Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/3

(Case C-352/13) (<span class="super">1</span>)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 6(1) - Action, brought against several defendants domiciled in various Member States and which have participated in a cartel found to be contrary to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, seeking an order for the defendants to pay damages jointly and severally and for disclosure of information - Jurisdiction of the court seised with regard to the other defendants - Withdrawal of the action in relation to the defendant domiciled in the Member State of the court seised - Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Article 5(3) - Jurisdiction clauses - Article 23 - Effective enforcement of the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices))

(2015/C 236/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA

Defendants: Akzo Nobel NV, Solvay SA/NV, Kemira Oyj, FMC Foret SA

Operative part of the judgment

1)Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the rule on centralisation of jurisdiction in the case of several defendants, as established in that provision, can apply in the case of an action for damages, and for disclosure in that regard, brought jointly against undertakings which have participated in different places and at different times in a single and continuous infringement, which has been established by a decision of the European Commission, of the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices provided for under EU law, even where the applicant has withdrawn its action against the sole co-defendant domiciled in the same State as the court seised, unless it is found that, at the time the proceedings were instituted, the applicant and that defendant had colluded to artificially fulfil, or prolong the fulfilment of, that provision’s applicability;

2)Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an action for damages brought against defendants domiciled in various Member States as a result of a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, which has been established by the European Commission, in which the defendants participated in several Member States, at different times and in different places, the harmful event occurred in relation to each alleged victim on an individual basis and each of the victims can, by virtue of Article 5(3), choose to bring an action before the courts of the place in which the cartel was definitively concluded or, as the case may be, the place in which one agreement in particular was concluded which is identifiable as the sole causal event giving rise to the loss allegedly suffered, or before the courts of the place where its own registered office is located;

3)Article 23(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as allowing, in the case of actions for damages for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, account to be taken of jurisdiction clauses contained in contracts for the supply of goods, even if the effect thereof is a derogation from the rules on international jurisdiction provided for in Article 5(3) and/or Article 6(1) of that regulation, provided that those clauses refer to disputes concerning liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.