Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Lessons of Airfreight Cartel: Mechanisms of Coordination of Parallel Collective Lawsuits in Several Jurisdictions?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Class Actions in Europe

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 89))

  • 604 Accesses

Abstract

Airfreight Cartel is a regulatory case currently being litigated before the Court of Justice of the EU for infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ EU C 326, 26.10.2012, pp. 47–390.). While competition litigation in EU law is a topic of interest, the far more interesting issue from the point of view of civil litigation is the coordination of pending class actions in the United States, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France. The infringement of competition law in the airfreight cartel is challenged by collective redress lawsuits in these different jurisdictions (Sect. 1) (In this study, only European regulatory responses will be assessed. Decisions and rulings of Australian, Korean and US Competition Authorities will not be assessed in depth. At the regulatory level (prosecution by authorities of infringement of competition law, i.e. in Europe, Art. 101 TFEU) there are two European Commission decisions and several judgments annulling the first decision by the General Court of the EU.). This paper assesses the stakes in coordination of parallel lawsuits in collective redress from a European point of view (Sect. 2). Mechanisms of coordination of parallel lawsuits in collective redress are the cornerstone of any successful cross-border collective redress mechanism. There are several mechanisms that can be applied in coordination of collective redress (Sect. 3). These include mechanisms unknown in the EU such as the doctrine of toleration of foreign-related class actions (Sect. 4). A novel approach in coordination would be an international panel on cross-border collective redress (Sect. 5). Forum non conveniens and anti-suit injunction will be explored in the class action context (Sects. 6 and 7). The European answer to such mechanisms are described as the lis pendens and related actions doctrine (Sects. 8, 10 and 11). Lis pendens as a mechanism of coordination of parallel lawsuits in collective redress has already been explored in Quebec (Sect. 9). In conclusion, the possibility of agreements on prorogation of jurisdiction will be assessed within a collective redress framework (Sect. 12).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the Summary of Commission Decision of 17 March 2017 – Relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 – Airfreight) (notified under document C(2017) 1742) (Text with EEA relevance, OJ EU C 188, 14. 6. 2017, p. 14); Commission’s decisions are available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39258; see also the General Court press release No 147/15.

  2. 2.

    The aim of these contacts was to ensure that these surcharges were introduced by all of the carriers involved and that increases (or decreases) of the surcharge levels were applied in full without exception. By refusing to pay a commission, the airlines ensured that surcharges did not become subject to competition through the granting of discounts to customers. Such practices are in breach of the EU competition rules, European Commission Press Report IP/10/1487, Brussels, 9 November 2010, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1487_en.htm.

  3. 3.

    Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ EU L 351, 20. 12. 2012, p. 1 and Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ EC L 12, 16. 1. 2001, p. 1.

  4. 4.

    In Austria, collective redress vehicles were developed autonomously (class action Austrian-style) by assignment of claims for collection by a special purpose vehicle that happens at the same time to also be a qualified entity under implementing measures of Directive 2009/22/EC. Collection of claims assigned to an agent has a long tradition in Austria, where the first cases of such litigation by private agents as a special purpose vehicle for collection of assigned claims were reported in 1926 (Klauser 2005, p. 744 with reference to the Austrian Supreme Court [Oberster Gerichtshof] case 3 Ob 479/26, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:1926:RS0037628). The assignment of claims for their enforcement in Austrian law is not conditioned by the fact that the assignee must be the entity qualified to bring a representative action for injunction. As a consequence, one can speak of a semi-private (in cases of assignment to a qualified entity) and of an entirely private and autonomous (in cases of Rechtsverfolgungsgesellschaft) collective redress. The quality to initiate such an action for collection of assigned claims does not lie in § 29(1) KschG, i.e. the national provision on qualified entities implementing Art. 3 of Directive 2009/22/EC. It lies rather in autonomous transactions made vis the special purpose vehicle. The same model as in Austria seems to be applied also in the Netherlands and Slovenia (Tzankova and Kortmann 2010, p. 119). Dutch law was modified in 2019 by a new law on collective redress.

  5. 5.

    Dutch Supreme Court [Hoge Raad], case ECLI:NL:HR:2018:345, decision No 18/00298 of 16 March 2018, available at https://www.rechtspraak.nl/.

  6. 6.

    Bao Xiang International Garment Centre & Ors v. British Airways Plc [2015] EWC 3071 (Ch) (27 October 2015).

