Cross-border damage antitrust claims and rules on jurisdiction: a real plaintiff’s paradise?

On 21 May 2015 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its second judgment dealing with the private international law aspects related to the actions for damages caused by an infringement of EU competition law (case C-352/13, CDC). It contributed to clarify some important questions on jurisdiction that, until this judgment was delivered, were solved in different ways by national courts. In fact, the interpretation of jurisdiction rules applicable in private antitrust claims has so far been derived by national judges from other ECJ judgments not directly concerning the subject matter. The present article focuses on the main grounds of jurisdiction that can be applied to private competition disputes besides the general provision of the domicile of the defendant: on the one hand, the special provision of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur; on the other, the extended jurisdiction. The analysis is carried out taking into account both the ECJ and the national case-law and emphasizing how certain interpretations of the relevant provisions could exacerbate the risk of forum shopping or lead to an almost unconditional exception to the general rule of the domicile of the defendant, especially in the business-to-business litigation.