Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2024:31
Date: 2024-01-11
Language of the case: Spanish
Subject matter: Competition;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary C-632/22 – 1 
Case C-632/22 
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: 
10 October 2022 
Referring court:² 
Tribunal Supremo (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
7 October 2022 
Appellant: 
AB Volvo 
Respondent: 
Transsaqui S. L. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Revision of judgment – ‘Fraudulent contrivance’ – Trucks cartel – Action for 
damages for infringement of competition law – Defendant domiciled in another 
Member State – Service of process at defendant’s subsidiary’s place of business 
situated in the applicant’s Member State – Unity of undertakings 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Request for a preliminary ruling on interpretation – Article 267 TFEU – Charter 
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 47 and 53 – Right to an 
effective remedy – Article 101 TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1.- In the circumstances surrounding the litigation relating to the trucks cartel, 
described in this order, is it possible to interpret Article 47 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 101 of the 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-632/22 
 
2  
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in such a way that service of 
process on a parent company against which an action for damages for the harm 
caused by a restrictive trade practice has been brought is considered to have been 
properly effected when such service was effected (or attempted) at the place of 
business of the subsidiary company established in the State in which the legal 
proceedings were brought, while the parent company, which is established in 
another Member State, has not entered an appearance in the proceedings and has 
remained in default? 
2.- If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is that interpretation of 
Article 47 of the Charter compatible with Article 53 of the Charter, in the light of 
the case-law of the Spanish Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on the 
service of process on parent companies established in another Member State in 
disputes relating to the trucks cartel? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
Article 47: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the 
Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in 
compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. 
Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an 
independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall 
have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.’ 
Article 52(3): ‘In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights 
guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same 
as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union 
law providing more extensive protection.’ 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 101. 
Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national 
law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and 
of the European Union. Article 17(1). 
Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and 
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), 
and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000. 
Article 5. Translation of documents. 
VOLVO 
 
3 
‘The applicant shall be advised by the transmitting agency to which he forwards 
the document for transmission that the addressee may refuse to accept it if it is not 
in one of the languages provided for in Article 8. 
The applicant shall bear any costs of translation prior to the transmission of the 
document, without prejudice to any possible subsequent decision by the court or 
competent authority on liability for such costs.’ 
Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
25 November 2020 on the service in the Member States of judicial and 
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents). 
Article 9. 
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. Article 45(1)(b). 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2021, Case C-882/19, 
EU:C:2021:800, paragraphs 33 to 37, 39, 41, 43, 51 and 52. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 March 2017, Case C-354/15, 
EU:C:2017:157, paragraph 72. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 September 2015, Case C-519/13, 
EU:C:2015:603, paragraphs 24, 30 to 33 and 43. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 May 2008, C-14/07, EU:C:2008:264, 
paragraphs 64, 76 and 78. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 February 2013, Case C-399/11, 
EU:C:2013:107, paragraph 55 et seq. 
European Court of Human Rights, judgments of 19 March 1997, Hornsby v. 
Greece (CE:ECHR:1997:0319JUD001835791), paragraphs 40 and 41, and of 
26 February 2002, Del Sol v. France (CE:ECHR:2002:0226JUD004680099), 
paragraph 21. 
Provisions of national law and case-law relied on 
Spanish Constitution. 
Article 24 
‘1. Everyone has the right to obtain the effective protection of the judges and 
the courts in the exercise of his or her legitimate rights and interests, and in no 
case may due process be denied. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-632/22 
 
4  
2. Likewise, all persons have the right of access to the ordinary judge 
predetermined by law; to a defence and to the assistance of a lawyer; to be 
informed of the charges against them; to a public trial without undue delay and 
with full guarantees; to the use of evidence appropriate to their defence; not to 
incriminate themselves; not to plead guilty; and to the presumption of innocence.’ 
Law 1/2000 on Civil Procedure (Ley 1/2000 de Enjuiciamiento Civil) of 7 January 
2000. 
