Quieta movere – but please do not do it quietly: the ECJ on international jurisdiction in antitrust damages actions (Tibor-Trans, C 451/18)

Abstract

In Tibor-Trans, the ECJ has commented on the interpretation of ‘the place where the dama­ge occurred’ (Art. 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation) to determine international jurisdiction in antitrust dama­ges actions. Contrary to its previous decision in CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, the court held that the claimant’s purported damage must have occurred in a state which is part of the market affected by the cartel. The court can rely on valid arguments in favour of this position. However, the decision does not explicitly discuss the court’s earlier case law. This lacuna in the court’s reasoning is detrimental to legal certainty.