Abstract
Private enforcement is, no doubt, an important move for the effective enforcement of EU Competition Law. Offering to companies an opportunity of action for damages against an economic actor adopting anticompetitive behaviour is therefore an important challenge. In this context, a question that must be addressed is before which court can a complainant engage its action for damages. There is little doubt that applicable rules in this respect are currently to be found in the (recast) Regulation Brussels 1. But is this Regulation “on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters” really adapted to competition matters? This is not the conclusion of the legal analysis proposed in this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
COM(2005) 672 Final.
- 2.
OJ L 12, 16.01.2001, pp. 1–23; the Regulation has been amended and recast by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012, OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, pp. 1–32. The new version does not differ to the original one with respect to the provisions mentioned in this contribution, but the Articles have been renumbered. We refer in this contribution to the articles as renumbered.
- 3.
Judgment of the Court of 22 January 2015, Pez Hejduk v. EnergieAgentur. NRW GmbH, Case C‑441/13, pt. 17.
- 4.
Ibid., pt. 18.
- 5.
Judgment of the Court of 30 November 1976, Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v Mines de potasse d’Alsace SA, Case 21–76, pt. 10–11.
- 6.
Judgment of the Court of 22 January 2015, Pez Hejduk v. EnergieAgentur. NRW GmbH, Case C‑441/13., pt. 19.
- 7.
E. Storskrubb, Civil Procedure and EU Law: A Policy Area Uncovered, OUP, 2008, p. 152.
- 8.
Draft Uniform International Choice of Court Agreement Act, National conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 2010, at p. 18 (https://lettersblogatory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/UICCAA.pdf).
- 9.
H. L. Buxbaum, R. Michaels, “Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in International Antitrust Law – A U.S. Perspective”, in International Antitrust Litigation: Conflict Of Laws And Coordination (Studies In Private International Law), J. Basedow, S. Francq, L. Idot, eds., Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012, p. 244.
- 10.
This is confirmed, e.g., in Judgment of the Court of 5 June 2014, Coty Germany BmbH, Case C‑360/12., at pt. 45: “In so far as the jurisdiction of the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur constitutes a rule of special jurisdiction, it must be interpreted restrictively and cannot give rise to an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by that regulation”.
- 11.
In cases where more than one Court would be competent under this criteria, a solution inspired by a decision of 7 March 1995, Shevill, C-68/93 (action before each Court in which the market is affected, or, as an exception in order to avoid a multiplication of proceedings, before the Court of the location of the defendant) could be contemplated.
- 12.
Judgment of the Court of 21 May 2015, Cartel Damage Claims, Case C-352/13, pt. 40.
- 13.
Ibid., pt. 53.
- 14.
OJ L 349, 5.12.2014, p. 1–19.
- 15.
Judgment of the Court of 30 November 1976, Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v Mines de potasse d’Alsace SA, Case 21–76, pt. 10–11.
- 16.
Judgment of the Court of 16 March 1999, Trasporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v Hugo Trumpy SpA, Case C-159/97.
- 17.
Judgment of the Court of 21 May 2015, Cartel Damage Claims, Case C-352/13, pt. 57.
- 18.
Ibid., pt. 63.
- 19.
Ibid., pt. 68–71.
- 20.
Ibid., Dispositive, 3).
- 21.
French Cour de Cassation, case n° 1053 of 7 October 2015 (14–16.898), 1st Civil Chamber.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thouvenin, JM. (2017). Regulation Brussels 1 and the Application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by National Courts. In: Almășan, A., Whelan, P. (eds) The Consistent Application of EU Competition Law. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47382-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47382-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47381-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47382-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)