# C_2018301EN.01000402.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas — Lithuania) — AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation v ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ AS

(Case C-27/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(3) - Tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Place where the damage occurred and place of the event giving rise to the damage - Claim for compensation for damage allegedly caused by anticompetitive conduct committed in various Member States - Article 5(5) - Operations of a branch - Meaning))

(2018/C 301/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation

Defendants:‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ AS

Interveners:‘ŽIA Valda’ AB, ‘VA Reals’ AB, Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action seeking compensation for damage caused by anticompetitive conduct, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, inter alia, the place where the loss of income consisting in loss of sales occurred, that is to say, the place of the market which is affected by that conduct and on which the victim claims to have suffered those losses. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action seeking compensation for damage caused by anticompetitive conduct, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, inter alia, the place where the loss of income consisting in loss of sales occurred, that is to say, the place of the market which is affected by that conduct and on which the victim claims to have suffered those losses.

| 2. | Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action seeking compensation for damage caused by anticompetitive conduct, the notion ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may be understood to mean either the place of conclusion of an anticompetitive agreement contrary to Article 101 TFEU, or the place in which the predatory prices were offered and applied in cases where such practices constituted an infringement of Article 102 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action seeking compensation for damage caused by anticompetitive conduct, the notion ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may be understood to mean either the place of conclusion of an anticompetitive agreement contrary to Article 101 TFEU, or the place in which the predatory prices were offered and applied in cases where such practices constituted an infringement of Article 102 TFEU.

| 3. | Article 5(5) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the notion of a ‘dispute arising out of the operations of a branch’ covers an action seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by abuse of a dominant position consisting of the application of predatory pricing, where a branch of the undertaking which holds the dominant position actually and significantly participated in that abusive practice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 5(5) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the notion of a ‘dispute arising out of the operations of a branch’ covers an action seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by abuse of a dominant position consisting of the application of predatory pricing, where a branch of the undertaking which holds the dominant position actually and significantly participated in that abusive practice.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---