ALERT: ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICE - CIVIL SUIT - DAMAGES - JURISDICTION - JURISDICTION CLAUSES - WITHDRAWAL - PRELIMINARY RULING

Private enforcement: The Court of Justice of the European Union holds that victims of an infringement may seise the courts of a State where any of the co-participants is domiciled, and that the court seised still has jurisdiction when the applicant has withdrawn its action against the sole co-defendant domiciled in the same State as the court (CDC)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. CJEU, 21 May 2015, Case C-352/13 (CDC) On 21 May 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in the case of Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Akzo Nobel NV and others. concerning the implementation of private actions for damages related to the implementation of anti-competitive practices. This case follows a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund, which was referred to that court in March 2009 by the Belgian company Cartel Damage Claims (CDC), to which several undertakings active in the cellulose and paper processing sector, victims of the Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate cartel, had

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

Author

  • L’actu-concurrence (Paris)

Quotation

Alain Ronzano, Private enforcement: The Court of Justice of the European Union holds that victims of an infringement may seise the courts of a State where any of the co-participants is domiciled, and that the court seised still has jurisdiction when the applicant has withdrawn its action against the sole co-defendant domiciled in the same State as the court (CDC), 21 May 2015, Concurrences N° 3-2015, Art. N° 75332, www.concurrences.com

Visites 451

All reviews