Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 May 2015

Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Evonik Degussa GmbH and Others

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund

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

Case C-352/13


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
03/07/2015 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2015:335
21/05/2015 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2015:335
21/05/2015 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2014:2443
11/12/2014 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
27/09/2013 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Request for a preliminary ruling – Landgericht Dortmund – Interpretation of Article 5(1) and (3), and 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) – Special jurisdiction – Action brought against several defendants domiciled in different Member States – Jurisdiction of the court over co-defendants – Situation in which proceedings have been discontinued against a defendant domiciled in the Member State of the court after the action has been served on all defendants but before the expiry of the period for lodging a defence

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • EC Treaty (Nice), Article 81 : paragraphs 2, 10, 14
  • TFEU, Article 101 : paragraphs 14, 21, 34, 56, 57, 72
  • TFEU, Article 267 : paragraph 63
  • Agreement on the European Economic Area -A53 : paragraphs 2, 10, 14, 21, 34, 56, 57, 72
  • Regulation 44/2001 : paragraphs 58, 60, 63
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A02 : paragraph 18
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A02P1 : paragraph 5
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A05 : paragraphs 61, 71
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A05PT3 : paragraphs 1, 6, 13, 14, 34, 35, 37 - 39, 48, 50, 56, 57, 72
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A06 : paragraphs 61, 71
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A06PT1 : paragraphs 1, 7, 13 - 17, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31 - 33, 57, 72
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A23 : paragraphs 1, 13, 62, 63
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A23P1 : paragraphs 8, 60, 61, 72
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C11 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C12 : paragraphs 3, 19
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C14 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C15 : paragraphs 3, 19
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C2 : paragraph 3
  • Decision 2006/903 : paragraphs 10, 21
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A02 : paragraph 59
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A05 : paragraph 59
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A06 : paragraph 59
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A17 : paragraphs 59, 62
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A17L1 : paragraph 60
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -24/76 : paragraph 59
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -214/89 -N31 : paragraph 68
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -214/89 -N37 : paragraph 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -269/95 -N31 : paragraph 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -159/97 -N51 : paragraph 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 -N23 : paragraph 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -387/98 -N24 : paragraph 65
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -387/98 -N25 : paragraph 65
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -387/98 -N30 : paragraph 65
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -103/05 -N29 : paragraph 16
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -103/05 -N32 : paragraph 27
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -98/06 -N39 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -98/06 -N40 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -98/06 -N54 : paragraph 28
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/08 -N27 : paragraph 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N73 : paragraph 17
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N74 : paragraph 18
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N77 : paragraph 19
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N78 : paragraph 27
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N79 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N84 : paragraph 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -543/10 -N19 : paragraph 60
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -543/10 -N20 : paragraph 60
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -543/10 -N29 : paragraph 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 -N25 : paragraph 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 -N26 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 -N27 : paragraph 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 -N41 : paragraph 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -645/11 -N40 : paragraph 17
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -645/11 -N42 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -645/11 -N43 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -147/12 -N58 : paragraph 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/12 -N48 : paragraph 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -387/12 -N28 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -375/13 -N43 : paragraph 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -375/13 -N45 : paragraph 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -375/13 -N47 : paragraph 41

Operative part

  • Interprets : TFEU, Article 101
  • Interprets : Agreement on the European Economic Area -A53
  • Interprets : Regulation 44/2001 -A05PT3
  • Interprets : Regulation 44/2001 -A06PT1
  • Interprets : Regulation 44/2001 -A23P1

