdiction to hear a specific claimant's claim.


This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of August 2021. Other articles in this newsletter:

Are your distribution contracts ready for the revised VBER?

Horizontal cooperation: from the dark side to the light?

ACM issues first excessive pricing fine in pharma

Court rules ACM can use accidental evidence found in dawn raids

Netherlands FDI regime protecting national security is getting closer

Amsterdam Court of Appeal rules on the applicable law to air freight

Court assesses threshold for substantiating cartel damage plausibility

Team

Related news

11.01.2022 EU law
2022: the big reveal of 2021’s competition law promises

Short Reads - 2021 was riddled with sneak previews of a “review of competition policy tools with unprecedented scope and ambition”. These sneak previews, alongside 2021’s other competition law developments, seem to point in the direction of a more ‘social’ side to competition law in 2022, as well as looming Big Tech and Big Pharma battles, intensified (international) cooperation, more clarity on merger-related obligations for companies, and shiny new vertical and horizontal block exemption regulations. 2022 will reveal how and when the revised tools will materialise.

Read more

02.12.2021 EU law
ECJ: private enforcement in aviation sector also a national court's game

Short Reads - Recently, the ECJ ruled that national courts dealing with private enforcement cases are competent to apply EU competition law to historical behaviour in the aviation sector, regardless of public enforcement by the Commission and national competition authorities, and regardless of whether or not such authorities had authority to pursue public enforcement in the relevant period.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Google Shopping: self-preferencing is a form of abuse of dominance

Short Reads - On 10 November 2021, the General Court (GC) almost entirely dismissed Google’s action against the European Commission’s Google Shopping decision. According to the European Commission (the Commission), Google illegally favoured its own comparison shopping service by displaying it more prominently in its search results than other comparison shopping services (see our July 2017 Newsletter). The Commission found that Google was abusing its dominant position and imposed a EUR 2.42 billion.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Gun jumping: beware, the Commission will take action

Short Reads - The Commission has imposed interim measures on Illumina and GRAIL. These measures include the obligation to run GRAIL by independent management. By adopting interim measures in addition to opening an investigation into whether Illumina and Grail breached the standstill obligation, the Commission has made clear it will not shy away from tough action against gun jumping during an ongoing merger review. 

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Back to the future – Commission publishes roadmap for green and digital challenges

Short Reads - The Commission’s Communication “A competition policy fit for new challenges” (link) (the “Communication”) identifies key areas in which competition law and policy can support European efforts in dealing with the challenges of the green and digital transitions. The document covers all areas of competition law (antitrust, merger control, and State aid) and identifies various ways in which new and existing tools can contribute to addressing these challenges.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Dominant firm may refuse to supply retailer after initial delivery

Articles - The Brussels Court of Appeal has held that a dominant producer firm may have valid reasons to refuse further supplies to a retailer, despite its dominance and despite previous deliveries. The Court of Appeal stressed the freedom for any company, including dominant firms, to choose their trading partners, in particular when there are valid and objective non-discriminatory reasons to refuse further direct supplies and when the retailer has alternative sources of supply.

Read more