- 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-387/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — International jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Act committed in one Member State consisting in participation in an act of tort or delict committed in another Member State — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CA0387
62012CA0387
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
26.5.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 159/4
(Case C-387/12) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - International jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Act committed in one Member State consisting in participation in an act of tort or delict committed in another Member State - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred))
2014/C 159/05
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Hi Hotel HCF SARL
Defendant: Uwe Spoering
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — International jurisdiction in respect of tort, delict or quasi-delict — Act committed in one Member State and consisting in assistance in the commission of an unlawful act in the territory of a second Member State — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred
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 as meaning that, where there are several supposed perpetrators of damage allegedly caused to rights of copyright protected in the Member State of the court seised, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the causal event of the damage, of a court within whose jurisdiction the supposed perpetrator who is being sued did not act, but does allow the jurisdiction of that court to be established on the basis of the place where the alleged damage occurs, provided that the damage may occur within the jurisdiction of the court seised. If that is the case, the court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.