- 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-393/22, EXTÉRIA: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 September 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — EXTÉRIA s.r.o. v Spravime, s.r.o. (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 — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Article 7(1)(b) — Concept of contract for the ‘provision of services’ — Termination of a contract to enter into a future contract relating to the future conclusion of a franchise agreement)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CA0393
62022CA0393
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
Series C
C/2023/492
6.11.2023
(Case C-393/22, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) EXTÉRIA)
(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 - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Article 7(1)(b) - Concept of contract for the ‘provision of services’ - Termination of a contract to enter into a future contract relating to the future conclusion of a franchise agreement)
(C/2023/492)
Language of the case: Czech
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: EXTÉRIA s.r.o.
Defendant: Spravime, s.r.o.
Operative part of the judgment
Article 7(1)(b) 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 a contract to enter into a future contract relating to the future conclusion of a franchise agreement which provides for an obligation to pay a contractual penalty based on non-performance of that contract to enter into a future contract, the breach of which serves as a basis for a claim, does not fall within the concept of a contract for the ‘provision of services’ within the meaning of that provision. In such a case, jurisdiction over a claim on which that obligation serves as a basis is determined, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation, by reference to the place of performance of that obligation.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/492/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
*
Language of the case: Czech.
* * *