- 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-618/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Concurrence SARL v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (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)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CA0618
62015CA0618
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 53/18
(Case C-618/15) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((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))
(2017/C 053/21)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Concurrence SARL
Defendants: Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl
Operative part of the judgment
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.
* Language of the case: French.
(OJ C 38, 1.2.2016)