The recent edition of the legal journal on Dutch procedural law ('JBPr') published a commentary written by Abdel Attaïbi and Michel Bosman on a judgment of the district court of Amsterdam in the case of Wolfson v. Google.
Abdel Attaïbi and Michel Bosman from our Litigation & Risk Management practice group wrote a commentary on a recent judgment which was published in the procedural journal Jurisprudentie Burgerlijk Procesrecht ('JBPR').
The judgment deals with the interpretation and application of Section 7(1) DCCP on international jurisdiction in follow-up competition proceedings. The central question the Amsterdam district court had to answer was whether claims against Google NL ('the anchor defendant') and Google USA are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgements resulting from separate proceedings. In short, the court – relying on both the Sumal and CDC/Akzo judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union – finds that such a close connection exists and assumes jurisdiction over the claims against Google USA.
This ruling is not an isolated case and is part of a series of cross-border so-called follow-on cases in which injured parties seek compensation through a Dutch "anchor defendant" for their damages resulting from competition law violations. In their commentary, Abdel Attaïbi and Michel Bosman discuss and comment on the judgment, also in the broader context of earlier judgments of Dutch courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
