The EU Court of Justice holds that a jurisdiction clause is not excluded when it does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability resulting from an abuse of dominant position (Apple / MJA)

Application of Jurisdiction Clauses to Competition Damages Actions Depends on Cause of Action* Summary The European Court of Justice (ECJ) recently ruled that a jurisdiction clause does not need to refer expressly to disputes arising from a breach of competition law where damages are claimed based on Art. 102 TFEU (i.e., for abuse of a dominant position). This contrasts with the ECJ’s position in follow-on cartel damages claims (under Art. 101 TFEU), where a jurisdiction clause must specifically refer to disputes concerning an infringement of competition law. In Depth When a private claim is made in relation to an alleged infringement of competition law, the claimant may be able to sue in a number of different jurisdictions. It might be thought that one way for the allegedly

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • McDermott Will & Emery (Paris)
  • McDermott Will & Emery (Paris)
  • McDermott Will & Emery (Brussels)
  • McDermott Will & Emery (Paris)
  • McDermott Will & Emery (Düsseldorf)

Quotation

Jacques Buhart, Jacob Grierson, David Henry, Nisrin Abelin, Boris Uphoff, The EU Court of Justice holds that a jurisdiction clause is not excluded when it does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability resulting from an abuse of dominant position (Apple / MJA), 24 October 2018, e-Competitions Bulletin October 2018, Art. N° 88784

Visites 56

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues