15 Svojim prvim pitanjem, sud koji je uputio zahtjev želi saznati, u biti, treba li članak 6. točku 1. Uredbe br. 44/2001 tumačiti na način da se pravilo koncentracije nadležnosti u slučaju više tuženika koju ta odredba ustanovljuje može primjenjivati u tužbi kojom se zahtijeva naknada štete za koju solidarno odgovaraju i u čijem se okviru zahtijeva dostava podataka, od poduzetnika koji su na različite načine na geografskom i vremenskom planu sudjelovali u jedinstvenoj i trajnoj povredi zabrane sporazuma protivnih pravilima tržišnog natjecanja predviđenih pravom Unije koja je utvrđena odlukom Komisije, i to čak i kada je tužitelj povukao tužbu u odnosu na jedinog od više tuženika koji ima domicil u državi članici u kojoj se nalazi sud pred kojim se vodi postupak.
15 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it may, under that provision, be expedient to hear and determine applications together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings in the case of an action for damages, and for disclosure in that regard, brought jointly against undertakings which have participated in different places and at different times in a single and continuous infringement, as found by a decision of the Commission, of the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices provided for in EU law, even where the applicant has withdrawn its action against the sole co-defendant domiciled in the same State as the court seised.EurLex-2 EurLex-2