欧盟过氧化氢垄断侵权案评析

Comments on the CDC Hydrogen Peroxide Case of the EUCJ

在过氧化氢垄断侵权案中,欧盟法院第一次对《布鲁塞尔条例Ⅰ》在跨国垄断侵权案中的适用作出解释,确立了一系列重要规则。在判决中,欧盟法院确认第6(1)条规定的共同被告管辖权适用于此类案件,据此受害人可以在任一被告住所地对所有被告提起诉讼。在侵权管辖权上,欧盟法院将侵权行为地解释为卡特尔协议缔结地,将结果发生地解释为受害公司注册地。在协议管辖问题上,欧盟法院采用了预期性标准,从而将大部分垄断侵权之诉排除在协议管辖条款范围之外。跨国垄断侵权管辖权也是我国法院需要解决的问题,我国司法实践中存在法律适用上的分歧,根源在于我国《民事诉讼法》中关于涉外侵权案件管辖权的规定不合理,建议在未来立法修改时删除涉外编第265条中关于涉外侵权案件管辖权的规定,直接适用第28条的规定及相关司法解释。

In the CDC Hydrogen Peroxide case,the EUCJ addressed three key issues in the application of Brussels I Regulation to cross-border cartel damage claims.It ruled that victims can sue all of the cartelists in the state of domicile of any member of the cartel.What is very controversial is the interpretation of the tort jurisdiction under Article5(3),i.e.where the cartel is concluded and where the victim’s registered office is.The court also ruled that the choice of jurisdiction clause in the contract does not cover the cartel damage claims because victims could not reasonably foresee such litigation.Similar issues also emerged in China,where different approaches are adopted as to how the rules on tort jurisdiction are to be applied.It is submitted that Article 265 in the Civil Procedural Law of China regarding tort case in which the defendant has no domicile in China is redundant and should be deleted.