  7. 7.

    A global class (also transnational class) is a class in US class action composed of absent class members who are US residents and non-residents. A global class “encompasses a sizeable proportion of non-citizens” of the US (Clopton 2015, p. 1388, Oquendo 2017, p. 72). It could be contended that due to comity reasons global class actions are to be dismissed in common law jurisdictions on forum non conveniens grounds. In civil law jurisdictions such classes should operate under the opt-in system. Such class actions can “be filed in courts of more than one country” (see e.g. a recent Canadian decision Leon v Volkswagen AG, 2018 ONSC 4265 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/htjgm. Accessed 16 Oct 2018).

  8. 8.

    Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792, § 17, available at https://www.canlii.org/en/; see also the American case In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 06-1775, 2008 WL 5958061 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2008).

  9. 9.

    http://www.aircargosettlement2.com/courtCa.

  10. 10.

    Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 79, § 17.

  11. 11.

    Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792, § 69.

  12. 12.

    Walter v. Western Hockey League, 2018 ABCA 188 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/hs196, § 8.

  13. 13.

    Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792, § 69.

  14. 14.

    Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792, § 103.

  15. 15.

    See for Canada e.g. Piché and Saumier (2019), p. 255, and for Belgium and Slovenia, Sladič (2017b), pp. 145 and 146 with reference to Art. XVII.38(1, 2) of Belgian Code of Economic Law and Art. 30(3) of Slovenian Law on Collective Actions.

  16. 16.

    In such a case the class action is not a superior device to individual actions.

  17. 17.

    BOE-A-2015-8564, https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2015/07/30/29.

  18. 18.

    In collective redresss … la resolución extranjera no se reconocerá cuando la competencia del órgano jurisdiccional de origen no se hubiera basado en un foro equivalente a los previstos en la legislación española.

  19. 19.

    The question of exequatur of a US class action from one State in another US State according to the case Ansari v. New York University “is usually not an issue when the class members are United States citizens, as courts in this country recognize the preclusive effect of a fairly noticed class action suit”.

  20. 20.

    Admittedly, in 1966 when Rule 23 was drafted no one could foresee “international” classes in US class actions. US fora are nevertheless quite often confronted with class actions comprising class members from several other states or jurisdictions. The Texas Supreme Court had to deal in Citizens Ins. Co. of America v. Daccach with a class action “brought by residents of 35 foreign countries who bought securities from defendant, a corporation that had its principal place of business in Texas” (Symeonides 2008, p. 38).

  21. 21.

    In other words, the commonality is both the connecting factor in allocating the jurisdiction to adjudicate and the criterion for certification.

  22. 22.

    Airia Brands v. Air Canada, 2015 ONSC 5332 and Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 79; see the summary at https://gavclaw.com/2018/01/09/airia-brands-inc-v-air-canada-jurisdiction-and-certification-of-global-classes/.

  23. 23.

    However, the principle abusus non tollit usum shall be applied.

  24. 24.

    CJEU, Sales Sinués and Drame Ba, C-381/14 and C-385/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:252.

  25. 25.

    Kaynes v. BP P.L.C, 2016 ONCA 601 and Paniccia v. MDC Partners Inc., 2017 ONSC 7298 (CanLII), https://www.canlii.org/en/.

  26. 26.

    Federal Court of Australia, Jones v. Treasury Wine Estates Limited [2016] FCAFC 59, https://www.austlii.edu.au.

  27. 27.

    See In re IMAX Sec. Litig., 283 F.R.D. 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), In re IMAX Sec. Litig., 272 F.R.D. 138, 142 - 44 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), In re IMAX Sec. Litig., 587 F. Supp. 2D 471, 474 - 78 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), Silver v. IMAX Corp., 2013 ONSC 1667 (Can.); Silver v. IMAX Corp., (2012) 110 O.R. 3d 425 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Silver v. IMAX Corp., (2011) 105 O.R. 3d 212 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Silver v. IMAX Corp., 2009 O.J. No. 5585 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct. J.) (QL).

  28. 28.

    Overlapping class proceedings according to a Canadian forum, Silver v. IMAX, 2013 ONSC 1667.

  29. 29.

    The shares of the defendant IMAX had traded on both the Toronto Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ.

  30. 30.

    https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Litigation/Canada/Dentons/Silver-v-IMAX-avoiding-war-on-two-fronts.

