European Union: Jurisdiction In Follow-On Damages Claims AG Jääskinen's Opinion In The Hydrogen Peroxide Case

1. Introduction

1.1 AG Jääskinen's Opinion on the Hydrogen Peroxide case1 was delivered on 11 December 2014.  The case relates to a reference for a preliminary ruling made by Dortmund Regional Court in the context of the hydrogen peroxide cartel concerning the interpretation of the Brussels Regulation2.  CDC Hydrogen Peroxide SA ("CDC") brought a follow-on damage claim in March 2006 against six chemical companies which participated in an EEA-wide hydrogen peroxide cartel.  The German Defendant, Degussa AG quickly settled with CDC and therefore the claims against it were withdrawn.  The issue which then arose was whether the Dortmund Regional Court had jurisdiction in respect of the claims against the non-German domiciled defendants under the Brussels Regulation even though the anchor defendant was no longer a party to the proceedings.  The matter was subsequently referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU"). The questions put forward by the Dortmund Regional Court were the following:

  • First, the Regional Court asked the CJEU whether it is possible in cartel damages claims for a claim to be brought in one jurisdiction against cartelists from a number of different Member States provided one of them is domiciled in the jurisdiction ("the anchor defendant"), relying on Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation that it is expedient to try follow-on damage claims together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
  • The Court's second question was: a)  whether Article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation can also apply in follow-on cartel damages claims, according to which a person domiciled in one EU Member State may be sued in matters relating to tort in the place where the harmful event occurred, and if so; b) whether it can be interpreted as meaning that in damages actions against defendants domiciled in a number of EU Member States the harmful event occurred in relation to each defendant and in relation to all heads of damage claimed or the overall loss in those Member States in which cartel agreements were concluded and implemented and the harm suffered by direct or indirect purchasers
  • Finally, the court asked whether the requirement of effective enforcement of Article 101 TFEU might preclude the application of Article 23(1) Brussels Regulation, according to which arbitration and jurisdiction clauses are exclusive, and consequently prevail over Articles 5(3) and 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation. This was of importance as some of the supply contracts between the cartelists and their customers contained such arbitration clauses.

1.2 AG Jääskinen stressed the importance of this case as it is the first time the CJEU is asked to rule directly on the interaction between primary EU legislation (Article 101 TFEU) and secondary EU legislation (Brussels Regulation) in the context of a competition law infringement. In addition, the AG pointed out that the Brussels Regulation is not fully geared towards ensuring the private enforcement of EU competition rules and invited the EU legislature to incorporate in the Brussels Regulation more suitable jurisdictional rules in respect of cross-border disputes such as the one at hand.

2. Summary of the AG Opinion

First Question: Applicability of Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation in cartel damages claims and whether the withdrawal of the claims as against the anchor defendant might affect the jurisdiction of the Court in relation to the claims against the non-domiciled defendants:

2.1 The rule of special jurisdiction laid down in Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation provides that a person may, where he is one of a number of defendants, be sued in the courts of the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims "are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings". 

2.2 The AG made reference to the Court of Justice's settled case-law that the rules of special jurisdiction such as this which derogate from the principle stated in Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation that jurisdiction shall be based on the defendant's domicile, must be strictly interpreted and cannot be given an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by that Regulation (see cases Freeport3, Glaxosmithkline and Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline4 and Painer5).

2.3 The AG pointed out that CDC's claim relates to a single and continuous infringement of the EU competition rules which was fined by the European Commission and that the cartelists are jointly and severally liable for the entire harm caused by the cartel irrespective of their own individual contribution. Considering that there may be wide variations in national rules governing the apportionment of liability betweens cartelists, the AG stressed the risk of having conflicting decisions by which each of the cartelists might be ordered to pay different amounts of damages if courts in different Member States were to rule separately.  The AG therefore took the view that Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation should apply in cartel damages claims (reflecting the approach which has been adopted by claimants in a number of claims to date).

