Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2025:936
Date: 2025-12-02
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary C-34/24 – 1 
Case C-34/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
18 January 2024 
Referring court:  
Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
20 December 2023 
Applicants in the case in the main proceedings:  
Stichting Right to Consumer Justice 
Stichting App Stores Claims 
Defendants in the case in the main proceedings:  
Apple Distribution International Ltd 
Apple Inc. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The case in the main proceedings concerns a collective action for damages 
brought against Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd. (‘Apple and 
Other’) as a result of alleged infringements of competition law, in particular, 
Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, which allegedly caused users of the Netherlands 
Apple App Store to suffer damage. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
This request under Article 267 TFEU concerns the question of the interpretation 
and application of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (‘the Brussels Ia 
Regulation’) in the context of collective claims and alleged infringements of 
competition law relating to purchases from the Netherlands Apple App Store. 
More particularly, the central question raised is which court has territorial 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-34/24 
 
2  
jurisdiction to settle these disputes and whether the Brussels Ia Regulation offers 
the possibility, under the Netherlands wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve 
actie (Law on the Settlement of Mass Claims in Collective Action; ‘WAMCA’), 
of applying national referral rules and what connecting factors are relevant when 
determining the territorial jurisdiction of the courts. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
‘Question 1 (Handlungsort) 
(a) In a case such as that at issue in these proceedings, where the alleged abuse 
of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU took place in a 
Member State by means of sales through an online platform operated by Apple 
and aimed at the entire Member State, with Apple Ireland acting as exclusive 
distributor and commission agent of the developer and deducting commission 
from the purchase price, what should be considered to be the place where the 
harmful act occurred within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia 
Regulation? Is it relevant in this regard that the online platform is in principle 
accessible worldwide? 
(b) Does it matter in this context that these proceedings concern claims brought 
under Article 3:305a BW (the Netherlands Civil Code) by a legal person whose 
purpose, by virtue of its own right, is to represent the collective interests of 
multiple users having their registered offices in different jurisdictions (in the 
Netherlands: ‘arrondissementen’: districts) within one Member State? 
(c) If, on the basis of question 1(a) (and/or 1(b)), not only one but several 
internal territorially competent courts are designated in the Member State 
concerned, does Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation preclude the application 
of national (procedural) law that allows referral to a single court within that 
Member State? 
Question 2 (Erfolgsort) 
(a) Is it possible that, in a case such as that at issue in these proceedings, where 
the alleged damage occurred as a result of purchases of apps and digital in-app 
products through an online platform operated by Apple (the App Store), with 
Apple Ireland acting as exclusive distributor and commission agent for the 
developers and deducting commission from the purchase price (and where there 
has been both an alleged abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of 
Article 102 TFEU and an alleged infringement of the prohibition on restrictive 
agreements within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU) and where the place where 
those purchases took place cannot be determined, only the registered office of the 
user can serve as the connecting factor for the place where the damage occurred 
within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation? Or are there also 
STICHTING RIGHT TO CONSUMER JUSTICE AND STICHTING APP STORES CLAIMS 
 
3 
other connecting factors in this situation which could be applied to identify a 
competent court? 
(b) Does it matter in this context that these proceedings concern claims brought 
under Article 3:305a BW by a legal person whose purpose, by virtue of its own 
right, is to represent the collective interests of multiple users having their 
registered offices in different jurisdictions (in the Netherlands: 
‘arrondissementen’: districts) within a Member State? 
(c) If, on the basis of question 2(a) (and/or 2(b)), an internal territorially 
competent court in the Member State concerned is designated which has 
jurisdiction only over the claims of some of the users in that Member State, while 
other territorially competent courts in the same Member State have jurisdiction 
over the claims of other users, does Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation 
preclude the application of national (procedural) law which allows referral to a 
single court within that Member State?’ 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Articles 101 and 102 TFEU 
Article 7(2) and Articles 17 and 18 of the Brussels Ia Regulation 
Provisions of international law relied on 
WAMCA 
Article 3:305a of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil Code; ‘BW’) 
Articles 1-14, 209, 220, 1018c(3), Article 1018d(1), and Article 1018e(1)-(3) of 
the Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Code of Civil Procedure; ‘Rv’) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 Apple produces a range of portable devices, including the iPhone, iPad and iPod 
Touch, which run on an operating system (iOS) developed and operated by Apple 
and pre-installed on its devices. Apps for such devices can be downloaded and/or 
purchased from the Apple App Store, Apple’s online sales platform (storefront), 
where in-app products are also available. These are features, services or products 
within an app. These apps are developed by Apple or by third-party developers. In 
the main, the apps used on Apple’s devices are those made available in the App 
Store. Using the App Store requires the creation of a user profile. The App Store 
storefront can be used in accordance with the user’s settings and depends on the 
country specified in the user profile. Users who set the Netherlands as the country 
in their profile will automatically be directed to the Netherlands storefront of the 
App Store. Payments in the App Store are made exclusively according to Apple’s 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-34/24 
 