  31. 31.

    https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Litigation/Canada/Dentons/Silver-v-IMAX-avoiding-war-on-two-fronts.

  32. 32.

    https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Litigation/Canada/Dentons/Silver-v-IMAX-avoiding-war-on-two-fronts.

  33. 33.

    Frohlinger v. Nortel Networks Corporation, 2007 CanLII 696 at §30 (Ont. S.C.J.), see also “Cross-border class actions raise due process and litigation preclusion issues of significance to United States counsel seeking to either implement multi-jurisdictional settlements or to select the most favourable venue for trial.” http://blg.com/en/News-And-Publications/Documents/publication_1932.pdf, p.1.

  34. 34.

    Frohlinger v. Nortel Networks Corporation, 2007 CanLII 696 at §30 (Ont. S.C.J.).

  35. 35.

    Report on Protocol on Court-to-Court Communications in Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Class Actions and a Notice Protocol: Coordinating Notice(s) to the Class(es) in Multijurisdictional Class Proceedings, p. 1.

  36. 36.

    Resolution 18-03-A - Annex 1, Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of Multi Jurisdictional Class Actions and the Provision of Class Action Notice.

  37. 37.

    Report on Protocol on Court-to-Court Communications in Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Class Actions and a Notice Protocol: Coordinating Notice(s) to the Class(es) in Multijurisdictional Class Proceedings, p. 1.

  38. 38.

    Grace Canada Inc. (Re) (2005), 17 C.B.R. (5 th) 275 (Ont. Sup. Ct.).

  39. 39.

    28 U.S. Code § 1407 – Multidistrict litigation.

  40. 40.

    http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/overview-panel-0.

  41. 41.

    See e.g. on failure of setting up a Canadian body coordinating multi-jurisdictional class procedure in Chabrny (2019), p. 137 and 138.

  42. 42.

    On the introduction of that doctrine in English case law, see Beaumont (2018), p. 449, see on introduction of that doctrine in English case-law in Beaumont (2018), p. 449, see on two exceptions in civil law jurisdictions Goldstein (2016), pp. 51–83.

  43. 43.

    The Dutch text is available at https://www.rechtbanken-tribunaux.be/sites/default/files/public/content/lh_-_geanonimiseerd.pdf.

  44. 44.

    L&H went bankrupt on 25 October 2001 due to a securities fraud scheme. A Belgian criminal investigation was opened and concomitantly several class actions proceedings in the United States were lodged before US courts either by US or by Belgian prejudiced investors. The US forum in Massachusetts and the Belgian Court of Appeal of Ghent refer to 16 class actions. On 8 August 2000, The Wall Street Journal published a critical article about L&H. Based on that article a first US class action was lodged already on 9 August 2000. The first L&H class action in the USA was lodged only one day after the report of financial fraud in The Wall Street Journal. The Belgian criminal case with the civil private tort litigation annexed as an accessory to a criminal case appears to have started at a later time in 2001. The L&H class action ended with a negotiated settlement approved by the US forum. The defendants used the US-approved settlement in Belgium as a defence against the judgment to pay compensation to civil parties in Belgian criminal proceedings. As a consequence of the objection by the civil parties, the Belgian forum had to deal with the plea that the US class judgment approving the settlement was not binding on the civil parties in Belgian proceedings. The Court of Appeal of Ghent acknowledged the modernized legal landscape in Belgium (collective redress in Book XVII of the CdE/WER) and concluded that US judicial decisions and the settlement approved by the US forum in the L&H class action are foreign enforceable judicial decisions within the meaning of the Belgian lex fori (Art. 22 of the Belgian Code of Private International Law). The plea according to which a class action settlement is solely a contract with inter partes effect was rejected as a judicial decision in a US class action confirms the settlement between the plaintiffs and the defendant(s). As a consequence, such a decision can be opposed to all the absent class members who did not duly opt-out (Court of Appeal of Ghent [Hof van Beroep Gent], judgment of 23 March 2017, § 66). Investors who effectively participated in the settlement are bound by it; the investors who timely opted out are not bound by the settlement. A class action judgment and settlement will be recognized de plano if they are not contrary to Belgian international ordre public. In comparing the Belgian collective redress under Book VII CdE/WER and the US class action, the Belgian forum concluded that US law guarantees more rights to absent class members than the Belgian legislation. The opt-out system is justified by reason of sound administration of justice. The fact that not all individual absent class members were personally informed does not vitiate the class action settlement (ibid. § 93.). The rights of the defence of the non-resident absent class members in the US class action were not violated. The salient point of the recognition refers to a certain lack of finality.

  45. 45.

    Court of Appeal of Amsterdam [Gerechtshof Amsterdam], 12 November 2010, NJ 2010/683, LJN: BO3908 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2010:BO3908.

  46. 46.

    Kaynes v. BP P.L.C, 2016 ONCA 601 and Paniccia v. MDC Partners Inc., 2017 ONSC 7298 (CanLII).

  47. 47.

    Paniccia v. MDC Partners Inc., 2017 ONSC 7298 (CanLII), §41 and also §42.

  48. 48.

    Paniccia v. MDC Partners Inc., 2017 ONSC 7298 (CanLII), §44.

  49. 49.

    Kaynes v. BP P.L.C, 2016 ONCA 601, §39.

  50. 50.

    Paniccia v. MDC Partners Inc., 2017 ONSC 7298 (CanLII), §44.

  51. 51.

    CJEU, Owusu, C-281/02, ECLI:EU:C:2005:120.

  52. 52.

    Kaynes v. BP P.L.C, 2016 ONCA 601.

  53. 53.

    For the reason of such development (so-called Latvian divorces), see Coester-Waltjen (2017), pp. 1073 and 1074.

  54. 54.

    CJEU, Turner, C-159/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:228, Allianz, C-185/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:69, Gazprom, C-536/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:316.

  55. 55.

    Federal Court of Australia, Jones v. Treasury Wine Estates Limited [2016] FCAFC 59, https://www.austlii.edu.au.

  56. 56.

    ECHR, Golder v. United Kingdom, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1975:0221JUD000445170, § 36, and Athanassoglou a.o. v. Switzerland, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0406JUD002764495, § 43.

  57. 57.

    CJEU, Sales Sinués and Drame Ba, C-381/14 and C-385/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:252, §43.

  58. 58.

    CJEU, Sales Sinués and Drame Ba, C-381/14 and C-385/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:252, §§35 and 36.

  59. 59.

    CJEU, Sales Sinués and Drame Ba, C-381/14 and C-385/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:252.

  60. 60.

    Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (Codified version), OJ EU L 110, 1.5.2009, p. 30. This Directive was repealed by the Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC,OJ EU L 409, 4.12.2020, p. 1. 

  61. 61.

    See https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=137.

  62. 62.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2013:7936, § 4.5.

  63. 63.

    See e.g. Superior Court of Quebec, in case Labrecque v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., 2011 QCCS 266, JG1876.

  64. 64.

    See for a different solution in Quebec, in case Hotte v. Servier Canada Inc. [1999] R.J.Q. 2598 (C.A.).

  65. 65.

    CJEU, Tatry, C-406/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:400, § 38.

  66. 66.

    See for the doctrine of collective party e.g. Cappelletti 1975, pp. 591–593. In class actions, the class is “the litigant and the client” (Shapiro 1998, p. 919; Piché 2016, p. 299; Romy 1999, p. 796). The merit of such an approach is a very simple compatibility with the subjective res iudicata effect (res iudicata ius facit inter partes). In other words, in the USA a class action by a lead plaintiff representing a class is the result of the legislature’s preference for class members as a collective party (Piché 2016, p. 299). As a consequence, there is a distinction between the traditional party in binary proceedings, on the one hand, and the ideological or collective party, on the other (Cappelletti 1975, pp. 587–593).

  67. 67.

    CJEU, Tatry, C-406/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:400, § 30.

  68. 68.

    CJEU, Drouot assurances, C-351/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:242, § 16.

  69. 69.

    CJEU, Axa Belgium, C-494/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:692, § 21.

  70. 70.

    CJEU, Henkel, C-167/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:555, §13 and Schrems, C-498/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:37.

  71. 71.

    US Supreme Court, Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002).

  72. 72.

    On the application of a party, a Québec authority may stay its ruling on an action brought before it if another action, between the same parties, based on the same facts and having the same object is pending before a foreign authority, provided that the latter action can result in a decision which may be recognized in Québec, or if such a decision has already been rendered by a foreign authority.

  73. 73.

    Court of Appeal of Quebec, Hotte v. Servier Canada Inc., [1999] R.J.Q. 2598 (C.A.), § 6; see also Superior Court of Quebec, case Parker c. Apotex Inc., 2015 QCCS 1210 (CanLII).