Article 155: ‘Service of notices on parties who have not yet entered an appearance 
or are not represented by a court agent. Address.’ 
‘1. Where the parties are not represented by a court agent or on the occasion of 
the initial service of process or an order to attend on the defendant, notices shall 
be served by reference to the parties’ addresses. 
… 
3. For the purposes of the service of notices, the following may be designated 
as an address for service: the address which appears in local authority records or is 
officially recorded for other purposes, or the address which appears in the official 
register or in publications of professional associations in the case, respectively, of 
undertakings and other entities or of persons who practise a profession in which 
membership of a professional association is compulsory. The place where a non-
temporary professional or employment activity is carried out may also be 
designated as an address for those purposes. 
… 
If the action is brought against a legal person, the address of anyone who is listed 
as a director, manager or agent of the company, or as a chairperson, member or 
representative of the board of any association listed in an official register may also 
be indicated as an address for service; Article 510(1)(4) and Article 394(2).’ 
Article 510(1)(4): 
‘A final judgment shall be revised where: 
4. The case has been won unfairly as a result of bribery, violence or fraudulent 
contrivance.’ 
Law 15/2007 on the Protection of Competition (Ley 15/2007 de Defensa de la 
Competencia) of 3 July 2007. Articles 71 and 72. Those articles essentially 
transpose Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2014/104, relating to liability for 
infringements of competition law and the right of injured parties to compensation. 
VOLVO 
 
5 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 12 July 2018, the company TRANSSAQUI, S.L. (‘TRANSSAQUI’), brought 
an action before Juzgado Mercantil No 1 de Valencia (Commercial Court No 1, 
Valencia, Spain) against the Swedish company AB VOLVO, claiming damages 
for the harm suffered as a result of the surcharge imposed on it when it purchased 
two vehicles in 2008, in the context of the trucks cartel which was identified in 
infringement proceedings commenced by the European Commission. 
2 As the legal basis for its action, TRANSSAQUI relied on Articles 72 and 76 of the 
Spanish Law on the Protection of Competition (Law 15/2007), the Commission 
Decision of 19 July 2016 relating to proceedings under Article 101 of the TFEU 
and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39824 – Trucks) and imposing 
fines for infringements of competition law on, inter alia, the company AB 
VOLVO, and Directive 2014/104/EU. The amount claimed came to 
EUR 24 420.69, being the amount of that surcharge. 
3 Despite the fact that the registered office of AB VOLVO is situated at 405 08 
Göteborg, Sweden, the applicant indicated as the defendant’s address for service 
of process for the purposes of lodging a defence the address of that company’s 
subsidiary in Spain, VOLVO GROUP ESPAÑA, S.A.U. (Sociedad Anónima 
Unipersonal), situated at calle Basauri, 7-9, Madrid (Spain). 
4 The Valencia Commercial Court gave leave for the action to proceed, following 
which copies of the application and the documents lodged with it were sent, by 
registered post, to the business address of VOLVO GROUP ESPAÑA, S.A.U, at 
calle Basauri, 7-9, Madrid. However, acceptance of the postal item was refused by 
means of a handwritten note indicating the address of AB VOLVO in Sweden, in 
light of which the Valencia Commercial Court granted TRANSSAQUI a hearing 
so that it could make submissions on the subject. TRANSSAQUI argued that the 
conduct of VOLVO GROUP ESPAÑA, S.A.U., consisting in refusal of service of 
process for the purpose of lodging a defence in the action brought against AB 
VOLVO, was simply a stratagem in bad faith to delay the proceedings, in view of 
the fact that the latter held 100% of the former’s share capital, meaning that the 
two constituted a single undertaking in accordance with competition law. The 
Valencia Commercial Court ordered, by decision of 22 May 2019, that service be 
effected on the defendant, AB VOLVO, at the business address of its subsidiary 
VOLVO GROUP ESPAÑA, S.A.U., in accordance with the ‘principle of the unity 
of undertakings’. 
