Case Notes
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X1502200606 |
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
22 MJ 6 (2015) 879
CASE NOTES
PRIVATE CLAIMS BASED ON
EU COMPETITION LAW
Jurisdictional Issues and E ective Enforcement
Case C-352/13 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, EU:C:2015:335
K H*
§1. IN TRODUC TION
(the Court) gave guidance on several jurisdictional matters and bases for jurisdiction
regarding private dama ges claims for infringements of EU competition law.
Cases deali ng with damages in EU competition law matters are civi l disputes before
the courts of the Member States. In these cases, EU rules on international jur isdiction
in civil and commercial matters apply, such as those of Regulation 44 /2001 (Brussels
jurisdiction may be challenging to interpret in the context of abstract economic losses
and a cartel as a cause of potential damage because it is, for instance, di cult in a
straightforwa rd way to pinpoint where the harmful event occurred4 or the damage
occurred.5 e ruling i n CDC Hydrogen Peroxide is important as the Court had not
* LL.D. and Postdoc toral Researcher, Universit y of Helsinki, Facu lty of Law.
1 Case C-352/13 Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v. Akzo Nobel NV and others,
EU:C:2015:335.
2 Council Reg ulation (EC) No44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on juris diction and the re cognition and
enforcement of judgments i n civil and commercia l matters, [2001] OJ L12/1.
3 Regulation (EU ) No 1215/2012 of the European Pa rliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012
on jurisdict ion and the recognition and enforcement of jud gments in civil a nd commercial matters
(recast), [2012] OJ L 351/1.
4 See Articl e5(3) of Regulation 44/2001; Art icle7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012.
5 Article 5(3) of Regulation 4 4/2001 refers to the ‘the place where the h armful event occurred or m ay
occur’ but in ca se law, a distinct ion has been made bet ween the place of the ha rmful event (e vent
giving ri se to the damage) and the place w here the loss occurred. Both places may be relevant f rom the
perspective of t he Article. See, for insta nce, Case C-375/13 Kolassa, EU:C:2 015:37, para.49–57 wit h
references.
Katri Havu
880 22 MJ 6 (2015)
previously discussed competition infringement damages claims and jurisdiction
extensively, while the Damages Claim s Directive6 does not cover jurisdictional mat ters.7
e Court has now clari e d jur isd ict iona l am bigu iti es pe rta ini ng to dam ages cla ims
under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of t he European Union (TFEU)
and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EE AA). Among
other issues, it con rmed that the variet y of courts where a claim c an be commenced
is broad. is is due to the fact that, for exa mple, damage leading to jurisdiction
under Article5(3) of Regulation 44/2001 is considered as having occurred in the place
where the alleged victim company is domiciled. Addit ionally, the Court has had the
opportunity to out line the position of ‘litigation f unding vehicle’ claimants – compa nies
which aggregate clai ms of potential victims – indicating t hat regardless of acquiri ng
claims from compan ies or citizens from several Member St ates, they would be required,
if jurisdiction were based on the place where the damage occurred, to bring a claim
in the courts of t he home o ces of each actor they acquired cla ims from. Claima nts
can also sta rt proceedings before the courts of the domicile of one of the compet ition
infringement participants.
e judgment concerns the interpretation of Regulation 4 4/2001 but is also relevant
for similar ru les in the recast Regulation 1215/2012.
§2. FACTS AND LEGAL CONTEXT
e main dispute in the case concerned d amages claims relating to a hydrogen peroxide
cartel, which had been ruled against and ned by the European Commission in 2006.8
e claimant, a ‘lit igation funding vehicle’ by the name of Cartel Da mage Claims (CDC)
Hydrogen Peroxide SA (CDC) which was established for pursuing damages claims of
undertak ings a ecte d by the relevant cartel, had acquired the cla ims of 71 undertakings
domiciled in numerous Member States.
9 CDC sued the former cartel members for
6 Directive 2014/104/EU of the Eu ropean Parliame nt and of the Council of 26November 2 014 on certain
rules governi ng actions for dama ges under nationa l law for infringement s of the competition law
provisions of the Membe r States and of the EU, [2014] OJ L 349/1.
7 For discussion on ju risdiction see , for example, M. Danov, Juris diction and Judgm ents in Relation to EU
Competition Law Cl aims (Hart, 2011), p.277–288; J. Burrichter and E. Ahlenstiel, ‘Integrating Public
and Private En forcement in Europe, Legal and Jur isdictional Issues – e German Perspe ctive’, in P.
Lowe and M. Marqui s (eds.), European Compe tition Law Annual 2011, Integrating Public and Private
Enforcement of Comp etition Law – Implication s for Courts and Agenci es (Hart , 2014), p.95, 10 5–107; M.
Kuijpers et al., ‘Actions for Da mages in the Net herlands, the United K ingdom, and Germa ny’, 6 Journal
of European Competit ion Law & Practice (2015), p.129, 130–132.
8 Commission Dec ision 2006/903/EC of 3 May 2006, relating to pro ceedings under A rticle 81 of the
Treaty establish ing the Europe an Communit y and Article53 of the EE A Agreement, COMP/F/C.38 .620
– Hydrogen Peroxide and Perbor ate, [2006] OJ L 353/54.
9 See Case C-352/13 CDC Hydrogen Peroxi de, para. 2, 9, 11.
To continue reading
Request your trial