  74. 74.

    No official English translation seems to be available on CanLII.

  75. 75.

    Labrecque v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., §12.

  76. 76.

    Schmidt v. Johnson & Johnson e.a, 2012 QCCA 2132 (Schmidt).

  77. 77.

    English translation of the French original taken from https://www.dwpv.com/en/Insights#/article/Publications/2012/Quebec-Court-of-Appeal-Nuances-First-to-File-Rule-in-Class-Actions.

  78. 78.

    Canada Post Corp. v. Lépine, 2009 SCC 16, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 549, §§ 51 and 52.

  79. 79.

    Superior Court of Quebec, case Parker c. Apotex Inc., 2015 QCCS 1210 (CanLII), § 7.

  80. 80.

    Superior Court of Quebec, case Labrecque v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., §13.

  81. 81.

    Chabrny (2019), p. 203.

  82. 82.

    In comparative law in other branches of law such as, for example, labour law, there seems to be an acceptance of traditional instruments of steering access to the courts in international lawsuits also in class actions or collective redress. Instruments of steering access to the courts in international lawsuits are arbitration clauses and prorogation clauses. They seem to be applied also in collective redress. A Canadian court recently gave a decision—in the case Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2018 ONSC 718 (CanLII), concerning the Uber employment case in a single Canadian province—that enforced an arbitration clause.

  83. 83.

    CJEU, Océano Grupo Editorial, C-240/98 to C-244/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346.

  84. 84.

    CJEU, Océano Grupo Editorial, C-240/98 to C-244/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346, § 26.

  85. 85.

    CJEU, Océano Grupo Editorial, C-240/98 to C-244/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346, § 28.

  86. 86.

    See on that agreement on prorogation in the European context, Stürner & Wendelstein (2018), pp. 1084 and 1085.

  87. 87.

    http://www.sherby.co.il/blog/2016/06/29/israeli-court-requires-facebook-to-litigate-claims-in-israel-despite-forum-selection-and-choice-of-law-clauses/#comment-164. See also Israeli Supreme Court case PCA 5860/16 Facebook Inc. v. Ohad Ben Hamo. The Israeli forum stressed that Facebook exempts some Facebook users from a jurisdiction clause and found that Facebook allows residents of Germany to litigate against Facebook in Germany under German law.

  88. 88.

    Ibid.

  89. 89.

    Ibid.

References

  • Amaro R, Azar-Baud MJ, Corneloup S, Fauvarque-Cosson B, Jault-Seseke F (2018) Study: collective redress in the Member States of the European Union. European Parliament, Brussels, Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2018)608829

  • Andrews DC (2013) Personal Jurisdiction and choice of law in the cloud. Maryland Law Rev 73:313–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballarino T, Ballarino E, Pretelli I (2016) Manuale di diritto internazionale privato, 8th edn. CEDAM, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett E (1947) The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens. California Law Rev 35:380–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont P (2018) Forum non conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdictions: A Possible Global Solution, Revue critique de droit international privé 447–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun J (2014) Lehrbuch des Zivilprozeßrechts, 1st ed. J. C. In: B. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A (2013) The conflict of laws, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JP (2008) Seeking recognition of Canadian class action judgments in foreign jurisdictions: perils and pitfalls. Can Class Action Rev 4:220–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau D, Muir Watt H (2010) Droit international privé, Tome I, Partie générale. Presses universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelletti M (1975) La protection d'intérêts collectifs et de groupe dans le procès civil (Métamorphoses de la procédure civile). Revue internationale de droit comparé 27:571–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carballo Piñeiro L (2009) Las acciones colectivas y su eficacia extraterritorial: problemas de recepción y transplante de las “class actions” en Europa, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Servicio de Publicaciones e Intercambio Científico, Santiago de Compostela

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabrny J (2019) Grenzüberschreitende Sammelklagen, Verlag Dr. Kovač, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Clermont KM (2015) Solving the puzzle of transnational class actions. Indiana Law J Suppl 90:69–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Clopton ZD (2015) Transnational class action in the shadow of preclusion. Indiana Law J 90:1387–1428