Opinion

  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 : points 2, 24, 30, 51, 65, 133
  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 82 : point 51
  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 85 : points 27, 123
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 47 : point 27
  • TFEU, Article 101 : points 1, 6, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 70, 91, 100, 103, 112, 114, 116 - 126, 132, 133
  • TFEU, Article 102 : points 51, 120
  • Agreement on the European Economic Area -A53 : points 2, 24, 65
  • Regulation 44/2001 : points 10, 26, 32, 34 - 36, 75, 98, 99, 104, 106, 116, 121
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A01P1 : point 33
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A01P2LD : points 12, 98
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A02 : points 44, 58, 61, 84, 105
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A02P1 : points 13, 53
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A05 : points 104 - 117, 125
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A05PT1 : points 52, 131
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A05PT3 : points 1, 5, 6, 14, 24, 32, 35, 38, 39 - 55, 91, 95, 105, 108, 113, 131, 133
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A06 : points 104 - 117, 125
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A06PT1 : points 1, 4, 6, 15, 24, 35, 38, 54 - 91, 95, 105, 107, 113, 133
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A13 : point 106
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A17 : point 106
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A21 : point 106
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A22 : point 106
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A23 : points 6, 24, 92, 97, 100, 103 - 117, 121, 124, 129, 133
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A23P1 : points 16, 35
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A23P5 : points 16, 106
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A28 : points 53, 56
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A30 : point 81
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A36 : point 116
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A45P2 : point 116
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A60P1 : point 56
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C1 : point 26
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C11 : points 11, 56, 58, 67, 82, 99, 106
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C12 : points 11, 45, 57, 82
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C13 : point 106
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C14 : points 11, 106, 106
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C15 : points 11, 48, 57
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C16 : point 116
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C17 : point 116
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C2 : point 26
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C6 : point 26
  • Regulation 44/2001 -CH2 : points 13, 16, 59
  • Regulation 44/2001 -S2 : points 14, 15
  • Regulation 44/2001 -S5 : point 59
  • Regulation 44/2001 -S7 : point 16
  • Regulation 44/2001 -S9 : point 81
  • Regulation 1/2003 -A16P1 : point 51
  • Decision 2006/903 : point 59
  • Regulation 864/2007 : points 10, 31, 75
  • Regulation 864/2007 -A06P3 : points 10, 75
  • Regulation 864/2007 -A06P3LB : point 75
  • Regulation 864/2007 -A06P4 : point 104
  • Regulation 864/2007 -C21 : points 10, 50
  • Regulation 864/2007 -C7 : point 75
  • Regulation 1215/2012 : point 10
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A25P5L2 : point 115
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -C12 : point 121
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -C15 : point 82
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -C16 : point 82
  • Directive 2014/104 : point 113
  • Directive 2014/104 -A11P1 : point 70
  • Directive 2014/104 -A18 : point 113
  • Directive 2014/104 -A19 : point 113
  • Directive 2014/104 -C37 : point 70
  • Directive 2014/104 -C48 : point 113
  • Brussels Convention 1968 : points 34, 36, 98, 100, 116
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A05PT3 : point 35
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A06PT1 : point 35
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A17 : points 105, 110
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A17L1 : point 35
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A22 : point 56
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A29 : point 116
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A34 : point 116
  • Lugano Convention 1988 : point 100
  • Commission - COM Document (Other than Draft Legislation) - 52009DC0175 -PT8.2 : point 10
  • Council - Other Acts - 52009XG1223(04) : point 100
  • Commission - COM Document (Draft Legislation) - 52013PC0404 : point 113
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -24/76 -N7 : point 105
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -23/78 -N5 : point 105
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/81 -N7 : point 115
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/87 -N10 : point 55
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/87 -N11 : point 81
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/87 -N12 : point 56
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/87 -N9 : points 68, 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -32/88 -N13 : point 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -32/88 -N14 : point 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -220/88 -N19 : point 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -220/88 -N20 : point 50
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -190/89 : point 98
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -190/89 -N18 : point 98
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -214/89 -N31 : point 110
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -214/89 -N31 : point 129
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -214/89 -N33 : point 127
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -214/89 -N36 : point 127
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -406/92 -N53 : point 56
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -68/93 -N27 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -68/93 -N33 : point 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -135/93 -N37 : point 32
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -269/95 -N24 : point 115
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -269/95 -N26 : point 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -269/95 -N27 : point 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -391/95 -N31 : point 98
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -391/95 -N32 : point 98
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -440/97 : point 89
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -51/97 -N15 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 -N31 : point 123
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 -N36 : point 123
