Hof van Justitie 29 juli 2019
|
EUROPEES EN INTERNATIONAAL GERECHTELIJK RECHT
Bevoegdheid en executie - Verordening (EU) nr. 1215/2012 - Bijzondere bevoegdheid - Artikel 7, 2. - Verbintenissen uit onrechtmatige daad - Plaats waar het schadebrengende feit zich heeft voorgedaan - Plaats waar de schade is ingetreden - Verzoek om vergoeding van de schade die is veroorzaakt door een met artikel 101 VWEU en artikel 53 van de overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte strijdig verklaarde mededingingsregeling - Mededinging
Artikel 7, 2. van verordening (EU) nr. 1215/2012 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 12 december 2012 betreffende de rechterlijke bevoegdheid, de erkenning en de tenuitvoerlegging van beslissingen in burgerlijke en handelszaken dient aldus te worden uitgelegd dat bij een vordering tot vergoeding van schade als gevolg van een op artikel 101 VWEU gemaakte inbreuk die onder meer bestaat uit heimelijke afspraken over prijsstelling en verhogingen van de brutoprijs van vrachtwagens, "de plaats waar het schadebrengende feit zich heeft voorgedaan”, in een situatie als die van het hoofdgeding betrekking heeft op de plaats waar zich de markt bevindt die door die inbreuk is beïnvloed, dus de plaats waar de prijzen op de markt zijn vervalst, en waar de benadeelde stelt schade te hebben geleden, ook al is de vordering gericht tegen een deelnemer aan het betreffende kartel met wie de benadeelde geen contractuele relatie was aangegaan.
|
DROIT JUDICIAIRE EUROPÉEN ET INTERNATIONAL
Compétence et execution - Règlement (UE) n° 1215/2012 - Compétences spéciales - Article 7, 2. - Matière délictuelle ou quasi délictuelle - Lieu où le fait dommageable s'est produit - Lieu de la matérialisation du dommage - Demande en réparation du préjudice causé par une entente déclarée contraire à l'article 101 TFUE et à l'article 53 de l'accord sur l'Espace économique européen - Droit de la concurrence
L'article 7, 2., du règlement (UE) n° 1215/2012 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 12 décembre 2012 concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale, doit être interprété en ce sens que, dans le cadre d'une action en réparation d'un préjudice causé par une infraction au titre de l'article 101 TFUE, consistant notamment en des arrangements collusoires sur la fixation des prix et l'augmentation des prix bruts des camions, le « lieu où le fait dommageable s'est produit » vise, dans une situation telle que celle en cause au principal, le lieu du marché affecté par cette infraction, à savoir le lieu où les prix du marché ont été faussés, au sein duquel la victime prétend avoir subi ce préjudice, même si l'action est dirigée contre un participant à l'entente en cause avec lequel cette victime n'avait pas établi de relations contractuelles.
|
Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. / DAF TRUCKS NV
(…)
Het Europees Hof van Justitie heeft verklaard dat
1. A selection of the paragraphs of the judgment that need to be published along with your note:
(…)
26. In the present case, the request for a preliminary ruling contains no evidence to support the conclusion that it is disputed that the Hungarian courts cannot derive their international jurisdiction to hear the case in the main proceedings from the place of the causal event giving rise to the alleged damage because none of the collusive arrangements constituting an infringement under Article 101 TFEU took place in Hungary. The question referred relates solely to the determination of the place where the alleged damage occurred, consisting of additional costs incurred because of artificially high prices, such as those of the trucks covered by the cartel at issue in the main proceedings.
27. As regards the determination of the place where such damage occurred, it must be noted that that place depends on whether the issue concerns the initial damage, resulting directly from the event giving rise to the damage, in which case the place where such damage occurred may provide a basis for jurisdiction under Article 7, (2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, or whether it concerns subsequent adverse consequences which are not capable of providing a basis for jurisdiction under that provision (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 July 2018, C 27/17, flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines, EU:C:2018:533, para. 31).
(…)
30. As is apparent from the file before the Court and without prejudice to the findings of fact in the main proceedings which it is for the referring court to make, the damage alleged by Tibor-Trans consists of additional costs incurred because of artificially high prices applied to trucks following collusive arrangements constituting a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU which had been effective throughout the EEA between 17 January 1997 and 18 January 2011 and in which 15 international truck manufacturers, including DAF Trucks, had participated. It is also clear from the file before the Court that Tibor-Trans did not purchase trucks directly from the participants in the cartel at issue, as they were initially sold to Hungarian vehicle dealerships which passed the costs of the price increase on to the end users, such as Tibor-Trans.
31. As regards the nature of the damage alleged, it should be noted that it is not merely a financial consequence of the damage that could have been suffered by direct purchasers, such as Hungarian vehicle dealerships, and which could have consisted of a loss of sales following the price increase. By contrast, the damage alleged in the case in the main proceedings results essentially from the additional costs incurred because of artificially high prices and, therefore, appears to be the immediate consequence of an infringement pursuant to Article 101 TFEU and thus constitutes direct damage which, in principle, provides a basis for the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which it occurred.
(…)
On those grounds, the Court (6th Ch.) hereby rules:
Article 7, (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for compensation for damage caused by an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, consisting, inter alia, of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases for trucks, “the place where the harmful event occurred” covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the place where the market which is affected by that infringement is located, that is to say, the place where the market prices were distorted and in which the victim claims to have suffered that damage, even where the action is directed against a participant in the cartel at issue with whom that victim had not established contractual relations.
