International jurisdiction in competition damages cases under the Brussels I Regulation: CDC Hydrogen Peroxide

Introduction:

Follow-on actions for damages against international horizontal cartels have increased significantly over the last years in Europe. Such transnational cases can raise complex questions regarding jurisdiction and applicable law. Price-fixing or market-sharing agreements often cover various markets over many years, involve several participants and have myriad victims. Given that cross-border actions for damages against competition law infringers are a rather novel development in Europe, many issues are not yet settled.

The Cartel Damage Claims Hydrogen Peroxide dispute is the first case in which the ECJ was asked to rule on the application of the European rules relating to jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in competition law cases. The Court had to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the objective of Regulation 44/2001 to provide for 'highly predictable' rules of jurisdiction centred around the basic principle that the claimant has to sue at the home of the defendant and, on the other, the effective enforcement of the European competition regime established in Courage v. Crehan. The judges of the Fourth Chamber seized the opportunity to clarify some of the most disputed issues in competition cases, namely the reach of tort jurisdiction, jurisdiction over multiple defendants and jurisdiction agreements. The Court’s interpretation also applies also with regard to the rules in Articles 7(2), 8(1) and 25 of Regulation 1215/2012.

Relating to Case C-352/13, Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v. Akzo Nobel NV, Solvay SA/NV, Kemira Oyj, FMC Foret SA, Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 May 2015.

• Primary Source