5 An attempt was made, through the Madrid courts, to effect service at that address 
on 5 September 2019, but a lawyer who identified himself as the ‘legal 
representative of VOLVO GROUP ESPAÑA, S.A.U.’ refused to accept service, 
stating that service had to be effected at AB VOLVO’s offices in Sweden. A 
second attempt by the Madrid courts to effect service at the subsidiary’s place of 
business in Madrid, at calle Basauri, 7-9, on 30 October 2019, was successful as it 
was accepted by a person who stated that they were from the legal department. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-632/22 
 
6  
6 Since the Valencia Commercial Court took the view that service had been 
properly effected and since the defendant AB VOLVO, which had been served 
with the documents, failed to enter an appearance in the proceedings within the 
period indicated, the defendant was ruled to be in default and the case proceeded. 
An attempt was made to serve the relevant decision on AB VOLVO at the 
business address of its subsidiary, VOLVO GROUP ESPAÑA, S.A.U., but that 
company again refused service on the ground that it was not the correct address. 
On 26 February 2020, the Valencia Commercial Court gave judgment upholding 
the action brought by TRANSSAQUI and ordered AB VOLVO to pay 
TRANSSAQUI damages in the amount of EUR 24 420.69 plus statutory interest 
and to pay the costs. 
7 The Valencia Commercial Court notified that judgment to AB VOLVO by letter 
sent by registered post to the subsidiary’s place of business at calle Basauri, 7-9, 
Madrid which was received by a person present at the address who signed the 
acknowledgement of receipt on 10 March 2020. Then, since the judgment was 
final, and on application by TRANSSAQUI, the costs, which included inter alia 
the lawyer’s and court agent’s fees and the fees for the expert’s report submitted 
with the application, were taxed. The court served notice on AB VOLVO at the 
address in Madrid, for the purpose of submissions, and the acknowledgement of 
service was signed. Since the defendant did not contest the costs within the time 
limit indicated, the court approved those costs in the amount of EUR 8 310.64 and 
notified its order to AB VOLVO by letter sent by registered post to the 
subsidiary’s place of business in Madrid, where the acknowledgement of receipt 
was signed. On application by TRANSSAQUI, the judgment was executed and an 
order for payment was issued against AB VOLVO’s assets by court orders which 
were served at the business address of the subsidiary VOLVO GROUP ESPAÑA, 
S.A.U., at calle Basauri, 7-9, Madrid, on 17 March 2021. 
8 In a series of letters sent to the Valencia Commercial Court in response to each 
attempt at service of a judicial notice, VOLVO GROUP ESPAÑA S.A.U. 
explained the reasons for its refusal to accept service of the documents and notices 
addressed to AB VOLVO, since the latter’s registered office is in Sweden. It 
argued, inter alia, that, first, although VOLVO GROUP ESPAÑA, S.A.U. and AB 
VOLVO are part of the same group of undertakings, each has a separate legal 
personality and the former does not have the status of director of the latter and nor 
is it authorised to accept service on the latter’s behalf; second, in accordance with 
Spanish procedural legislation, the defendant must be served with process at its 
registered office, and the Spanish courts, in proceedings relating to the trucks 
cartel, have ruled that service at the registered office of the defendant parent 
company situated in another Member State, rather than at the business address of a 
subsidiary in Spain, is correct notwithstanding the links between the companies; 
third, where the defendant company is established in another Member State of the 
European Union, service must be effected in accordance with Regulation (EC) 
No 1393/2007; and fourth, the applicant may not circumvent the rules which 
govern the service of process by using alternative addresses which do not belong 
to the defendant since, otherwise, there are grounds for revision of the judgment 
VOLVO 
 
7 
given, in accordance with Article 510(1)(4) of the Law on Civil Procedure, or else 
it may lead to a judgment given in default of appearance which may not be 
recognised in another Member State, pursuant to Article 45(1)(b) of Regulation 
(EU) 1215/2012. 