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 -N37 : point 123
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 -N39 : point 123
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 -N40 : point 123
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 -N36 : point 27
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 -N29 : point 116
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -387/98 -N19 : point 108
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -453/99 : points 30, 91
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -256/00 -N49 : point 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -256/00 -N55 : point 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -27/02 -N29 : point 131
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -168/02 -N14 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -168/02 -N20 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -295/04 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -295/04 -N60 : point 91
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -295/04 -N30 : point 95
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -103/05 -N27 : points 55, 79
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -103/05 -N28 : points 55, 79
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -103/05 -N29 : points 55, 79
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -103/05 -N30 : points 55, 79
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -103/05 -N31 : point 79
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -103/05 -N32 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -98/06 : point 89
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -98/06 -N39 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -98/06 -N53 : point 56
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -98/06 -N54 : points 79, 85
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -462/06 -N20 : point 59
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -462/06 -N28 : point 58
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -185/07 -N26 : point 98
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -185/07 -N27 : point 98
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -185/07 -N31 : point 121
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -185/07 -N32 : point 121
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -185/07 -N33 : point 121
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -585/08 -N43 : point 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -585/08 -N74 : point 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -585/08 -N84 : point 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/09 -N28 : point 124
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -509/09 -N51 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N74 : point 58
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N77 : point 57
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N78 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N83 : point 74
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/10 -N84 : point 66
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -412/10 : point 10
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -543/10 -N18 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -543/10 -N19 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -543/10 -N27 : point 109
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -616/10 -N28 : point 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -616/10 -N29 : point 74
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/11 : point 51
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/11 -N31 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/11 -N32 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -173/11 -N29 : point 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -173/11 -N31 : point 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -199/11 -N46 : point 27
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -199/11 -N51 : point 51
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 -N22 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 -N27 : point 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 -N34 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 -N35 : point 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 -N40 : point 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -536/11 -N29 : point 124
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -645/11 -N31 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -645/11 -N42 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -645/11 -N43 : point 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -645/11 -N44 : point 66
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -645/11 -N47 : point 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -645/11 -N48 : point 71
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -147/12 -N28 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -147/12 -N29 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/12 -N43 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/12 -N44 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/12 -N45 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/12 -N46 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/12 -N47 : point 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/12 -N48 : point 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -387/12 -N27 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -438/12 -N40 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -470/12 -N27 : point 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -519/12 -N21 : point 34
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -548/12 -N19 : point 34
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -548/12 -N20 : point 131
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -557/12 -N20 : point 120
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -557/12 -N21 : point 120
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -557/12 -N21 : point 119
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -557/12 -N24 : point 119
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -557/12 -N30 : point 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -579/12 -N40 : point 32
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -302/13 -N48 : point 33
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -400/13 -N58 : point 61
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -441/13 -N42 : point 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N28 : points 40, 47
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N29 : point 33
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N46 : point 116
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N47 : point 116
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N48 : point 116
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N49 : point 116
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N50 : point 116
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N51 : point 116
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N52 : point 116
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N53 : point 116
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N54 : point 116


