= The localization of antitrust torts underthe Brussels regime: reflections in the light of the Judgment FLYLAL II of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Abstract
In the flyLAL II judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the loss of sales incurred as a result of antitrust tort can be regarded as “damage” for the purposes of identifying the competent jurisdictional authority pursuant to Art. 5 n. 3 of the Regulation (EC) n. 44/2001 (“Brussels I”) and ruled that such damage is localized in the country whose market was affected by the anticompetitive conduct. Taking that judgment as point of departure, this article critically analyses the EU private international law regime of antitrust torts, focusing on its negative impact on private antitrust enforcement. Given this state of affairs, the solution adopted by the Court seems to pursue the goal of consistency between the provision under scrutiny and Art. 6, par. 3, lit. a), of the Regulation (CE) n. 864/2007 (“Rome II”) on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising from acts restricting free competition. It also promotes the private enforcement of antitrust rules, thereby enhancing the regulatory function of private international law in the internal market.