2.4 With regard to the withdrawal of the claim against Degussa AG (the anchor defendant), AG Jääskinen considered this to be irrelevant for the jurisdiction of the Dortmund Regional Court.  In circumstances where the claim was withdrawn after the service of the claim form to the non-German defendants and the out-of-court settlement between CDC and Degusa AG had not been intentionally delayed with the purpose of establishing jurisdiction, the AG concluded that the Dortmund Regional Court had jurisdiction in respect of the non-German domiciled defendants.

2.5 The AG considered his opinion to be in line with CJEU jurisprudence in Reisch Montage6 where the question raised was whether the claimant could still rely upon Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation in circumstances where a claim against the anchor defendant was barred by a provision of domestic law which rendered the claim inadmissible at the time it was brought.  The provision in question was a rule of Austrian bankruptcy law that barred the commencement or pursuit of certain claims after the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. The CJEU held that Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that provision may be relied on in the context of an action brought in a Member State against a defendant domiciled in that State and a co-defendant domiciled in another Member State even when that action is regarded under a national provision as inadmissible from the time it is brought in relation to the first defendant.  The AG also made reference to the CJEU judgment in Freeport7, where the Court expressly identified the bringing of the action as the reference point for determining whether claims are connected.

2.6 A similar point was raised recently in the context of the follow-on damages claims8 brought by European railway companies before the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London ("CAT") in relation to the carbon and graphite products cartel.  Following the anchor defendant's successful strike out application on grounds of its individual limitation position, the non-UK domiciled claimants sought to rely on Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation, as interpreted in Reisch Montage9, as the basis for the CAT's jurisdiction to hear their claims against the non-UK domiciled defendants.  The CAT did not rule on this issue as the case settled shortly before the Case Management Conference.

Second Question: Applicability of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulations in cartel damages claim and whether claimant can bring a claim where the harm has occurred

2.7 The AG referred to CJEU's earlier jurisprudence that the expression 'place where the harmful event occurred or may occur' in Article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation is intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the causal event giving rise to the damage, so that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the applicant, in the courts for either of those two places.  In the context of a cartel, this could be the place where the cartelists held their meetings to fix prices, or any of the places in which those price increases were implemented by each cartelist and passed on to their direct and indirect purchasers.  However in cases such as this where the cartel agreements were concluded and implemented in various Member States restricting competition throughout the Union for a long time and having a highly complex structure and secretive nature, the AG took the view that it is not possible to identify in a clear manner the Court which has "a particularly close link" with the dispute to invoke the jurisdiction of Article 5(3) such that it is objectively best placed to determine whether the elements that establish liability exist. He therefore indicated his view that in these circumstances, the application of Article 5(3) should not be available. 

2.8 AG Jääskinen took the view that in complex cartel cases the jurisdiction of the Court should be based on Articles 2(1) and 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation so that the cartelists can be sued in the courts of the Member State where any of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.  Article 5(3) was, in his view, intended to be a limited derogation from these provisions and should be accordingly restricted for the protection of the Defendant, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and potentially differing outcomes. 

2.9 This view differs significantly from the way the English Courts have recently interpreted Article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation in the context of damages claims.  In the case Deutsche Bahn AG & Others v Morgan Advanced Materials plc10, the CAT accepted jurisdiction under Article 5(3) in relation to the claims of the UK claimants against the non-UK domiciled defendants on the basis that the UK claimants had made direct purchases of the cartelised products in the UK and thus the damage had occurred in the UK within the scope of Article 5(3) and fell within its jurisdiction. 