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 26/06/2013

Date of the Opinion

  • 11/12/2014

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

21/05/2015


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 236 from 20.07.2015, p.3

Application: OJ C 298 from 12.10.2013, p.2

Name of the parties

CDC Hydrogen Peroxide

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Pike, Richard ; Tosheva, Yulia: CDC v Evonik Degussa (C-352/13) and its potential implications for private enforcement of European competition law, Global Competition Litigation Review 2015 Vol. 8 Nº 2 p.82-85 (EN)
  2. Harms, Rüdiger ; Sanner, Julian Alexander ; Schmidt, Johannes: EuGVVO: Gerichtsstand bei Kartellschadensersatzklagen, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2015 p.584-592 (DE)
  3. Woodgate, Tony ; Owen, Chris: Jurisdiction revisited. Forum shopping in cross-border damages claims, Competition Law Insight 2015 Vol. 14 Issue 7 p.16-17 (EN)
  4. Berlin, Dominique: Compétence du juge national, pluralité de codéfendeurs… et désistement du codéfendeur fondant la compétence du juge saisi, La Semaine Juridique - édition générale 2015 nº 23 p.665 (FR)
  5. Berlin, Dominique: Compétence du juge national, pluralité de codéfendeurs… et désistement du codéfendeur fondant la compétence du juge saisi, La Semaine Juridique - édition générale 2015 nº 23 p.1109 (FR)
  6. Gartagani, Stella ; Boyle, Nicole ; Hannah, Lesley: Jurisdiction in follow-on damages claims - AG Jaaskinen's opinion in the Hydrogen Peroxide case, Global Competition Litigation Review 2015 Vol. 8 Nº 3 p.R53-R57 (EN)
  7. Boyle, Nicole ; Chhokar, Gurpreet ; Gartagani, Stella: Jurisdiction in follow-on damages claims: update on the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the hydrogen peroxide cartel claim, Global Competition Litigation Review 2015 Vol. 8 Nº 3 p.R58-R62 (EN)
  8. Negri, Marcella: Una pronuncia a tutto campo sui criteri di allocazione della competenza giurisdizionale nel private antitrust enforcement transfrontaliero : il caso esemplare delle azioni risarcitorie c.d. follow-on rispetto a decisioni sanzionatorie di cartelli pan-europei, Int'l Lis 2015 p.78-84 (IT)
  9. Idot, Laurence: Actions en matière délictuelle en droit de la concurrence, Europe 2015 Juillet Comm. nº 7 p.34-36 (FR)
  10. Geiss, Oliver ; Daniel, Horst: Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Akzo Nobel NV and Others: A summary and critique of the judgment of the European Court of Justice of May, 21 2015, European Competition Law Review 2015 p.430-435 (EN)
  11. Mehrbrey, Kim Lars ; Jaeger, Sophia: EuGH-Entscheidung klärt internationale Zuständigkeit von nationalen Zivilgerichten in Kartellschadensersatzfällen, European Law Reporter 2015 p.146-154 (DE)
  12. Panitsas, Georgios: Ritres diaitisias/Ritres parektasis diethnous dikaiodosias kai adikopraktikes axioseis apozimiosis logo paraviasis ton kanonon antagonismou, Dikaio Epicheiriseon & Etairion 2015 p.1117-1119 (EL)
  13. Skubic, Zoran: Forum uveljavljanja odškodninske odgovornosti nezakonitih kartelov po Uredbi Bruselj I, Pravna praksa 2015 nº 22 p.24-25 (SL)
  14. Torbjörn, Andersson: Zuständigkeit und Zuständigkeitskonzentration bei Verstößen gegen europäisches Kartellrecht, Ecolex 2015 p.968-969 (DE)
  15. Stadler, Astrid: Schadensersatzklagen im Kartellrecht – Forum shopping welcome! - Zugleich Besprechung von EuGH, Urteil v. 21.5.2015 – C-352/13, Juristenzeitung 2015 p.1138-1149 (DE)
  16. Okretič, Neli: Arbitražni sporazumi in odškodninski zahtevki zaradi kršitve konkurenčnega prava, Slovenska arbitražna praksa 2015 nº 3 p.105-106 (SL)
  17. Pato, Alexia: Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia (Sala 4a) de 21 de mayo de 2015, asunto C-352/13, Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA c. Akzo Nobel NV y otros, Revista española de Derecho Internacional 2015 n°67 p. 195-198 (ES)
