The CJEU Sets Limits to the Application of the Concept of Economic Unity

By: María Pérez Carrillo, Esther de Félix Parrondo & Nacho Rodríguez Martínez (Cuatrecases)

The CJEU revisits the concept of economic unity in the context of damage claims stemming from competition law infringements, similar to its judgment on 6 October 2021 (Case C-882/19, Sumal, (ECLI:EU:C:2021:800)). This time, the focus is on the appropriate forum for such civil actions.

The question arose in proceedings where the Hungarian company MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (MOL) filed a follow-on action against Mercedes-Benz Group AG (Mercedes-Benz). This action followed the European Commission’s decision on 19 July 2016 (Case AT.39824, Trucks), which penalized Mercedes-Benz and other truck manufacturers for anti-competitive practices.

MOL’s subsidiaries, based in various Member States, purchased several Mercedes-Benz trucks, prompting MOL to file a follow-on claim before the Fovárosi Ítélotábla (Hungarian Capital High Court) for damages allegedly suffered by its subsidiaries due to these purchases.

To establish the jurisdiction of the Hungarian courts, MOL invoked the concept of ‘economic unity,’ arguing that as the parent company and central entity of the group’s economic interests, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ (per Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Bis Regulation) is Hungary. Consequently, MOL contended that the Hungarian courts have jurisdiction over the civil action.

Mercedes-Benz disputed the jurisdiction of the Hungarian court, and both the Fovárosi Ítélotábla (General Capital Court) and the Fovárosi Ítélotábla (High Court of the Hungarian Capital) upheld this objection. The case advanced to the Kúria (Hungarian Supreme Court), which, encountering a novel question not addressed in CJEU case law—whether the theory of economic unity applies when the economic unit claiming damages is not the sanctioned entity, as in Sumal—decided to refer the matter to the CJEU…

CONTINUE READING…