Case C- 302/13 AS flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines [Archived]
Case C- 302/13 AS flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines [Archived]

The following Competition practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Case C- 302/13 AS flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines [Archived]
  • Case facts
  • Timeline
  • Commentary
  • Related/relevant cases

Case C- 302/13 AS flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines [Archived]


ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 October 2014; it is no longer maintained.

See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases

Case facts

OutlineNational reference from the Latvian Augstākās Tiesas Senāts to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify a number of points relating to the application of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (Brussels Regulation) to a competition damages action—in particular, relating to questions arising on a challenge to enforcement in Latvia of interim measures issued in Lithuania.

On 23 October 2014, the Court of Justice ruled that an action for damages for infringement of competition law is a 'civil and commercial matter' and, therefore, within the scope of the Brussels Regulation.

The Brussels Regulation provides the basic parameters for determining jurisdiction when claims involve parties located in different Member States. In terms of competition litigation, the Brussels Regulation (along with the Lugano Convention) sets out a starting point and a standard by which a court can determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear a case or not.

The case focuses on whether the Brussels Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that an action seeking legal redress for damage resulting from alleged infringements of EU competition law, comes within the notion of ‘civil

Popular documents