  18. Laazouzi, Malik: Cour de justice, 4e ch., 21 mai 2015, Cartel Damage Claims, aff. C-352/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:335, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2015 (Ed. Bruylant - Bruxelles) 2015 p.853-857 (FR)
  19. Musger, Gottfried: Internationale Zuständigkeit fur Kartellschadenersatz, Österreichische Blätter für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2015 p.235-237 (DE)
  20. Geelhand, Laurent ; Gartagani, Stella: CDC v Akzo Nobel and Others: Clarifications on the Jurisdiction Rules in Cartel Damages Claims, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2015 Vol. 6 nº 10 p.713-715 (EN)
  21. Dumitraşcu, Augustina: Curtea de Justiție a Uniunii Europene, Curierul Judiciar 2015 p.450-452 (RO)
  22. Harler, Christoph ; Weinzierl, Josef: The ECJ's CDC-Judgment on Jurisdiction in Cartel Damages Cases: Repercussions for International Arbitration, Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht - EWS 2015 Heft 3 p.121-123 (EN)
  23. Wiegandt, Dirk: Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht - EWS 2015 Heft 3 p.157-159 (DE)
  24. Weller, Matthias: EuGVVO - Zuständigkeitskonzentration bei Schadensersatzklage gegen mehrere Kartellanten und Reichweite einer abweichenden Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 2015 Heft 9 p.603-605 (DE)
  25. Темников, Олег: Кой съд е компетентен да разгледа иск за вреди, причинени от нарушение на правилата на конкуренцията, Европейски правен преглед 2015 nº XIII p.66-90 (BG)
  26. Едрева, Габриела: Международна компетентност при искове за обезщетение за вреди от трансгранични антиконкурентни практики, Европейски правен преглед 2015 nº XIII p.91-102 (BG)
  27. Nourissat, Cyril: Action indemnitaire en droit de la concurrence : quand la Cour de justice instaure un nouveau forum actoris au bénéfice des victimes..., Procédures 2015 nº 7 p.19-20 (FR)
  28. Strikwerda, L.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2016 Afl.10 p.1205-1208 (NL)
  29. Wurmnest, Wolfgang: International jurisdiction in competition damages cases under the Brussels I Regulation: CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, Common Market Law Review 2016 p. 225-247 (EN)
  30. Delikostopoulos, Ioannis: Dikaiodosia se axiosi apo adikopraxia kata pleionon enagomenon epi apagorevmenis sympraxis stin EE, Elliniki Dikaiosyni 2016 p.300-307 (EL)
  31. Kroes, Chr.F.: Luciburgum locuta, causa finita of Delphi "revisited"?, Nederlands internationaal privaatrecht 2016 Afl.3 p.470-477 (NL)
  32. Reydellet, Colin: Leçon 2 : De la matière délictuelle et de sa qualification....., Revue Lamy droit des affaires 2016 nº 111 p.33-36 (FR)
  33. Reydellet, Colin: Leçon 3 : De la clause attributive de juridiction et de son sort....., Revue Lamy droit des affaires 2016 nº 111 p.37-39 (FR)
  34. Mäsch, Gerald: Blondes Have More Fun (Or Have They?), Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 2016 p.285-291 (DE)
  35. Pato, Alexia: Collective Redress for Cartel Damage Claims in The European Union after CDC v Akzo Nobel NV and Others, Yearbook of private international law 2017 p.491-506 (EN)
  36. Thole, Christoph: Erfassen Schiedsvereinbarungen auch Kartellschadensersatzansprüche?, Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht 2017 p.133-145 (DE)
  37. Kruger, Thalia: Arbitrage en Brussel I(bis), Revue de droit commercial belge 2017 p.308-315 (NL)
  38. Thiede, Thomas ; Klumpe, Gerhard: A Christmas Carol - strongly inspired by Charles Dickens and CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 2017 p.643 (EN)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Landgericht Dortmund - Germany

Subject-matter

  • area of freedom, security and justice
  • - Judicial cooperation in civil matters

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

quatrième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Safjan

Advocate General

Jääskinen

Language(s) of the Case

  • German

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • French