On 25 November 2020, the Amsterdam District Court rendered an interlocutory judgment in a case between four government bodies in the Gulf States of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman ^[1]Electricity & Water Authority of the government of Bahrain (Bahrain), GCC Interconnection Authority (Saudi Arabia), Kuwait Ministry of Electricity and Water (Kuwait) and Oman Electricity … Continue reading on the one hand and 15 legal entities involved in groups of Prysmian, ^[2]The defendants are Prysmian Netherlands B.V., Draka Holding B.V., and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.R.L ABB, ^[3]The defendants are ABB B.V., ABB Holdings B.V., ABB AB, and ABB Ltd. Pirelli,^[4]The defendant is Pirelli & C S.p.A. Goldman Sachs ^[5]The defendant is The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Nexans ^[6]The defendants are Nexans Nederland B.V., Nexans Cabling Solutions B.V., Nexans Participations S.A., Nexans S>A. and Nexans Franse S.A.S. on the other. ^[7]Amsterdam District Court 25 November 2020, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:5882.

The backdrop is the power cable cartel whose existence was established by the European Commission in 2014. ^[8]Decision of the European Commission of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 (‘Power Cables’). The European Commission established that European, Japanese and South Korean manufacturers of underground and submarine power cables had divided power cable projects between themselves between 18 February 1999 and 29 January 2009. The defendants are (indirectly) connected to the addressees of the Commission decision.

The claimants of the Gulf States are seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendants acted unlawfully because they participated in the cartel, or that the knowledge of the parent companies addressed must be imputed to them. In separate ancillary actions, the defendants are seeking that the District Court decline jurisdiction.

The District Court partially concurred with the defendants in this respect. It held that, although it had jurisdiction to rule with regard to the Dutch defendants, this was not the case for the foreign defendants. Nor could the Dutch defendants serve as anchor defendants. The first requirement of a sufficiently close connection between the claims had not been satisfied. The mere fact that the Dutch defendants are (indirectly) connected with the addressees of the decision did not mean that they were also involved in the infringement under competition law or that parent companies’ liability could be imputed to them. The District Court therefore deemed itself to lack jurisdiction with regard to the foreign defendants.