Abstract
This paper criticises the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular some of its findings in Volvo (C-30/20), as well as in other earlier judgments concerning the rules on determining the international and local jurisdiction of the courts under Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation Recast. The Court clearly goes beyond the limits of traditional private international law in helping claimants (injured parties) to establish international and local jurisdiction of courts in the place of their establishment, irrespective of whether the damage actually occurred there, or only manifested itself there in the form of indirect or consequential damage.
Although such an approach of the Court may have a noble intention behind it, e.g., promoting the private enforcement of competition law in Europe, it must not be forgotten that such interpretation of Article 7(2) will inevitably lead to unreasonable results.