On 23 October 2014 and 21 May 2015 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its first two judgments dealing with the private international law rules within the private antitrust litigation (cases C-302/13, flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines and C-352/13, CDC). The first one contributes to clarify the public policy exception in relation to the recognition and enforcement of provisional measures. The second one focuses on the main grounds of jurisdiction related to the competition law claims: on the one hand, the special provisions of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur; on the other, the extended jurisdiction. The analysis is carried out emphasizing how the interpretation given by the ECJ takes into account the peculiarities of the private enforcement of competition law trying at the same time to facilitate the harmed parties to bring an action for damages. The need of protecting the defendant justifies instead a more restrictive approach in relation to choice-of-court clauses.
Los primeros pronunciamientos del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea sobre la aplicación privada del derecho de la competencia y sus reflejos sobre la competencia judicial en las acciones indemnizatorias en Europa
FRATEA, Caterina
2016-01-01
Abstract
On 23 October 2014 and 21 May 2015 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its first two judgments dealing with the private international law rules within the private antitrust litigation (cases C-302/13, flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines and C-352/13, CDC). The first one contributes to clarify the public policy exception in relation to the recognition and enforcement of provisional measures. The second one focuses on the main grounds of jurisdiction related to the competition law claims: on the one hand, the special provisions of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur; on the other, the extended jurisdiction. The analysis is carried out emphasizing how the interpretation given by the ECJ takes into account the peculiarities of the private enforcement of competition law trying at the same time to facilitate the harmed parties to bring an action for damages. The need of protecting the defendant justifies instead a more restrictive approach in relation to choice-of-court clauses.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.