9 On 15 June 2021, AB VOLVO filed with the referring court an application for 
revision of the final judgment handed down by the Valencia Commercial Court in 
default of appearance and ordering the defendant to pay damages to 
TRANSSAQUI for breach of competition law. AB VOLVO argued that it was 
filing that application within the statutory period of three months from the date on 
which it became aware of the ground for revision, in so far as it became ‘indirectly 
aware’ of the judgment finding against it at the time when the orders executing the 
judgment were served at the business address of its subsidiary in Spain on 
17 March 2021. 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
10 In the revision proceedings, AB VOLVO claims a ‘fraudulent contrivance’ within 
the meaning of Article 510(1)(4) of the Law on Civil Procedure, pursuant to 
which ‘a final judgment shall be revised where … [t]he case has been won 
unfairly as a result of … fraudulent contrivance.’ That conduct consists in having 
notified the court of an address for service which was not the business address of 
AB VOLVO in Sweden but rather that of a subsidiary in Spain, such that 
judgment was given against the defendant in absentia without the defendant 
having had the opportunity to defend itself in the proceedings. AB VOLVO 
further contends that, even if service on the parent company at the business 
address of the subsidiary company in the Member State where the proceedings 
were brought may be considered to satisfy the requirements under Article 47 of 
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), it must 
be accepted that the legal system of a Member State may provide for a higher 
standard of protection of the fundamental right than that which flows from the 
Charter. Accordingly, in AB VOLVO’s submission, in this case it is necessary to 
comply with the standard of protection of the right to an effective remedy laid 
down by the Spanish Constitutional Court, which is more stringent than the 
minimum standard stipulated in the Charter, in relation to service on the parent 
company of the notice to enter an appearance in the proceedings and to lodge a 
defence. In accordance with Article 53 of the Charter, ‘nothing in this Charter 
shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and 
fundamental freedoms as recognised, in their respective fields of application, 
by … the Member States’ constitutions.’ 
11 For its part, TRANSSAQUI argues that AB VOLVO has adopted a malicious 
procedural strategy, the sole aim of which is to delay the proceedings in the light 
of the high number of claims lodged by small and medium undertakings as a result 
of the trucks cartel. TRANSSAQUI submits that the defendant parent company 
and its subsidiary in Spain should be treated as a single undertaking for the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-632/22 
 
8  
purposes of competition law, even though they have separate legal personalities. It 
further argues that, unlike the previous attempts at service of judicial notices, 
effected for the purposes of procedural economy, AB VOLVO considered that it 
had been notified of the existence of the judgment against it in the execution 
stage, despite the fact that that notice was served at the business address of 
VOLVO GROUP ESPAÑA, S.A.U. In addition, TRANSSAQUI claims that, in 
view of the fact that it is a small road haulage undertaking affected by the 
economic crisis, if it had had to pay the costs of a translation, as required by 
Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007, it would not have been able to bring the action to 
claim damages for the harm it suffered as a result of the conduct of the trucks 
cartel. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
12 Following publication of the Decision of the European Commission of 19 July 
2016 (Case AT. 39824 – Trucks), in Spain thousands of proceedings for damages 
have been lodged by purchasers of vehicles affected by the trucks cartel. In 2021 
alone, over 2 000 judgments were given at first instance and over 500 on appeal. 
On 15 July 2022, the registry of the Supreme Court had received 753 appeals on a 
point of law in this matter. The actions were brought in almost every case by small 
or medium undertakings which had purchased a very small number of trucks, or 
even just one truck, in the period in which the cartel operated. The undertakings 
(parent companies) penalised by the European Commission, none of which has its 
registered office in Spain, engaged the services of major law firms in Spain to 
conduct their defences. 
13 Given that, in the majority of the proceedings, the amount claimed is not very 
high, the costs involved in having to translate the application and, where 
necessary, any annexes (as stipulated by Regulations (EC) No 1393/2007 and 
(EU) 2020/1784, since the defendants are established in other Member States), 
inter alia the expert reports, may be disproportionately high. To avoid such costs 
and the time delay entailed by the necessary international judicial cooperation, the 
applicants in those proceedings frequently request the service of process at the 
business address of the subsidiary company in Spain, even though the defendant 
parent company, which was penalised by the European Commission, is 
established in another Member State. 
