On 13 February 2025, the CJEU delivered a judgment on jurisdiction based on connected claims in the context of competition law infringements within corporate groups (Case C-393/23, Athenian Brewery SA, Heineken NV and Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA).
This decision provided an opportunity to revisit the topic. In the commentary, I explore how the foreseeability required under Article 8(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 may be present when the parent company is sued in the subsidiary’s domicile, but not necessarily in the opposite case.
I also argue for replacing the “decisive influence” test with the criterion of “unitary direction” when identifying the undertaking responsible for the infringement—an approach that better reflects the economic reality of many corporate groups.

Full commentary here:

Número de orden: 16