Case C‑34/24

Stichting Right to Consumer Justice
and
Stichting App Stores Claims

Apple Inc.
and
Apple Distribution International Ltd

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam – Netherlands)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2025

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 7(2) – Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Determination of the territorial jurisdiction of a court of a Member State – Place where the harmful event occurred – Place where the damage occurred – Representative action seeking compensation for the damage caused by anticompetitive conduct consisting of the charging by the operator of an online platform, aimed at all users in a Member State, of excessive commission on the price of applications and digital products offered for sale on that platform – Action brought by an entity qualified to defend the collective interests of multiple unidentified but identifiable users)

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Provisions of that regulation regarded as equivalent to those of Regulation No 44/2001 and of the Brussels Convention – Interpretation of those provisions in line with the Court’s case-law on Regulation No 44/2001 and the Brussels Convention – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict – Concept – Independent interpretation – Restrictive interpretation

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7(2))

(see paragraphs 43, 44)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict – Place where the harmful event occurred – Abuse of dominant position – Event giving rise to the damage – Actions taken by the dominant undertaking to put the abuse of its position into practice – Place where the damage occurred – Place of the market concerned by the anti-competitive conduct

(Art. 102 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7(2))

(see paragraphs 48, 49)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict – Place where the harmful event occurred – Place where the damage occurred – Concept – Place of the market affected by the immediate consequences of anticompetitive conduct and the direct damage – Included

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7(2))

(see paragraphs 54-56)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict – Place where the harmful event occurred – Action seeking compensation for damage resulting from alleged infringements of EU competition law – Place where the damage occurred – Online platform aimed at all users in a Member State – Charging of excessive commission on the price of apps and digital products offered for sale on that platform – Anticompetitive conduct – Representative action – Entity qualified to represent and defend the collective interests of a group of unidentified but identifiable persons – Court having substantive jurisdiction to hear the action – International and territorial jurisdiction

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7(2))

(see paragraphs 60-66, 68, 70-76, operative part)

Résumé

Having received a request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands), the Court of Justice, sitting as the Grand Chamber, interprets Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 ( 1 ) in order to identify, within a market of a Member State allegedly affected by anticompetitive conduct, the court having territorial jurisdiction to hear a representative action for compensation for damage caused when purchases are made online; that action was brought by an entity defending collective interests.

The applicants in the main proceedings, two foundations governed by Netherlands law, brought representative actions against Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd (together ‘Apple’), seeking a declaration that Apple had engaged in anticompetitive conduct and seeking an order that Apple pay compensation for the damage allegedly caused by that conduct to users of the App Store app, which is an online sales platform developed and operated by Apple.

That platform offers apps free of charge and in return for payment, those apps being developed by Apple or by third parties. Third-party developers of apps are remunerated after Apple has deducted a commission of 15 or 30% of the sale price of the app. In order to access the App Store, users of Apple devices must create a user profile by indicating a country or region. When the Netherlands is entered as the country, the user is directed by default to the online shop specifically designed for that country (‘the App Store NL’).

The actions brought by the foundations concern the damage which, in their view, consists, in essence, of additional costs paid by users of Apple devices when purchasing an app in the App Store NL, on account of the passing on, to the purchase price, of excessive commission imposed by Apple on developers of apps.

The referring court finds that, in so far as the actions are directed against Apple Distribution International, which is established in Ireland, the disputes in the main proceedings fall within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012. Article 7(2) of that regulation gives the applicant the choice of suing the defendant either before the courts for the place of the event giving rise to the alleged damage, or before the courts for the place where that damage occurred.

In that respect, as regards, in the first place, the territorial jurisdiction of the referring court, the latter first makes reference to the case-law of the Court of Justice and finds that the event giving rise to the damage alleged in the present case is in the Netherlands. ( 2 ) The referring court takes the view that it has international jurisdiction on account, inter alia, of the fact that the App Store NL is aimed specifically at the Netherlands market and uses the Dutch language.

As regards, second, the place where the damage occurred, the referring court notes that the alleged damage was suffered in the Netherlands, given that most of the users who made purchases in the App Store NL reside or are established in the Netherlands and paid for their purchases through Netherlands bank accounts. On the basis of the same case-law of the Court of Justice, the referring court therefore considers that it also has international jurisdiction on the basis of the place where the damage occurred.

As regards, in the second place, its territorial jurisdiction, the referring court is uncertain, however, as to where, in the present case, is the place where the alleged damage occurred in the Netherlands. For purchases made via an online platform for apps that can be downloaded worldwide, it is difficult to establish a place of purchase. It is, in that court’s view, necessary to determine which court has territorial jurisdiction in relation to the registered office of the purchaser/user. Such a connecting factor could, however, lead to a division of jurisdiction between a large number of Netherlands courts, each of which would have jurisdiction only in respect of purchasers/users who reside or are established within its territorial jurisdiction.

