An additional effort in tackling the weblog queue. These with an curiosity within the software of Rome II to purely financial injury will likely be excited about Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove “Palink” et al v CNH Industrial NV et al ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:7093 and likely can have seen my Tweet on the case on the time (January 2024).
The Dutch Supreme Court docket (the referring court docket oddly calling claimants “claimanten” in Dutch; my Dutch colleagues will appropriate me nevertheless absolutely it is a novel Anglicism and one which have to be firmly stopped and pronto; what’s unsuitable with *eisers*?) has been seized with a preliminary reference on the applying of Article 6 Rome II.
That Article identifies the relevant regulation for infringement of competitors regulation and acts proscribing free competitors and it’s a calamitous statutory provision.
Article 6. Unfair competitors and acts proscribing free competitors
1. The regulation relevant to a non-contractual obligation arising out of an act of unfair competitors shall be the regulation of the nation the place aggressive relations or the collective pursuits of customers are, or are prone to be, affected
2. The place an act of unfair competitors impacts solely the pursuits of a selected competitor, Article 4 shall apply
3. | (a) | The regulation relevant to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a restriction of competitors shall be the regulation of the nation the place the market is, or is prone to be, affected. | (b) | When the market is, or is prone to be, affected in a couple of nation, the individual looking for compensation for injury who sues within the court docket of the domicile of the defendant, might as a substitute select to base his or her declare on the regulation of the court docket seised, supplied that the market in that Member State is amongst these immediately and considerably affected by the restriction of competitors out of which the non-contractual obligation on which the declare is predicated arises; the place the claimant sues, in accordance with the relevant guidelines on jurisdiction, a couple of defendant in that court docket, she or he can solely select to base his or her declare on the regulation of that court docket if the restriction of competitors on which the declare towards every of those defendants depends immediately and considerably impacts additionally the market within the Member State of that court docket.
4. The regulation relevant below this Article might not be derogated from by an settlement pursuant to Article 14.
A primary query referred pertains to the qualification of infringement of competitors regulation, Article 101 TFEU (prohibition of cartels) specifically as a singular, steady occasion or reasonably a sequence of latest occasions: if it’s a easy and steady illegal conduct it will result in separate claims for damages on the time the injury is suffered; the choice is that it ends in a single declare for damages per sufferer, consisting of assorted injury gadgets.
The conflicts relevance additionally kicks in ratione temporis viz the singular /steady qualification: what’s the decisive time limit for figuring out the relevant battle rule?
Moreover, the primary occasion court docket has referred on A6(3)(a) Rome II. Ought to the willpower of the relevant regulation be based mostly on the nation the place the primary purchaser of the truck to which the declare relates is established (additionally within the case of transport companies)? Or should this be linked to the place the place the truck or transport service was bought? Or does one other criterion apply?
Whether it is held that aggressive situations have been affected at the very least all through the interior market, how can A 6(3) b Rome II be utilized (selection of regulation by claimant for the lex fori: “the individual looking for compensation for injury who sues within the court docket of the domicile of the defendant, might as a substitute select to base his or her declare on the regulation of the court docket seised”)?
With regard to Article 6(3)(b) Rome II, the court docket asks the Supreme Court docket whether or not a selection of regulation for the lex fori might be made if the next necessities are met: that the market is or is prone to be affected in a couple of nation; that one of many defendants be introduced earlier than the court docket of his place of residence; that the market within the Member State of that court docket is immediately and considerably affected by the restriction of competitors.
Or does the (further) requirement that the results for the sufferer will need to have occurred in numerous nations, together with (on this case) the Netherlands, additionally apply to the applying of Article 6(3)(b) of Rome II?
This will likely be an fascinating SC judgment on one of the dense Rome II Articles. Will the SC at its flip consult with the CJEU?
Geert.
EU Personal Worldwide Legislation, 4th ed. 2024, 4.53 ff.