Tillämpningen av artikel 8.1 i Bryssel Ia-förordningen : Särskilt i samband med talan om skadestånd i internationella kartellmål

Sammanfattning: This thesis examines the special jurisdiction in article 8.1 of the Brussel I Regulation. Particularly, the purpose of this thesis is to examine three main issues: (i) how article 8.1 has been applied in cartel damage litigation cases, (ii) whether it is possible to bring an action for a negative declaration in accordance with article 8.1 and, (iii) how article 8.1 can be used in proceedings against a defendant with the purpose to remove a co-defendant from the court otherwise competent over him. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has applied article 8.1 in several cases. In order to fulfil the requirements in article 8.1, it has been concluded by the ECJ that it is for the national courts to assess whether there is a connection between different claims brought before it. The national courts shall take into account all relevant facts and circumstances in the case before that court. Moreover, according to the ECJ, it has to be foreseeable for the defendants that they might be sued in the Member State where at least one of them is domiciled. Furthermore, ECJ has repeatedly held that article 8.1 shall be interpreted restrictively. Consequently, when applying the foreseeability requirement and when considering the restrictive interpretation of the article, one could argue that it is difficult for a plaintiff to bring an action for a negative declaration in accordance with article 8.1 in cartel cases. The reason is that a defendant in a negative declaration claim cannot be held liable for damages, because the defendant is not a member of the unlawful cartel. Therefore, the defendant in a cartel case cannot foresee to be sued in a Member State other than the state where that defendant is domiciled.  The ECJ has held that a plaintiff can use article 8.1 against a defendant with the purpose to remove a co-defendant from the court otherwise competent over him, provided that the requirements in article 8.1 are fulfilled. However, if a defendant can show firm evidence that, at the time that proceedings were instituted, the parties concerned had colluded to artificially fulfil the conditions laid down in article 8.1, the provision will not be applicable. In conclusion, the EJC has provided some guiding regarding the application of article 8.1 in cartel damage cases. However, there are still unsolved questions that would have to be clarified by the ECJ. A purpose of this thesis is to address these unsolved questions and to discuss possible solutions with respect to the application of article 8.1 in these situations.