4  
App Store payment system. Third-party developers can offer apps developed for 
Apple in the App Store, subject to certain conditions. Their remuneration comes 
out of the purchase price paid by users for using apps or in-app products, for 
which Apple deducts commission. Apple Inc. heads the Apple Group and is the 
US-based parent company of Apple Distribution International Ltd (‘Apple 
Ireland’). The latter acts as Apple’s representative and supplier in the European 
Union and manages and processes user data in the European Union, including user 
profile data. 
2 The applicants, in particular the foundation Right to Consumer Justice and the 
foundation App Stores Claims, have among their objectives the protection of the 
interests of persons who have become victims of anti-competitive behaviour. They 
have brought a collective action for damages before the rechtbank Amsterdam 
(Amsterdam District Court) for anticompetitive infringements committed by 
Apple et al, holding Apple Inc. and Apple Ireland jointly and severally liable. The 
applicants brought the proceedings under WAMCA. Before the introduction of 
this law, it was already possible to bring a collective action in the Netherlands, but 
since its entry into force, it is now also possible to bring a collective action for 
damages, allowing collective damages to be dealt with efficiently and effectively. 
The foundations bringing these actions do so in their own name and thus act as 
independent advocates for all persons who believe they have suffered damage. As 
a result, the applicants are not trustees, agents or assignees of the injured persons. 
The injured persons are in principle bound by the court’s final decision, unless 
they make use of the opt-out mechanism, and are (possibly) entitled to individual 
damages. Collective actions for damages based on WAMCA can also be brought 
against foreign parties. In that case, the Netherlands court must determine whether 
it has jurisdiction. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
3 The applicants are of the view that the referring court has jurisdiction under 
Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 
4 According to Apple et al, the referring court’s jurisdiction cannot be based on 
Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, since the alleged harmful event did not 
take place in the Netherlands. In the alternative, at most, the Amsterdam District 
Court can assume jurisdiction for users who made purchases in Amsterdam from 
the App Store with a Netherlands storefront. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
5 The central issue in the main proceedings is whether the referring court has 
jurisdiction to rule on the collective damages claims under Article 7(2) of the 
Brussels Ia Regulation. 
STICHTING RIGHT TO CONSUMER JUSTICE AND STICHTING APP STORES CLAIMS 
 
5 
6 In its judgment of 15 July 2021, Volvo and Others (C-30/20, EU:C:2021:604) 
(‘the Volvo and Others judgment’), the Court of Justice held that Article 7(2) of 
the Brussels Ia Regulation confers territorial jurisdiction directly and immediately. 
According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, Article 7(2) of the 
Brussels Ia Regulation allows the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to be 
determined by reference to both the place where the event giving rise to the loss 
occurred (the ‘Handlungsort’) and the place where the damage occurred (the 
‘Erfolgsort’), so that the applicant has a choice. 
7 According to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 July 2018, flyLAL-
Lithuanian Airlines (C-27/17, EU:C:2018:533) (‘the flyLAL judgment’), the 
Handlungsort in the case of abuse of a dominant position (Article 102 TFEU) is 
determined by reference to the acts performed by the dominant undertaking to put 
that abuse into practice. However, where separate events occur which form part of 
a common strategy which all contributed to the damage, it is necessary to identify 
the event of most importance in implementing such a strategy. In view of the 
ruling in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 October 2011, eDate 
Adverstising and Others (Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10, EU:C:2011:685) 
(‘the eDate Advertising and Others judgment’), the conduct of Apple et al. 
constitutes an alleged abuse of a dominant position which (also) occurred in the 
Netherlands, meaning that the Netherlands court has international jurisdiction. 
The Court of Justice also ruled on the determination of the Handlungsort in the 
case of prohibited resale price maintenance (Article 101 TFEU) in the flyLAL 
judgment and the judgment of 21 May 2015, CDC Hydrogen Peroxide (C-352/13, 
EU:C:2015:335) (‘the CDC Hydrogen Peroxide judgment’). These judgments 
ruled that the Handlungsort depends upon the identification of a specific event 
during which either the cartel was definitively concluded or one agreement in 
particular was made which was the sole causal event giving rise to the loss 
allegedly inflicted. 
8 It follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 September 2018, Löber 
(C-304/17, EU:C:2018:701), that, when determining the Erfolgsort, it is not 
possible to take into account every place where the adverse consequences can be 
felt, but that it must relate to the initial damage, which is the direct result of the 
causal event, and not to subsequent adverse consequences. It also follows from the 
flyLAL judgment that, where the market affected by the anti-competitive acts is in 
the Member State on whose territory the alleged damage occurred, that Member 
State must be regarded as the place where the damage occurred. 
9 First, the referring court notes that the Netherlands legislature did not designate a 
single court with exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all WAMCA cases, so that the 
question of territorial jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation is relevant. 
Moreover, the CDC Hydrogen Peroxide judgment cannot be applied automatically 
to the procedure in the main proceedings because here, unlike the case which led 
to that judgment, the claims of the injured persons are not bundled, but the 
applicants are acting in their own names while representing the collective interests 
of the injured persons. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-34/24 
 
