full screen background image

Events

2 August 2019 - Concours de droit comparé Société de législation comparée ... +++ 25 July 2019 - Formation: Après-midi d’étude – Blockchain et contrats intelligents Editions Larcier, ici Formation: Ap ... +++ 4 June 2019 - Formation Lexing – Marketing et RGPD Editions Larcier, ici   Format ... +++ 19 April 2019 - Société de législation comparée – Concours de droit comparé Revue internationale de droit compa ... +++ 11 April 2019 - Formation: Colloque DCCR – Droit de la consommation et protection des données à caractère personnel Revue de droit international et de ... +++ 7 March 2019 - 6ème Atelier de droit comparé – 22 mars 2019 Revue internationale de droit compa ... +++

*PIL Case Law

Published on January 16th, 2017 | by Olga Papadopoulou

0

CJEU C‑618/15, Reg. 44/2001, Tort,delict or quasi-delict, Action for an injunction prohibiting unlawful interference, Connecting factor

C-618/15

Concurrence SARL v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber), 21 December 2016(*),

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Tort, delict or quasi-delict — Selective distribution network — Prohibition on online resale outside a network — Action for an injunction prohibiting unlawful interference — Connecting factor)

In those circumstances, the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) decided to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged breach of a prohibition on resale outside a selective distribution network and via a marketplace by means of online offers for sale on a number of websites operated in various Member States, an authorised distributor which considers that it has been adversely affected has the right to bring an action seeking an injunction prohibiting the resulting unlawful interference in the courts of the territory in which the online content is or was accessible, or must some other clear connecting factor be present?’

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted, for the purpose of conferring the jurisdiction given by that provision to hear an action to establish liability for infringement of the prohibition on resale outside a selective distribution network resulting from offers, on websites operated in various Member States, of products covered by that network, as meaning that the place where the damage occurred is to be regarded as the territory of the Member State which protects the prohibition on resale by means of the action at issue, a territory on which the appellant alleges to have suffered a reduction in its sales.

Read the full decision, here…





About the Author


Back to Top ↑