    Google Scholar 

  • Clopton ZD (2018) The global class action and its alternatives. Theoret Inq Law 19:125–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coester-Waltjen D (2017) Das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Privat – und Parteiautonomie einerseits und staatlichen Schutz – und Ordnungsinteressen im Privatrecht andererseits. Juristenzeitung 72:1073–1080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Miguel Asensio PA, Cuniberti G, Franzina P, Heinze C, Requejo Isidro M (2018) Study: the Hague conference on private international law “Judgments Convention”. European Parliament, Brussels 2018. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2018)604954

  • Dodge J (2014) Facilitative judging: organisational design in mass-multidistrict litigation. Emory Law J 64:329–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowers NA (2013) The anti-suit injunction and the EU: legal tradition and Europeanisation in international private law. Cambridge J Int Comp Law 2:960–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duquette MB (2003) Les questions de compétence des tribunaux québécois soulevées par le recours collectif multi-jurisdictionnel: pragmatisme ou cohérence théorique. LL.M. Thesis University of Montreal, Montreal. Available at https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/2365

  • Egea V (2014) La résolution des conflits de procédures dans le règlement Bruxelles I bis. In: Guinchard E (ed) Le nouveau règlement Bruxelles I bis Règlement n°1215/2012 du 12 décembre 2012 concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale. Buylant, Brussels, pp 147–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Erk-Kubat N (2014) Jurisdictional disputes in parallel proceedings: a comparative European perspective on parallel proceedings before National Courts and Arbitration Tribunals. Ph.D. Thesis. University of St. Gallen, School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences and International Affairs, St. Gallen. Available at www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/4226/$FILE/dis4226.pdf

  • Franzina P (2014a) L’universalisation partielle du régime européen de la compétence en matière civile et commerciale dans le règlement Bruxelles I bis: une mise en perspective. In: Guinchard E (ed) Le nouveau règlement Bruxelles I bis Règlement n°1215/2012 du 12 décembre 2012 concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale. Buylant, Brussels, pp 39–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina P (2014b) Lis pendens involving a third country under the Brussels I-bis regulation: an overview. Rivista di diritto privato e processuale 2014:23–42

    Google Scholar 

  • George JP (1999) Parallel litigation. Baylor Law Rev 51:669–986

    Google Scholar 

  • George JP (2002) International parallel litigation – a survey of current conventions and model lawS. Texas Int Law J 37:499–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn HP (1999) L’affaire Bre-X et les recours collectifs transfrontaliers. Revue québécoise de droit international 12:33–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein G (2016) Le forum non conveniens en droit civil: Analyse comparative à la lueur du droit international privé du Québec et du Japon. Revue critique de droit international privé 111:51–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halfmeier A (2012) Recognition of a WCAM settlement in Germany. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht:176–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Heß B (2000) Die Anerkennung eines Class Action Settlement in Deutschland. Juristenzeitung 55:373–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2010) Cross-border Collective Litigation and the Regulation Brussels I. Praxis des Internationalen Privat - und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 30:116–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B, Mantovani M (2019) Current developments in forum access: comments on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens – European perspectives on human rights litigation. MPILux Research Paper Series 2019 (1). Available at www.mpi.lu

  • Johnson GW (2012) Rule 23 and the exclusion of foreign citizens as Class Members in US class actions. Va J Int Law 52:963–993

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafi-Cherrat O (2018) La class action s'approche: à propos de la reconnaissance en Belgique des class action settlements américaines (Aff. Lernout & Hauspie). Journal du droit international (Clunet) 145:81–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Kastanidis AT (2015) La litispendance internationale au regard du règlement (UE) 1215/2012. Revue critique de droit international privé 104:579–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klauser A (2005) Von der “Sammelklage nach österreichischem Recht” zur echten Gruppenklage. ecolex 16:744–747

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahav AD (2011) Two views of the class action. Fordham Law Rev 79:1939–1963

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan C (2008) Lis Pendens in International Litigation. Recueil des cours de l'Academie de droit international de la Haye / Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol 336. Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, pp 199–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2006) Two paradigms of jurisdiction. Mich J Int Law 27:1003–1069

    Google Scholar 

  • Monestier T (2010) Personal Jurisdiction over Non-Resident Class-Members: Have We Gone Down the Wrong Road. Texas International Law Journal 45:537–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Monestier TJ (2011) Transnational class actions and the illusory search for Res Judicata. Tulane Law Rev 86:1–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagareda RA, Bone RG, Chamblee Church E, Silver C, Woolley P (2013) The law of class actions and other aggregate litigation, 2nd edn. West, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel H, Gottwald P (2013) Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, 7th edn. Verlag Otto Schmidt, Cologne

