Electricity & Water Authority of the Government of Bahrain and Others (Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-672/23 (16 April 2026)

Executive summary

The Court gave a preliminary ruling on Article 8(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 in private damages proceedings brought by EWAGB and Others against multiple corporate defendants, and in parallel proceedings brought by Smurfit Kappa and Others against Unilever and Others. The case concerned when claims against multiple defendants are “so closely connected” that they should be heard together to avoid irreconcilable judgments, in the context of alleged Article 101 TFEU/EEA competition infringements and damages for harm said to have occurred outside the EEA.

Key points

• Parties included the Electricity & Water Authority of the Government of Bahrain, the GCC Interconnection Authority, the Kuwait Ministry of Electricity and Water, and Oman Electricity Transmission Company SAOC.
• The reference asked how Article 8(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 applies to multiple-defendant cartel damages claims.
• The judgment frames the issue around “so closely connected” claims, an “anchor defendant,” and the risk of irreconcilable judgments.
• The source text also links the dispute to Directive 2014/104/EU on competition damages and to Article 101 TFEU.
• It expressly notes alleged damage occurring outside the EEA, which is relevant to cross-border enforcement and jurisdictional reach.
• No sanctions or export-control issue is addressed in the source text; the legal focus is civil jurisdiction and competition damages.

Why it matters

For sovereign and geopolitical risk analysis, the judgment concerns whether state-linked or state-owned claimants can anchor complex multi-defendant litigation in an EU forum, including where the underlying harm is said to have occurred outside the EEA. That can materially affect exposure for multinational groups facing follow-on damages claims with cross-border fact patterns.

Implications

The ruling is relevant to litigation strategy on joinder and forum selection in multi-defendant competition-damages cases: parties will focus on whether claims are sufficiently connected to justify one court hearing them together. For compliance teams, it underscores that EU jurisdictional rules can be deployed in large transnational claims involving public entities and alleged cartel conduct, even where the alleged damage is not confined to the EEA.