(Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU in case C-352/13, CDC HydrogenPeroxide)
This article provides an overview of the conclusions regarding the rules of jurisdiction, applicable in the case of private damages claims, which could be brought from the Opinion of the Advocate General and the Judgment of the Court of Justice in the Case “CDC Hydrogen Peroxide” (Case C-352/13).
This is the first case of the Court of Justice in which it adresses this specific issue. The practical importance of the matter and its scientific value have rendered this case one of the most commented in 2015. It combines analyses from the point of view of competition law, private international law and arbitration law.
The article provides a resume of the facts of the case and the arguments presented by the Advocate General in his Opinion and the Judgemnt of the Court. Further, the legal conclusions which have been rendered are analyzed essentially from the point of view of private international law, but taking also into consideration the particularities of competion law.
The author argues that the conclusion of the Court on tow of the first questions, regarding the application of articles 5 and 6 of the Brussels 1 Regulation, are essentially correct, whether the last questions has been left only partially answered.
More particularly, it is argued that the approach toward jurisdiction and arbitration clauses is rather incomplete and unclear, while they could have considerable practical effect on private damages claims and, ultimately, on the effet utile of art. 101 TFEU.
Линк към статията на български език: КОЙ СЪД Е КОМПЕТЕНТЕН ДА РАЗГЛЕДА ИСК ЗА ВРЕДИ, ПРИЧИНЕНИ ОТ НАРУШЕНИЕ НА ПРАВИЛАТА НА КОНКУРЕНЦИЯТА?
Theopinionsandpositionsexpressedbytheauthorinthisarticlearehispersonalscientificviewsonthetopic. they may not be attributed to Wolf Theiss Law Firm or its lawyers, and are not necessarly identical with their position on the matter.