EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Prague, Czechia

involved, including Volvo, Volvo Lastvagnar, and Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe, with the exception of one entity, which was granted immunity. RH brought a follow-on action for damages against the Volvo Group companies, including their Spanish subsidiary Volvo Group España SA. It claimed that it had been damaged by having paid a higher amount in the acquisition of five trucks as a result of the cartel being sanctioned by the Commission than it would have paid if the cartel had never occurred. Although RH acquired the trucks in Córdoba, where it also had its registered office, it brought the action before the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No. 2 de Madrid (Commercial Court No. 2 of Madrid, Spain). In the proceedings, Volvo did not contest the local jurisdiction of that court, but rather the lack of international jurisdiction of the Spanish courts. It argued that the place where the fact giving rise to RH’s claim within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation occurred or could have occurred was the place of the causal event. That place should be the place where the cartel relating to the trucks was concluded and not the place where the claimant was established. Since the cartel was concluded in other EU Member States and not in Spain, Volvo argued that the Spanish courts did not have international jurisdiction. 3. The Volvo judgment In Volvo (C-30/20), it seems that the Court addressed, for the first time in the field of competition law, the question of whether Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation Recast governs not only international jurisdiction but also local jurisdiction, i.e., which specific court of a Member State may hear and determine claims for breach of competition law. The Court first noted, with reference to the Commission’s decision (Case AT.39824 – Trucks), that the Commission found that the truck manufacturers’ cartel agreement, which gave rise to the damage claimed before the Spanish courts, covered the entire EEA market, and therefore distorted competition in that market. Accordingly, the place where the alleged damage occurred must, for the purposes of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation Recast, be understood to be situated within the entire EEA market, of which Spain is a part. The international jurisdiction of the Spanish courts was therefore established. The Court then proceeded to consider whether it was also possible, with reference to Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation Recast, to determine, in the case of a Member State so identified whose courts have international jurisdiction, the specific court of that Member State which is to have local jurisdiction. As I have already stated, the Court seems to have held here, for the first time in the field of competition law (and, for that matter, in the field of private enforcement), that that provision directly and immediately confers not only international jurisdiction but also local jurisdiction on the court of the place where the damage occurred. It

266