- 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-533/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Falco Privatstiftung, Thomas Rabitsch v Gisela Weller-Lindhorst (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1)(a) and the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) — The concept of provision of services — Contract assigning intellectual property rights)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007CA0533
62007CA0533
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 141/15
(Case C-533/07)
(Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(a) and the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) - The concept of ‘provision of services’ - Contract assigning intellectual property rights)
2009/C 141/23
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Falco Privatstiftung, Thomas Rabitsch
Defendant: Gisela Weller-Lindhorst
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘provision of services’ and of the ‘place in a Member State where the services should have been provided’ — Jurisdiction over a case relating to the payment of royalties in respect of a licence to exploit a musical work
Operative part of the judgment
1.The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, is to be interpreted to the effect that a contract under which the owner of an intellectual property right grants its contractual partner the right to use that right in return for remuneration is not a contract for the provision of services within the meaning of that provision.
2.In order to determine, under Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001, the court having jurisdiction over an application for remuneration owed pursuant to a contract under which the owner of an intellectual property right grants to its contractual partner the right to use that right, reference must continue to be made to the principles which result from the case-law of the Court of Justice on Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.