- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-30/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n° 2 de Madrid — Spain) — RH v AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the damage occurred — Cartel declared contrary to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Determination of international and territorial jurisdiction — Centralisation of jurisdiction in favour of a specialised court)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0030
62020CA0030
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 349/8
(Case C-30/20) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the damage occurred - Cartel declared contrary to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Determination of international and territorial jurisdiction - Centralisation of jurisdiction in favour of a specialised court)
(2021/C 349/10)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: RH
Defendants: AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA
Operative part of the judgment
Article 7(2) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, within the market affected by collusive arrangements on the fixing and increase in the prices of goods, either the court within whose jurisdiction the undertaking claiming to be harmed purchased the goods affected by those arrangements or, in the case of purchases made by that undertaking in several places, the court within whose jurisdiction that undertaking’s registered office is situated, has international and territorial jurisdiction, in terms of the place where the damage occurred, over an action for compensation for the damage caused by those arrangements contrary to Article 101 TFEU.
(*) Language of the case: Spanish.