CJEU Refines Jurisdiction Rules for EU Competition Damages Claims
The CJEU clarified how holding companies impact jurisdiction in EU competition damages litigation.
Why it matters: Multinational corporations and legal teams must re-evaluate jurisdictional strategies as liability and exposure now extend to intermediate holding companies, lowering barriers for claimants in EU competition claims.
- The April 16, 2026 ruling addressed joint cases Power Cables and Cardboard Packaging.
- Intermediate holding companies may face joint and several liability, even without independent business activity.
- Jurisdiction can be established if there are serious indications of group connection, not just formal naming in infringement decisions.
- Article 8(1) now enables claim filings in venues tied to the domicile of an 'anchor defendant.'
On April 16, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a preliminary ruling in the joined cases C-672/23 and C-673/23, known as Power Cables and Cardboard Packaging. The decision sharpens the approach to jurisdiction in competition damages claims and refines the Sumal doctrine for corporate groups in the EU.
- The CJEU confirmed that intermediate holding companies—even those with no independent economic activity—may be liable for infringements if they exercise decisive influence over the infringing subsidiary.
- The court held that showing serious indications that the anchor defendant belongs to the same economic unit as accused companies is sufficient for jurisdiction, regardless of whether the anchor defendant was named in an infringement decision.
- Article 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation provides both international and territorial jurisdiction based on the anchor defendant's domicile, making courts in that location eligible venues for group-wide claims.
- The ruling also clarified that losses outside the EEA do not automatically invalidate claims, so long as there's a causal link to the infringing conduct.
- Foreseeability is treated as a factor in the overall connection between claims, rather than as a standalone jurisdictional requirement.
This judgment reduces the threshold for claimants pursuing damages from multinational groups and broadens potential liability to intermediary holding entities. As such, it compels corporate legal teams to revisit forum and exposure assessments in ongoing or potential EU competition litigation.
For a detailed analysis, see coverage by the National Law Review and Garrigues.