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oquendo ÁR (2017) Justice for all: Certifying Global Class Actions. Washington University Global Studies Law Rev 16:71–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Perucchi L (2008) Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von US class action – Urteilen und – Vergleichen in der Schweiz. Schulthess, Zurich, Basel, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Picardi N (2010) Le juge naturel – Principe fondamental en Europe. Revue internationale de droit comparé 62:27–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piché C (2016) L’emprise des cinq doigts de Frankenstein: réflexions en cinq temps sur l’action collective. Revue internationale de droit comparé 68:291–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piché C, Saumier G (2019) Consumer collective redress in Canada. Jpn Yearb Int Law 61:231–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Romy I (1999) Class actions américaines et droit international privé suisse. Aktuelle juristische Praxis / Pratique actuelle juridique 1999:783–801

    Google Scholar 

  • Schack H (2017) Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 7th edn. CH Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2009) Rechtsverfolgung im Ausland, Prozessführung vor ausländischen Gerichten und Schiedsgerichten, 4th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Segovia González MJ (2018) Les accords judiciaires de coopération internationale. Larcier, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro DL (1998) Class actions: the class as party and client. Notre Dame Law Rev 73:913–962

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman EF (2008) The MDL model for resolving complex litigation if a class action is not possible. Tulane Law Rev 82:2205. Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 08-12, June 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1407588

  • Sladič J (2013) The remedies and recourses in European civil procedure after the intended abolition of the exequatur. Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien 16:329–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Sladič J (2017a) Conditions of admissibility and access to Justice – A Slovenian perspective. In: Uzelac A, van Rhee CH (eds) Revisiting procedural human rights. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 209–239

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sladič J (2017b) Das slowenische Gesetz über Sammelklagen. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International 22:137–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Štempihar J (1953) Uvod v mednarodno zasebno pravo. Pravna fakulteta Univerze vLjubljani, Ljubljana

    Google Scholar 

  • Stürner M, Wendelstein C (2018) Datenschutzrechtliche “Sammelklagen” im Zuständigkeitsregime der Brüssel Ia-VO. Juristenzeitung 73:1083–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symeonides SC (2008) Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007: Twenty-First Annual Survey. http://www.ssrn.com

  • Telfer RTC (2017) Forum shopping and the private enforcement of EU competition law: Is forum shopping a dead letter?. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Glasgow, Glasgow. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/8002

  • Tzankova I, Kortmann J (2010) Remedies for consumers of financial services: collective redress and improvement of class representation. Eur Rev Consum Law / Revue europénne du droit de la consommation 117–140

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lith H (2010) The dutch collective settlements act and private international law. Aspecten van Internationaal Privaatrecht in de WCAM

    Google Scholar 

  • Virgós Soriano M, Garcimartín Alférez FJ (2007) Derecho Procesal Civil Internacional (Litigación internacional), 2nd edn. Thomson Reuters, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Voet S (2017) Chapter 4: Actions for Collective Redress. In: An evaluation study of national procedural laws and practices in terms of their impact on the free circulation of judgments and on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural protection of consumers under EU consumer law, Report prepared by a Consortium of European universities led by the MPI Luxembourg for Procedural Law as commissioned by the European Commission, JUST/2014/RCON/PR/CIVI/0082, European Commission, Brussels. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=49503

  • Wasserman R (2011) Transnational class action and interjurisdictional preclusion. Notre Dame Law Rev 86:313–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Wautelet P (2002) Les conflits de procédures: étude de droit international privé comparé, Ph.D. Thesis. Catholic University in Leuven, Leuven. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/2268/193

  • Westbrook JL (2003) International judicial negotiation. Texas Int Law J 38:567–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Winters BA (1985) Jurisdiction over unnamed plaintiffs in multistate class actions. Calif Law Rev 73:181–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Faculty of Law, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Jorg Sladič

Authors
  1. Jorg Sladič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorg Sladič .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Alan Uzelac

  2. KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Stefaan Voet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sladič, J. (2021). The Lessons of Airfreight Cartel: Mechanisms of Coordination of Parallel Collective Lawsuits in Several Jurisdictions?. In: Uzelac, A., Voet, S. (eds) Class Actions in Europe. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 89. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73036-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73036-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73035-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-73036-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation