Abstract
The article focuses on the jurisdiction aspects and a plaintiff's options in competition litigation cases. It examines the Brussels I Recast Regulation ('Brussels Ia') and its relation to competition claims.
It also describes the matrix of possibilities for establishing jurisdiction and analyses recent case law. Attention is paid to the interpretation of jurisdiction based on the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.
Case law regarding the jurisdiction clauses in competition cases is also examined. Plaintiffs clearly have many options to try to establish jurisdiction.
But a plaintiff need not necessarily be an injured party in order to try to establish jurisdiction. Any undertaking that expects to be sued can seek a negative declaration and use the various possibilities to seek the declaration in a favourable jurisdiction and rely on the lis pendens rule.
This article also briefly discusses the so-called 'torpedo strategy'. The article concludes with the question of whether a broad interpretation of the lis pendens rule might not be contrary to the much-sought-after goal of effective private enforcement.