Aashka Vyas, O.P. Jindal Global University, Jindal Global Law School
ABSTRACT
Antitrust litigation in Europe is evolving rapidly. In particular, damages claim relating to cartels and dominance abuses are growing exponentially and claims relating to the same infringement are being made in several jurisdictions in parallel. Cartel decisions of the European Commission often sanction Europe-wide cartels that could potentially affect customers right across Europe.1 Beyond the well-known prohibitions on cartel-like activities, it delves into less frequently addressed conduct by EU antitrust enforcement which includes alleged abuses of the patent system, disparagement of competitors’ products, frivolous litigation, and excessively high pricing. Given that in Europe-wide antitrust damage cases, particularly cartel cases, private international law allows and asks the claimant to choose between alternative competent jurisdictions, the question arises as to where a legal action should be brought to court.2 The multiplicity resulting from the claimant’s flexibility to exercise his choice of jurisdiction in the most appropriate and advantageous manner for him has resulted in the possibility of involving several judicial venues in cases involving common facts and legal difficulties. The lack of uniformity in a legal solution leads to confusion in choice-of-law and jurisdictional norms, which may result in a rush to different national courts. This paper will investigate the essential aspects of forum shopping caused by collective redress and the selection of an appropriate forum in the area of antitrust where illegal conduct may cause scattered and low-value damage to a large number of individuals, and where the individual cost of redress may be disproportionate to the damage suffered. Additionally, the paper will also establish the fact that Private Antitrust Litigation has become a norm in Europe.
Keywords: forum shopping, private antitrust litigation, collective redress, EU Competition Law, Brussels I Regulation
Comments