14 The Spanish courts have not responded in a uniform manner to the proceedings 
brought so far. Some have refused the request for service at the business address 
of the subsidiary company in Spain on the ground that service should be effected 
at the registered office of the defendant parent company. In other cases, the 
applicant’s request has been granted and service of process has been attempted at 
the business address of the subsidiary company in Spain on the ground that the 
defendant parent company would in any event learn through its lawyers that legal 
proceedings had been instituted. 
VOLVO 
 
9 
15 As regards the Spanish subsidiaries of the defendant parent companies, these have 
generally refused to accept service of process at their places of business, arguing 
that, although they constitute a single undertaking in accordance with competition 
law, they have separate legal personalities from the parent company and have not 
been authorised to accept service of process. Attempts to serve process through 
the lawyer representing the defendant parent company in Spain in other 
proceedings of the same nature have also been unsuccessful. 
16 As regards the defendant parent company, if the court seised of the proceedings 
has held that service of process at the business address of the subsidiary in Spain 
is correct, or has been lawfully attempted and refused, once the proceedings have 
concluded, the defendant parent company frequently acknowledges that it is aware 
of the judgment handed down in absentia and brings some kind of appeal aimed at 
overturning the whole proceedings, namely, an appeal for revision of the 
judgment on grounds of fraudulent contrivance before the Supreme Court or an 
appeal for protection of constitutional rights before the Constitutional Court. 
17 So far, in the appeals for protection of constitutional rights of which it has been 
seised, the Constitutional Court has given judgment in favour of the parent 
company. In that connection, in its judgments 179/2021 of 25 October 2021, 
ES:TC:2021:179, and 91/2022 of 11 July 2022, ES:TC:2022:91, the 
Constitutional Court ruled that the right to an effective remedy of Iveco, S.p.A. 
had been infringed because it had not been served with process, as the defendant, 
at its registered office in Italy and instead service had been attempted in Spain, at 
the business address of its subsidiary or the business address of its representative 
before the Spanish courts. 
18 The Court of Justice has drawn attention in its case-law, in particular in its 
judgment of 6 October 2021, Case C-882/19, to the importance of the practical 
effect of Article 101 TFEU (see paragraphs 34 to 37) and of the concepts of 
‘undertaking’ and ‘unity of conduct on the market’, which are relevant for the 
purposes of the application of competition law to groups of undertakings (see 
paragraphs 39, 41 and 43). The Court held that a person who has suffered harm as 
a result of conduct amounting to an infringement which is attributable to the 
parent company of the group is entitled to invoke the liability of the subsidiary 
company in certain circumstances (see paragraphs 51 and 52), namely when both 
companies constitute an economic unit. 
19 In addition, it its judgment in Case C-354/15, the Court ruled, in connection with 
the interpretation of the system of service of judicial and extrajudicial documents 
in other Member States in civil and commercial matters, in the light of Article 47 
of the Charter, that Regulation No 1393/2007 seeks to guarantee, ‘in each specific 
case, a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the 
defendant, the addressee of the document, by reconciling the objectives of 
efficiency and speed of the service of the procedural documents with the need to 
ensure that the rights of the defence of the addressee of those documents are 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-632/22 
 
10  
adequately protected, through, inter alia, the guarantee of actual and effective 
receipt of those documents’ (paragraph 72). 
20 Similarly, in its judgment in Case C-519/13, the Court of Justice held that ‘the aim 
of improving the efficiency and speed of judicial procedures and ensuring proper 
administration of justice’ pursued by Regulation No 1393/2007 cannot be attained 
‘by undermining in any way the rights of the defence of the addressees, which 
derive from the right to a fair hearing, enshrined in the second paragraph of 
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and 
Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms’, and therefore the national courts will be required ‘in 
each individual case, to ensure that the respective rights of the parties concerned 
are upheld in a balanced manner, by weighing the objective of efficiency and of 
rapidity of the service in the interest of the applicant against that of the effective 
protection of the rights of the defence on the part of the addressee’ (paragraphs 24, 
30 to 33 and 43). 
