EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Prague, Czechia

Bending traditional private international law towards more favourable private enforcement Richard Macko Charles University in Prague

Faculty of Law, Department of Civil Law náměstí Curieových 901/7, Prague, 116 40 Czechia Allen & Overy Bratislava, s.r.o. Eurovea Central 1, Pribinova 4, Bratislava, 811 09 Slovakia email: richard.macko@allenovery.com

Abstract This paper criticises the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular some of its findings in Volvo (C-30/20), as well as in other earlier judgments concerning the rules on determining the international and local jurisdiction of the courts under Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation Recast. The Court clearly goes beyond the limits of traditional private international law in helping claimants (injured parties) to establish international and local jurisdiction of courts in the place of their establishment, irrespective of whether the damage actually occurred there, or only manifested itself there in the form of indirect or consequential damage. Although such an approach of the Court may have a noble intention behind it, e.g., promoting the private enforcement of competition law in Europe, it must not be forgotten that such interpretation of Article 7(2) will inevitably lead to unreasonable results. Keywords: international jurisdiction, local jurisdiction, private enforcement, place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, actual damage JEL Classification: K210 1. Introduction In its recent judgment in Volvo (C-30/20), which fully follows the opinion of the Advocate General Jean Richard de la Tour, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) offered an interesting interpretation of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation Recast in matters relating to the private enforcement of competition law. It follows from both the legal doctrine (Lein, E., 2015) and the Czech case law (e.g., the resolution of the Czech Supreme Court dated 29 May 2018, file no. 30 Nd 391/2017) that Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation Recast governs not only

264