2.10 The Opinion delivered on Article 5(3) is, in the context of cartel damages actions, a very restrictive view which will significantly inhibit and discourage claimants to obtain redress at the time when this is being actively encouraged by the European Commission through the adoption of the Damages Directive11.  The result would be that a group of claimants who have suffered loss as a result of the cartel through purchases in their own country, perhaps as indirect purchasers or direct purchasers through agents of the cartelists, may not be able to obtain compensation in that country.  Whilst it is true that the application of Article 5(3) may mean cartelists would be exposed to potential claims in a wider number of jurisdictions, this is the  consequence of the nature of cartel activity and arises as a result of the decision to conspire with suppliers across a number of member states and then implement those agreements in a way which affects direct and indirect purchasers across Europe and in some cases beyond.  It would not seem appropriate, and contrary to the principles of fair compensation under the Damages Directive, if a large group of purchasers affected by purchasers from an agent of the cartelist in that country were forced to have to bring a claim in another member state.  This is likely, in particular, to restrict claims by SMEs and consumers.  Claimants should therefore be given the possibility to rely on Article 5(3) and use evidence relating to purchases made in that member state against the cartelists before the courts of that member state.  In line with the objective of Article 5(3), this is arguably the court which is best placed to consider the evidence available as to whether the elements of the tort are met.  Whilst a claimant who made purchases in more than one jurisdiction, may need to rely on Article 2 or Article 6(1) to cover all instances of damages in a particular case, this should not prevent claimants from being able to rely on Article 5(3) in an appropriate case.  Furthermore, it is not contrary to the objectives of the Brussels Regulation for a claimant to seek jurisdiction on more than one basis.  In particular, in a case such as Deutsche Bahn referred to above, a Court may find itself having jurisdiction over the defendants on more than one basis, and may even have jurisdiction over part of a claim while there is a dispute concerning its jurisdiction over another part. Both CDC and the European Commission supported the application of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation in damages claims.

Third Question: Validity of jurisdiction or arbitration clauses in contracts which have been overcharged:

2.11 In relation to the third question, AG stated that jurisdiction and arbitration clauses included in commercial contracts can be binding in follow-on damages claims if the injured party consented specifically to those clauses, having full knowledge of the cartel and the loss it has suffered.  AG emphasised that clauses conferring jurisdiction on a non-EU court or an arbitration body outside the EU, can only be relied upon if the full compliance with EU competition rules is guaranteed.

2.12 Due to the secretive nature of cartels, a claimant is unlikely to have such knowledge, however potential claimants should be aware in renewing supply contracts after an infringement finding has been identified that a jurisdiction clause could then be interpreted to determine where a damages claim could be brought if they were deemed to have sufficient knowledge of the cartel at that point. 

3 Conclusion

3.1 Jurisdiction is of particular importance in follow-on damages claims and, in particular, the realisation of a practical right to compensation in line with the aims of the Damages Directive.  The CJEU ruling in Hydrogen Peroxide case is going to be one of the CJEU's most awaited judgments this year, especially as the Damages Directive does not deal with the issue of jurisdiction. The CJEU has been called to shed light on one of the many hurdles claimants in competition damages actions have to overcome.

3.2 Whilst the confirmation on the application of Article 6(1) to cartel damages claims is welcomed as a logical application of the purpose of Article 6(1), the proposed exclusion of Article 5(3) as a basis for jurisdiction would restrict the ability of claimants, particularly SME and consumers, to have an effective means of redress which is not excessively difficult.  This runs counter to the principles of the Damages Directive and the proposed collective action provisions in Schedule 8 of the Consumer Rights Bill in the UK, intended to facilitate consumer redress in competition actions.  If this position is maintained, it is unfortunate that it was not apparent at the time of the Damages Directive, or it may have been a point which could have been considered by the European Commission for inclusion in the Damages Directive.

3.3 Finally, it should be pointed out that the Advocate General's Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. The role of the Advocates General is to provide an impartial and independent view in the cases assigned to them, typically involving new areas of law.  It is therefore possible for there to be a difference between the content of an Advocate General's opinion and the subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice.


1 C-352/13 CDC Cartel Damage Claims Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Evonik Degussa GmbH and Others

2 Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

3 C-98/06 Freeport plc v Olle Arnoldsson [2007] ECR I-8319

4 C‑462/06 Glaxosmithkline and Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard [2008] ECR I-3965

5 C-145/10 Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others [2011] ECR I-12533

6 C-103/05 Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH [2006] ECR I-6827

7 See footnote 3 above

8 Case No. 1173/5/7/10 Deutsche Bahn AG & Ors v Morgan Advance Materials PLC & Ors ( non-UK Claims)

9 See footnote 6 above

10 [2013] CAT 18

11 Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (O.J. L349/1 of 5 December 2014)

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.