LG Dortmund; 2018-06-27; 8 O 13/17 (Kart)
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGDO:2018:0627.8O13.17KART.00
Date: 2018-06-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE0627(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case concerns an entitlement to damages as a result of a lorry cartel which was brought before the Landesgericht Dortmund (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) by a transport and logistics company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’).  The plaintiff purchased two lorries from an appointed distributor of the defendants.  The defendants are manufacturers of lorries and were involved in an HGV cartel in the European economic region from 1997 to 2011. The cartel committed the following unlawful acts: Exchanging manufacturer information concerning gross list prices, coordinating the introduction of emission-reducing technologies and exchanging information concerning passing on the costs for these technologies to the customers. Owing to the cartel law violations of Article 101 of the TFEU (1) or Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2), the Commission imposed fines upon the defendants which are legally binding. The plaintiff raised a declaratory relief against the defendants, requesting a declaration that the two defendants be made liable for basic compensation.
The international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance stems from Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (3) and was not contested by the defendants.
The defendants requested that the declaratory relief be rejected, presenting several arguments. They claimed, inter alia, that the claim for performance took priority, that the plaintiff did not state in detail their cartel involvement, particularly because, as they claim, this is a case of indirect acquisition. Furthermore, the defendants dispute the existence of an overcharge generated by the cartel with respect to the plaintiff and dispute the effects of the information exchange on the gross price lists.
The Court of First Instance broadly addressed the objections of the defendants and ultimately decided that the defendants have to compensate, as joint debtors, the plaintiff for all damages which were incurred as a result of the acquisitions. To this end, the defendants shall be jointly liable for the costs of the lawyers’ fees of the plaintiff and shall bear the litigation fees.
(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(2) Agreement on the European Economic Area.
(3) Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.