Compartimos el trabajo de Jorg Sladič «The Lessons of Airfreight Cartel: Mechanisms of Coordination of Parallel Collective Lawsuits in Several Jurisdictions?», publicado en la Parte III del libro de Alan Uzelac – Stefaan Voet (Editors) «Class Actions in Europe. Holy Grail or a Wrong Trail?», Springer, 1st ed., 2021, p. 250-286.
En su resumen explica lo siguiente:
«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)».