Lastly, the referring court also raises the issue of the connecting factors to be taken into consideration in the case of a representative action brought by a legal person which defends collective interests and does not act as an assignee or as an agent, but enjoys an independent right of action for an indeterminate group of persons.

Findings of the Court

As a preliminary point, the Court recalls that, according to settled case-law, the concept of ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ refers both to the place where the damage occurred and to the place of the event giving rise to that damage. Those two places may constitute a significant connecting factor from the point of view of special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict.

The Court states that, in the case of pecuniary damage caused by an abuse of a dominant position, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, the event giving rise to the damage is based on the implementation of that abuse, that is, the actions taken by the dominant undertaking to put the abuse into practice. As regards the place where such damage occurred, where the market affected by the anticompetitive conduct concerned is in the Member State in whose territory the damage occurred, that place is in that Member State.

In that context, the Court states, in the first place, that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, initial damage, resulting directly from the event giving rise to the damage, in which case the place where such damage occurred may provide a basis for jurisdiction of the courts of that place, and, on the other hand, subsequent adverse consequences which are not capable of providing a basis for jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012.

In the second place, as regards the place where the damage occurred, the Court notes that the referring court considers that the Netherlands courts have international jurisdiction, but that the referring court is uncertain as to which Netherlands court or courts have territorial jurisdiction to hear the disputes in the main proceedings.

The Court recalls in that regard that, in respect of an action for compensation for damage caused by anticompetitive arrangements concerning the prices of material goods, the court having jurisdiction may be either the court within whose jurisdiction the legal person claiming to be harmed purchased the goods affected by those arrangements, or, in the case of purchases made by that person in several places, the court within whose jurisdiction that person’s registered office is situated.

First, the Court states that, in the present case, in order to preserve the effectiveness of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, it is necessary to adapt the connecting factors on account of the difficulties associated with applying them in the event that digital products are purchased on an online platform by an indefinite number of natural and/or legal persons who were unidentified at the time when the action was brought. It finds that the damage suffered when purchases are made in the virtual space of the App Store NL can occur throughout the territory of the Netherlands, irrespective of the place where the users are situated at the time of the relevant purchase.

Second, the Court observes that the applicant foundations in the main proceedings have not put forward multiple claims for compensation assigned to them by the identified victims of anticompetitive conduct, but act as an independent promoter of the interests of persons with similar interests. Under Netherlands law, those foundations exercise their own right, namely the right to represent and defend the collective interests of a strictly defined group which brings together unidentified but identifiable persons.

In such circumstances, a court cannot be required to identify, for each alleged victim of anticompetitive conduct, the precise place where the damage that may have been suffered occurred, or to identify those victims.

Third, the fact that it is impossible to determine the place where the damage occurred for each alleged victim does not preclude the application of the special jurisdiction referred to in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, since that place corresponds to a well-defined geographical area, namely the whole of the territory to which the market affected by the relevant anticompetitive conduct belongs.

Therefore, the Court considers that, in situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings, any court having substantive jurisdiction to hear a representative action brought by an entity qualified to defend the collective interests of multiple unidentified but identifiable users will have international and territorial jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage occurred and in respect of the entirety of that action.

The Court points out that such a conclusion is consistent with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1215/2012, namely proximity and predictability of the rules of jurisdiction and the sound administration of justice.

First of all, in view of the specific features of the actions in the main proceedings, each court having substantive jurisdiction to examine such an action has the same relationship of proximity with the subject matter of that action. Next, in so far as the App Store NL targets the Netherlands market specifically, it is predictable that a representative action for damages for purchases made on that platform will be brought before any Netherlands court having substantive jurisdiction. Lastly, the solution adopted is consistent with the objective of the sound administration of justice because it allows both efficient procedural management of the dispute and the taking and evaluation of the evidence by a single court, as well as the prevention of the risk of divergent decisions.

The Court adds that, in competition law cases requiring a complex factual and economic analysis, the grouping of individual claims is likely to facilitate both the exercise of the right to compensation by injured persons and the task incumbent on the court seised, in particular where there are practices of operators running digital platforms. Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 therefore does not preclude the application of national rules aimed at ensuring a centralisation of jurisdiction where representative actions are brought by qualified entities before several national courts.

( 1 ) 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 2012 L 351, p. 1).

( 2 ) More specifically, this concerns the foundations’ complaint alleging infringement of Article 102 TFEU, since the referring court found that it cannot establish its jurisdiction to hear the part of the actions which concerns an infringement of Article 101 TFEU in the absence of identification of a specific event that took place in the Netherlands.