6  
10 Second, the referring court considers that, in determining the Handlungsort, the 
relevant acts relating to Apple’s abuse of a dominant position can be linked to the 
fact that the App Store with the Netherlands storefront is specifically aimed at the 
Netherlands market and also uses the Netherlands language. According to the 
referring court, the relevant acts are sales in the App Store (which is operated by 
Apple), with Apple Ireland acting as exclusive distributor and commission agent 
and deducting commission from the purchase price for this purpose. Applying the 
case-law from the flyLAL judgment and the eDate Advertising and Others 
judgment, it can thus be concluded, first, that the alleged infringements of 
competition law are located in the Netherlands and, second, that the Netherlands 
court has international jurisdiction. However, unlike the flyLAL judgment, there is 
no location where a specific act takes place, as the purchases are made on an 
online platform. Consequently, it has not yet been determined which Netherlands 
court has territorial jurisdiction. 
11 Third, according to the referring court, the Erfolgsort for most of the users is 
located in the Netherlands, because those users made purchases in the App Store 
with a Netherlands storefront and paid for those purchases through Netherlands 
bank accounts. It follows that the Netherlands is the place where the initial 
damage occurred. This does not yet determine which Netherlands court has 
jurisdiction. It follows from the Volvo et al judgment that territorial jurisdiction 
rests with the court of the place of purchase of the injured party’s registered 
office. However, since these purchases were made on mobile devices on an online 
platform, the exact place is difficult to determine. The referring court asks whether 
the registered office of the user/purchaser may be invoked in this case. In that 
case, the jurisdiction of the Amsterdam District Court would be established with 
respect to users located in Amsterdam, but it is unclear on the basis of Article 7(2) 
of the Brussels Ia Regulation whether the referring court would also have 
jurisdiction with respect to users located outside Amsterdam but within the 
Netherlands. Different courts from different districts may thus have jurisdiction, 
depending on the registered office of the party whose interests are represented. As 
a result, there is an increased risk of divergent decisions being taken in similar 
cases. 
12 Moreover, the referring court questions whether it matters that a collective action 
for damages is brought by a legal person representing collective interests. If the 
answer to that question is in the affirmative, the referring court asks whether the 
registered office of the legal person is a connecting factor for determining the 
jurisdiction of the court having jurisdiction over the whole Member State, or 
whether other connecting factors must be taken into account. If the registered 
office of the legal person representing the users’ interests may be taken into 
account, the action for damages can be brought effectively and efficiently before a 
single court under Article 220 Rv. 
13 Finally, the referring court wishes to know whether the Brussels Ia Regulation 
leaves room for the application of national (here: Netherlands) referral rules (in 
particular Article 220 Rv), despite the fact that the regulation in question aims to 
STICHTING RIGHT TO CONSUMER JUSTICE AND STICHTING APP STORES CLAIMS 
 
7 
designate directly and immediately the territorially competent court. This question 
was also raised in two requests for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of 
Justice by the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Amsterdam Court of Appeal) on 
19 September 2023 (cases C-672/23 and C-673/23).