Apple Sales International and Others v MJA.
Date: 2018-10-24
21


In that regard, according to the Court’s settled case-law, it is for the national court to interpret the clause conferring jurisdiction invoked before it in order to determine which disputes fall within its scope (judgment of 21 May 2015, CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, C‑352/13, EU:C:2015:335, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited).
22


However, a jurisdiction clause can concern only disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, which limits the scope of a clause conferring jurisdiction solely to disputes which arise from the legal relationship in connection with which the agreement was entered into. The purpose of that requirement is to avoid a party being taken by surprise by the assignment of jurisdiction to a given forum as regards all disputes which may arise out of its relationship with the other party to the contract and stem from a relationship other than that in connection with which the agreement conferring jurisdiction was made (judgment of 21 May 2015, CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, C‑352/13, EU:C:2015:335, paragraph 68 and the case-law cited).
23


Having regard to that purpose, the Court held that a clause which abstractly refers to disputes arising from contractual relationships does not extend to a dispute relating to the tortious liability that one party allegedly incurred as a result of its participation in an unlawful cartel (judgment of 21 May 2015, CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, C‑352/13, EU:C:2015:335, paragraph 69).
24


Given that the undertaking which suffered the loss could not reasonably foresee such litigation at the time that it agreed to the jurisdiction clause and that that undertaking had no knowledge of the unlawful cartel involving the other party to the contract at that time, such litigation could not be regarded as stemming from the contractual relationship (judgment of 21 May 2015, CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, C‑352/13, EU:C:2015:335, paragraph 70).
25


In the light of those considerations, the Court held that Article 23(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 allows, in the case of actions for damages for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), account to be taken of jurisdiction clauses contained in contracts for the supply of goods, provided that those clauses refer to disputes concerning liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law (judgment of 21 May 2015, CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, C‑352/13, EU:C:2015:335, paragraph 72).
35


Moreover, in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 July 2006, Manfredi and Others, C‑295/04 to C‑298/04, EU:C:2006:461, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited), and as mentioned in recitals 3, 12 and 13 of 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 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1), Articles 101 and 102 TFEU have direct effect in relations between individuals and create, for the individuals concerned, rights and obligations which national courts must enforce. It follows that the right of any person that considers himself or herself prejudiced by an infringement of competition law rules to seek compensation for the harm suffered is independent of the prior finding of such an infringement by a competition authority.