21 Lastly, in its judgment in Case C-399/11, the Court ruled on whether it was 
possible for ‘a Member State to apply the standard of protection of fundamental 
rights guaranteed by its constitution when that standard is higher than that 
deriving from the Charter and, where necessary, to give it priority over the 
application of provisions of EU law.’ 
22 For its part, the European Court of Human Rights, interpreting Article 6 of the 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms, to which Article 47 of the Charter corresponds, has ruled that effective 
access to justice must not be limited to an appeal that is simply ‘theoretical or 
illusory’. See judgments of 19 March 1997, Hornsby v. Greece 
(CE:ECHR:1997:0319JUD001835791), paragraphs 40 and 41, and of 26 February 
2002, Del Sol v. France (CE:ECHR:2002:0226JUD004680099), paragraph 21. 
23 The referring court is uncertain whether it is possible to interpret Article 47 of the 
Charter, in conjunction with Article 101 TFEU, in such a way that service of 
process on the defendant parent company at the business address in Spain of a 
subsidiary company may be considered lawful where the existence of a single 
undertaking has been accepted for the purposes of competition law. First, in view 
of the need for translation of the application and of the extensive supplementary 
documentation into another language, with the expense that this entails, in 
addition to the time delay necessitated by the required international judicial 
cooperation, the right of those affected by the trucks cartel to an effective remedy 
is liable to be undermined, because it is too costly for them, and the practical 
effect of Article 101 TFEU diminished. Second, in view of the mechanism for the 
division of costs in proceedings for damages of this kind, there is no guarantee 
that the applicant will always recover the legal costs incurred, since sometimes the 
forms of order sought by the applicant may not be granted in their entirety and 
therefore there may be no order for costs. Article 17(1) of Directive 2014/104 
VOLVO 
 
11 
provides for the amount of harm suffered to be estimated (on that point, see the 
request for a preliminary ruling in Case C-312/21, pending before the Court). 
24 It should also be noted that service of process on a parent company at its 
registered office in another Member State does not necessarily afford that 
company any substantial advantage. The parent company may, to some extent, be 
able to obtain a better organised defence using law firms established in Spain, 
where the subsidiary has its office, for reasons of language and document 
management. The applicant’s right to an effective remedy must therefore be 
balanced against the defendant’s right to an effective remedy, in the light of the 
true value of the procedural steps affecting either party. In addition, since it has 
been held in the case-law of the Court of Justice that a person affected by an 
infringement of competition law may bring an action against a subsidiary 
company and that judgment may be given against that subsidiary company for the 
infringing conduct of its parent company, if the existence of a single undertaking 
is not disputed, it seems logical that the subsidiary company should be able to 
accept service of process and documents in legal proceedings that have been 
brought directly against the parent company. 
25 The referring court has doubts regarding the interpretation of Article 53 of the 
Charter when it comes to weighing up the right to an effective remedy of the 
parent company, in this case AB VOLVO, as against that right of the person 
harmed by the conduct of the trucks cartel, and the attainment of the practical 
effect of Article 101 TFEU. The possible differing interpretations of EU law do 
not only occur in the Spanish courts and instead may affect the jurisdictions of 
other Member States when applications are made for the enforcement of foreign 
judgments given in default of appearance because the defendant was not served 
with the document instituting proceedings at its own address, leading, where 
relevant, to grounds for refusal under Article 45(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012. If the referring court were required to grant the revision sought by 
AB VOLVO, the judgment finding against that company would be quashed and 
the proceedings would have to start again, which would mean that the application 
and the supplementary documents would have to be translated into the defendant’s 
language and sent to its Member State of establishment.