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

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
Published by a LexisNexis Competition expert
Practice notes

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

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Published by a LexisNexis Competition expert

Practice notes
imgtext

CASE HUB

ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 October 2014; it is no longer maintained.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
Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Brussels Regulation definition
What does Brussels Regulation mean?

Sets out a system for the allocation of jurisdiction and for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments.

Read more readmore

Popular documents

Case C- 680/21 Royal Antwerp Football Club [Archived]

Case C- 680/21 Royal Antwerp Football Club [Archived]CASE HUBARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 December 2023; it is no longer maintained.See further, timeline.Case factsOutlineA national reference from Belgium seeking clarification on the

Case C- 122/16 British Airways v Commission (Air cargo cartel) [Archived]

Case C- 122/16 British Airways v Commission (Air cargo cartel) [Archived]CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/11/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant casesCase factsARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 November 2017; it is

Booking Holdings/eTraveli Group (M.10615) [Archived]

Booking Holdings/eTraveli Group (M.10615) [Archived]CASE HUBNOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 1139/23ARCHIEVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision 25 September 2023; it is no longer maintained.See further, timeline and commentary .Case

Case C- 179/16 F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others [Archived]

Case C- 179/16 F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others [Archived]CASE HUBARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 January 2018; it is no longer maintained.See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant casesCase facts<