- 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-317/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2020 — KX v PY GmbH
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0317
62020CN0317
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
19.10.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 348/5
(Case C-317/20)
(2020/C 348/07)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: KX
Defendant: PY GmbH
Question referred
Is Article 18(1) 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 (Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to regulating international jurisdiction, the provision also lays down a rule to be observed by the adjudicating court as to the territorial jurisdiction of the national courts in matters pertaining to travel contracts where both the consumer, as the traveller, and his contractual partner, the tour operator, are domiciled in the same Member State, however the destination is not in that Member State but is located abroad (‘apparent domestic cases’), with the consequence that the consumer can bring contractual claims against the tour operator before the court for his place of residence as a supplement to national rules of jurisdiction?
(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.