The number of follow-on cartel damages claims is increasing in the European Union. For consumers and/or companies adversely affected by competition law infringements, one of the main questions to be addressed relates to the identification of the Courts before which they can bring their actions for damages. In its judgment of 15 July 2021 (Volvo and Others, C-30/20), the Court of justice provides further guidance to answer that question.
In matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, Regulation 1215/2012 (the Brussels I bis Regulation), provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts of that Member State (article 4, paragraph 1) but also in the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred (article 7, paragraph 2). Pursuant to settled case-law, the concept of “the place where the harmful event occurred” covers both “the place where the damage occurred” and “the place of the event giving rise to it”.
In the Volvo case, the Court was asked to clarify the concept of “the place where the harmful event occurred” under Article 7, paragraph 2 of the Brussels I bis Regulation.
First of all, the Court decides that Article 7, paragraph 2 confers directly and immediately both international and territorial jurisdiction on the courts of the place where the damage occurred. In other words, the notion of “the place where the harmful event occurred” is used to determine in which Member State(s) (a) court(s) has/have jurisdiction (from an international perspective) as well as to determine which specific court within a Member State has jurisdiction over a cartel damages claims (from a national perspective). However, the Court states that national laws may confer exclusive jurisdiction to one specific specialised court irrespective of where the damage occurred within that Member State. Such centralisation of jurisdiction may indeed be justified in the interests of the sound administration of justice.
In the absence of such a specialised court, the Court then identifies two possibilities to determine the place where the damage occurred within a Member State:
(1) Where the victim purchased goods affected by a collusive arrangement exclusively within the jurisdiction of a single court, that court has jurisdiction;
(2) Where cartelised products were purchased in several places within the jurisdiction of several courts in the same Member State, the victim may bring an action for damages before the court where it has its registered office.
According to the Court, those rules to identify the place where the damage occurred in order to ascertain the court having jurisdiction within the Member States are consistent with the objectives of proximity, predictability and the sound administration of justice.
The Volvo ruling undoubtedly contributes to providing guidance and predictability to victims of cartel infringements. This will help those victims bring their actions for damages before the competent court and thereby increase the effectiveness of the competition rules in the EU.
Please contact Pierre de Bandt or Jeroen Dewispelaere for further information about this case and/or for general legal advice relating to competition law.